Eminent Domain (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling.

Do you mean Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and the rest of that group?

Bandwagon propaganda. Nice. Of course, they also supported slavery, TJ wanted an agrarian economy, etc.

You do realize that when the Constitution was drafted the 5th Amendment didn't even apply to the states and they could take property without just compensation, don't you?

And the traditional "well it sucked even worse before/somewhere else so you should just shut up and be happy" defense. This is usually seen from the "America: Love it or Leave it" crowd, as if something that sucks a lot makes the current suck suck less.

 

[NCCommish]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling. Kelo is one of the worst decisions the court has made in years. ED may not be a sexy topic like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty, but that doctrine is suffering from much more serious problems than many of our hot button social issues.

Kelo has done exactly what it was intended to do. Make the states get their act together on ED. And who are these mind boggling backers? As far as I can tell everyone here that is saying you have to have ED is being very specific about it's application being for the community good and not some developers pocket.

The problem is the "just compensation" part.

Fair Market Value. And when done properly most folks get about a 20 percent premium over that. I know that happened here when takings were done to build our light rail system. So while I hate to see people kicked out of their house or lose commercial property I have trouble feeling like they got ripped off. Now that is being said if it is a true community project. If someone wants to build condos then they have should have to deal with each owner and come to terms without the power of ED.

 

[whoknew]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling. Kelo is one of the worst decisions the court has made in years. ED may not be a sexy topic like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty, but that doctrine is suffering from much more serious problems than many of our hot button social issues.

Kelo has done exactly what it was intended to do. Make the states get their act together on ED. And who are these mind boggling backers? As far as I can tell everyone here that is saying you have to have ED is being very specific about it's application being for the community good and not some developers pocket.

The problem is the "just compensation" part.

Fair Market Value. And when done properly most folks get about a 20 percent premium over that. I know that happened here when takings were done to build our light rail system. So while I hate to see people kicked out of their house or lose commercial property I have trouble feeling like they got ripped off. Now that is being said if it is a true community project. If someone wants to build condos then they have should have to deal with each owner and come to terms without the power of ED.

Where are you getting that from?

 

[NCCommish]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling. Kelo is one of the worst decisions the court has made in years. ED may not be a sexy topic like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty, but that doctrine is suffering from much more serious problems than many of our hot button social issues.

Kelo has done exactly what it was intended to do. Make the states get their act together on ED. And who are these mind boggling backers? As far as I can tell everyone here that is saying you have to have ED is being very specific about it's application being for the community good and not some developers pocket.

The problem is the "just compensation" part.

Fair Market Value. And when done properly most folks get about a 20 percent premium over that. I know that happened here when takings were done to build our light rail system. So while I hate to see people kicked out of their house or lose commercial property I have trouble feeling like they got ripped off. Now that is being said if it is a true community project. If someone wants to build condos then they have should have to deal with each owner and come to terms without the power of ED.

Where are you getting that from?

Well I don't have a link handy but as I recall from the expenditures stuff I read about our light rail the average land owner got about a 20 percent premuim. Give or take. And they didn't have to do any of the clean-up themselves at industrial sites which increased their profit. I have seen the same reported in many other cases. Not saying it happens everytime, that's why I said when done right, but it does happen a lot.

 

[Koya]

Being a Libertarian, my first instinct is to not like Eminent Domain. But I am a Libertarian that lives within a social contract... and the petty selfishness of one should not outweigh the immense need of many.

That said, I do have some issues eith Eminent Domain (and this coming from someone who is in real estate development, mind you):

(1) Proper compensation. If anything, someone deserves more than market rate if it is determined that the common good so outweighs their individual rights as to necessitate state takings of their property.

(2) Due Process - you need an "eminently" fair process to determine whether ED is necessary, and what the proper compensation will be

(3) Private vs. Business property being taken - I have a far higher threshold for taking someones home as opposed to their business. Business is there to make money. If a business is well compensated for the taking of their land, they can always move business somewhere else and still make their $$s. Plus, businesses far more often contribute to blight and negative effects on communities than residential homes.

(4) What is "public good" - I am not at all convinced that it is ok to take someone's home and give that land to a private entity so that private entity can make money, even if the private entity will help the area economically (the Kelo decision). I won't say never, but this is a tough sell for me. It would be a much easier sell if we are talking about the taking of commercial vs. homes.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Fair Market Value. And when done properly most folks get about a 20 percent premium over that. I know that happened here when takings were done to build our light rail system. So while I hate to see people kicked out of their house or lose commercial property I have trouble feeling like they got ripped off. Now that is being said if it is a true community project. If someone wants to build condos then they have should have to deal with each owner and come to terms without the power of ED.

It's amazing that someone could be offered a 20% premium over the FMV of their house and not want to sell. In fact, must be forced to sell.Doesn't that imply that it's likely the person on the other end of the deal isn't real happy about this trade? ED, by and large, is just another bull#### money grab by a government. The main use is to enrich the many by taking that of the few. If the government wants to buy a house, let them buy it. Don't let them steal it. A strong system of property rights are part of what makes this country great.

 

[apalmer]

Fair Market Value. And when done properly most folks get about a 20 percent premium over that. I know that happened here when takings were done to build our light rail system. So while I hate to see people kicked out of their house or lose commercial property I have trouble feeling like they got ripped off. Now that is being said if it is a true community project. If someone wants to build condos then they have should have to deal with each owner and come to terms without the power of ED.

It's amazing that someone could be offered a 20% premium over the FMV of their house and not want to sell. In fact, must be forced to sell.Doesn't that imply that it's likely the person on the other end of the deal isn't real happy about this trade? ED, by and large, is just another bull#### money grab by a government. The main use is to enrich the many by taking that of the few. If the government wants to buy a house, let them buy it. Don't let them steal it. A strong system of property rights are part of what makes this country great.

No, it means they think that if they hold out they can get even more becuase it's the government doing the spending. Greed /= unhappy.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Fair Market Value. And when done properly most folks get about a 20 percent premium over that. I know that happened here when takings were done to build our light rail system. So while I hate to see people kicked out of their house or lose commercial property I have trouble feeling like they got ripped off. Now that is being said if it is a true community project. If someone wants to build condos then they have should have to deal with each owner and come to terms without the power of ED.

It's amazing that someone could be offered a 20% premium over the FMV of their house and not want to sell. In fact, must be forced to sell.Doesn't that imply that it's likely the person on the other end of the deal isn't real happy about this trade? ED, by and large, is just another bull#### money grab by a government. The main use is to enrich the many by taking that of the few. If the government wants to buy a house, let them buy it. Don't let them steal it. A strong system of property rights are part of what makes this country great.

No, it means they think that if they hold out they can get even more becuase it's the government doing the spending. Greed /= unhappy.

Maybe.Or maybe they think the FMV of their house is a lot lower than the house is worth to them. Maybe they bought a house for $1M three years ago, and 120% of the FMV today is $800K. To a private person, they wouldn't sell their house for less than $1.5M. So if the government uses ED, they rob this guy of $700K.

 

[golddigger]

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.

The activist judicial system will be an issue in California this November. This is the initiative to protect property rights against the mis-use of eminent domain.

Every year, California state and local governments buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.

Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:

* Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).

* Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).

This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” (The nearby box provides additional information about its use.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.

The activist judicial system will be an issue in California this November. This is the initiative to protect property rights against the mis-use of eminent domain.

Every year, California state and local governments buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.

Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:

* Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).

* Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).

This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” (The nearby box provides additional information about its use.)

How does this measure have anything to do with an "activist judicial system"?

 

[NCCommish]

Fair Market Value. And when done properly most folks get about a 20 percent premium over that. I know that happened here when takings were done to build our light rail system. So while I hate to see people kicked out of their house or lose commercial property I have trouble feeling like they got ripped off. Now that is being said if it is a true community project. If someone wants to build condos then they have should have to deal with each owner and come to terms without the power of ED.

It's amazing that someone could be offered a 20% premium over the FMV of their house and not want to sell. In fact, must be forced to sell.Doesn't that imply that it's likely the person on the other end of the deal isn't real happy about this trade? ED, by and large, is just another bull#### money grab by a government. The main use is to enrich the many by taking that of the few. If the government wants to buy a house, let them buy it. Don't let them steal it. A strong system of property rights are part of what makes this country great.

I think by and large is a stretch. Is it misused? Yes and that's the voters fault. Chuck the losers out of office who enrich their developer friends. And again I don't think a single person here has advocated using ED to benefit a private business. Not one. Certainly not me. And we are forced to do all kinds of things we don't like. It's a fact of life in a modern society.

 

[golddigger]

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.

The activist judicial system will be an issue in California this November. This is the initiative to protect property rights against the mis-use of eminent domain.

Every year, California state and local governments buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.

Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:

* Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).

* Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).

This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” (The nearby box provides additional information about its use.)

How does this measure have anything to do with an "activist judicial system"?

The supreme court allowed government to take property (homes, businesses) away from individuals and transfer them to business for purly financial reasons.judicial activism

As the framers understood, these are not esoteric issues, but affect in the most tangible way the real rights of real people. In its infamous Kelo decision, the Supreme Court expanded the power of eminent domain beyond its constitutional limitation -- public use -- to the nebulous realm of public benefit. So "deference" to legislators and other government entities results in a free-for-all, with private property taken from citizen A and transferred to citizen B -- precisely the danger against which the framers tried to protect us.

This bill in others in California will try to undo specific judicial decisions where the court created law.

 

[Redwes25]

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.

The activist judicial system will be an issue in California this November. This is the initiative to protect property rights against the mis-use of eminent domain.

Every year, California state and local governments buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.

Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:

* Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).

* Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).

This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” (The nearby box provides additional information about its use.)

How does this measure have anything to do with an "activist judicial system"?

The supreme court allowed government to take property (homes, businesses) away from individuals and transfer them to business for purly financial reasons.judicial activism

As the framers understood, these are not esoteric issues, but affect in the most tangible way the real rights of real people. In its infamous Kelo decision, the Supreme Court expanded the power of eminent domain beyond its constitutional limitation -- public use -- to the nebulous realm of public benefit. So "deference" to legislators and other government entities results in a free-for-all, with private property taken from citizen A and transferred to citizen B -- precisely the danger against which the framers tried to protect us.

This bill in others in California will try to undo specific judicial decisions where the court created law.

my god. Seems to me that everytime someone sees a decision they don't like it is "judicial activism".

 

[golddigger]

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.

The activist judicial system will be an issue in California this November. This is the initiative to protect property rights against the mis-use of eminent domain.

Every year, California state and local governments buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.

Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:

* Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).

* Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).

This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” (The nearby box provides additional information about its use.)

How does this measure have anything to do with an "activist judicial system"?

The supreme court allowed government to take property (homes, businesses) away from individuals and transfer them to business for purly financial reasons.judicial activism

As the framers understood, these are not esoteric issues, but affect in the most tangible way the real rights of real people. In its infamous Kelo decision, the Supreme Court expanded the power of eminent domain beyond its constitutional limitation -- public use -- to the nebulous realm of public benefit. So "deference" to legislators and other government entities results in a free-for-all, with private property taken from citizen A and transferred to citizen B -- precisely the danger against which the framers tried to protect us.

This bill in others in California will try to undo specific judicial decisions where the court created law.

my god. Seems to me that everytime someone sees a decision they don't like it is "judicial activism".

especially ones that take away homes and businesses for reasons other than public good.

 

[golddigger]

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.

The activist judicial system will be an issue in California this November. This is the initiative to protect property rights against the mis-use of eminent domain.

Every year, California state and local governments buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.

Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:

* Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).

* Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).

This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” (The nearby box provides additional information about its use.)

How does this measure have anything to do with an "activist judicial system"?

The supreme court allowed government to take property (homes, businesses) away from individuals and transfer them to business for purly financial reasons.judicial activism

As the framers understood, these are not esoteric issues, but affect in the most tangible way the real rights of real people. In its infamous Kelo decision, the Supreme Court expanded the power of eminent domain beyond its constitutional limitation -- public use -- to the nebulous realm of public benefit. So "deference" to legislators and other government entities results in a free-for-all, with private property taken from citizen A and transferred to citizen B -- precisely the danger against which the framers tried to protect us.

This bill in others in California will try to undo specific judicial decisions where the court created law.

my god. Seems to me that everytime someone sees a decision they don't like it is "judicial activism".

Property rights was a very important issue in the American Revelolution. Taking away property rights via Kelo is judicial activism.

# What the Founding Fathers and Other Political Philosophers had to say

The American moron . . . wants to keep his Ford, even at the cost of losing the Bill of Rights.

H. L. Mencken

Many of our most famous political philosophers have strongly emphasized that liberty is intimately tied to the right to private property. Protection of the rights of private property was of utmost importance to the Founding Fathers as the y created the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution. After all, they had just fought the Revolutionary War for which many historians claim was greatly inspired by the abuses of England in taking of private property. In fact, "Libe rty, property and no stamps!" was the first slogan of the American Revolution, according to Catherine Drinker Bowen.[3] Ms Bowen goes on to say, ". . . property was not a privilege of the higher orders but a right w hich a many would fight to defend. Men had indeed died to defend it in the war with England." (Emphasis added).

Let me list some other pertinent quotes:

* From the Virginia Bill Of Rights, 1776:

"SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." [4]

* Voltaire wrote, "Liberty and property is the great national cry of the English. . . It is the cry of nature".[5]

* Stephen Hopkins, from Rhode Island, in 1764 said, "they who have no property can have no freedom."[6]

* According to John Locke, "The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property." He also said, "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,..." -- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690

* "A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will", according to Alexander Hamilton (quoted from The Federalist #79, online at http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/ Federalist/fed79.htm).

* John Adams said that "[t]he moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or li berty cannot exist."[7]

* "The Natural Rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.", according to Samuel Adams.

* "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440

* And here is the famous quote from the much admired case, "BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)"[17], (referring to a decision by the English jurist, Lord Camden):

The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach further than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense. . ."

* Madison understood that the protection of property is the foundation of all freedoms. He said, "... a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possissions".

He also said, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." [18]

* For a scholarly analysis of the relation of liberty to property rights, see James M. Buchanan's book, Property as a Guarantor of Liberty.[14] I quote from his summary:

"The central argument is that private or several property serves as a guarantor of liberty, quite independently of how political or collective decisions are made. The direct implication is, of course, that effective constitutional limits must be present, limits that will effectively constrain overt political intrusions into rights of property, as legally defined, and into voluntary contractual arrangements involving transfer of property. If individual liberty is to be protected, such constitut ional limits must be in place prior to and separately from any exercise of democratic governance."

Dr. Buchanan does not discuss what is to be done if the politicians chose to ignore the Constitution.

link

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.

The activist judicial system will be an issue in California this November. This is the initiative to protect property rights against the mis-use of eminent domain.

Every year, California state and local governments buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.

Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:

* Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).

* Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).

This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” (The nearby box provides additional information about its use.)

How does this measure have anything to do with an "activist judicial system"?

The supreme court allowed government to take property (homes, businesses) away from individuals and transfer them to business for purly financial reasons.judicial activism

As the framers understood, these are not esoteric issues, but affect in the most tangible way the real rights of real people. In its infamous Kelo decision, the Supreme Court expanded the power of eminent domain beyond its constitutional limitation -- public use -- to the nebulous realm of public benefit. So "deference" to legislators and other government entities results in a free-for-all, with private property taken from citizen A and transferred to citizen B -- precisely the danger against which the framers tried to protect us.

This bill in others in California will try to undo specific judicial decisions where the court created law.

I assume you have never read the Kelo decision?

Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

:

That statute expresses a legislative determination that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development project is a "public use" and in the "public interest."

:

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.

:

[berman v. Parker]It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be...the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them.

:

Viewed as a whole, our jurisprudence has recognized that the needs of society have varied between different parts of the Nation, just as they have evolved over time in response to changed circumstances. Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizing the "great respect" that we owe to state legislatures and state courts in discerning local public needs....For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

:

[Midkiff]"When the legislature's purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our cases make clear that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings--no less than debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation--are not to be carried out in the federal courts."

:

[berman]"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch."

In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

You call yielding to the legislative process "judicial activism"?You wanted the Supreme Court in Kelo to "write law" and when they didn't you claim "judicial activism"?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Seems to me that every time someone sees a decision they don't like it is "judicial activism".

I think you have correctly defined the phrase here."judicial activism" = I don't like the result

 

[Redwes25]

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.

The activist judicial system will be an issue in California this November. This is the initiative to protect property rights against the mis-use of eminent domain.

Every year, California state and local governments buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.

Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:

* Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).

* Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).

This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” (The nearby box provides additional information about its use.)

How does this measure have anything to do with an "activist judicial system"?

The supreme court allowed government to take property (homes, businesses) away from individuals and transfer them to business for purly financial reasons.judicial activism

As the framers understood, these are not esoteric issues, but affect in the most tangible way the real rights of real people. In its infamous Kelo decision, the Supreme Court expanded the power of eminent domain beyond its constitutional limitation -- public use -- to the nebulous realm of public benefit. So "deference" to legislators and other government entities results in a free-for-all, with private property taken from citizen A and transferred to citizen B -- precisely the danger against which the framers tried to protect us.

This bill in others in California will try to undo specific judicial decisions where the court created law.

I assume you have never read the Kelo decision?

Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

:

That statute expresses a legislative determination that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development project is a "public use" and in the "public interest."

:

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.

:

[berman v. Parker]It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be...the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them.

:

Viewed as a whole, our jurisprudence has recognized that the needs of society have varied between different parts of the Nation, just as they have evolved over time in response to changed circumstances. Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizing the "great respect" that we owe to state legislatures and state courts in discerning local public needs....For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

:

[Midkiff]"When the legislature's purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our cases make clear that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings--no less than debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation--are not to be carried out in the federal courts."

:

[berman]"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch."

In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

You call yielding to the legislative process "judicial activism"?You wanted the Supreme Court in Kelo to "write law" and when they didn't you claim "judicial activism"?

Exactly. I think Kelo is a horrible decision but don't see how you can describe it as Judicial activism.

 

[bueno]

Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use. In some jurisdictions, the state delegates eminent domain power to certain public and private companies, typically utilities, such that they can bring eminent domain actions to run telephone, power, water, or gas lines. In most countries, including the United States under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the owner of any appropriated land is entitled to reasonable compensation, usually defined as the fair market value of the property. Proceedings to take land under eminent domain are typically referred to as "condemnation" proceedings.

The concept is valid however lately governments have abused this power.

 

[Christo]

Exactly. I think Kelo is a horrible decision but don't see how you can describe it as Judicial activism.

I think it's one of those decisions that will be forgotten pretty quickly except in the textbooks. Everyone hated the decision. It was universally lambasted. Bush issued an EO that no executive department was to condemn for purely economic purposes. And a majority of states altered their own laws so they couldn't condemn for purely economic purposes.

 

[videoguy505]

California has 2 ED propositions on the ballot for the state primary on June 3rd.

Both are constitutional amendments to prevent the state government from using ED to transfer property to private person or business entity. Both are terrible, though, I think. Really sucks that the state reps can't just draft us up something simple and direct without throwing in curveballs.

Whichever of the two passes with more votes will become a constitutional amendment.

Prop 98:

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office says that Prop 98 does the very thing that the opponents of the Kelo v. City of New London decision want: it “prohibits government from taking ownership of property to transfer it to a private party—such as a person, business, or nonprofit organization.”

Significantly, unlike Prop 99, the protection is to all property, not just single-family homes. Prop 98 authors also threw in two additional, highly controversial provisions.

For one, the measure would end rent control as we know it. Again, quoting the Legislative Analyst’s Office: “[Prop 98] generally prohibits government from limiting the price property owners may charge others to purchase, occupy, or use their land or buildings. This provision would affect local rent control measures. Specifically, government could not enact new rent control measures, and any rent control measure enacted after January 1, 2007 would end. Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again.”

The Legislative Analyst’s Office also says that another provision inserted in Prop 98—“impose restrictions on the ‘ownership, occupancy, or use of property’ if the restrictions were imposed ‘in order to transfer an economic benefit’ from one property owner to other private persons”—do not specifically, but could be interpreted by the courts—could being the operative word, here—as prohibiting such programs as mandatory inclusionary housing and condominium conversion relocation benefits. Such relocation benefits are often central components of city’s inclusionary zoning and condominium conversion programs.

Opponents of Prop 98 also contend it would “jeopardize our ability to protect the quality of our drinking water and secure new sources of water to prevent water shortages,” although no proof of that charge is offered in the official ballot pamphlet.

Prop 99:

The California Legislative Analyst’s office provides the simplest breakdown of the effects of Proposition 99:

“This constitutional amendment limits state and local government’s use of eminent domain in certain circumstances. Specifically, the measure prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home (including a condominium) for the purpose of transferring it to another private party (such as a person, business, or association). This prohibition, however, would not apply if government was taking the home to: Protect public health and safety; Prevent serious, repeated criminal activity; Respond to an emergency; Remedy environmental contamination that posed a threat to public health and safety; Use the property for a public work, such as a toll road or airport operated by a private party. In addition, the prohibition would not apply if the property owner did not live in the home or had lived there for less than a year.”

The proposition is supported by one of the widest coalitions of California organizations in recent years, led by such groups as the League of California Homeowners, League of Women Voters of California, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, and the Consumer Federation of California.

Opposition to Prop 99, which is signed in the official ballot pamphlet by representatives of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Protect Prop. 13 Committee, and the California Farm Bureau, is designed around its effect on negating Proposition 98 if it gets more votes.

“Proposition 98 protects ALL private property in California. Proposition 99 protects virtually nothing,” the Prop 99 opponents write. “The politicians and developers don’t want you to vote Yes on 98, so they are trying to trick you into voting for “do-nothing” Proposition 99 instead. … In 99 they took out every protection for farmers, small businesses, second homes, and rented homes.”

The Prop 99 opponents also contend that there are enough circumstances in Prop 99 in which home seizures are allowed so that the result is “homeowners have virtually no protection under 99.”

One thing about the Prop 99 opponents’ argument appears true: Prop 99 provides protection only for “owner-occupied residences.”

My voter info pamphlet also says: 98 prohibits forcing owner to rent homes at below FMV, but also eliminates renter protections like fair return of deposits.

 

[videoguy505]

I'm not proposing anyone specifically build highways. But I'm pretty confident someone will.

Back in the 1800s, fire departments were privately owned operations as well. If your house caught fire, the different engine companies would race to the site. First to arrive had the right of first negotiation with the homeowner for the fee they would charge to put out the fire. I imagine there wasn't much haggling as the owner watched his home burn--not much point in trying to knock 10% off the price while every second more and more property burned.Perhaps if we get rid of ED we can allow private fire departments to return. The good ol' days.

 

[golddigger]

Exactly. I think Kelo is a horrible decision but don't see how you can describe it as Judicial activism.

I think it's one of those decisions that will be forgotten pretty quickly except in the textbooks. Everyone hated the decision. It was universally lambasted. Bush issued an EO that no executive department was to condemn for purely economic purposes. And a majority of states altered their own laws so they couldn't condemn for purely economic purposes.

linkDefinition of Judaical activism.

Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs

The Fifth Amendment, which reads in part as follows:No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When Judges decide they can take your property, and sell that property to another business or another person and call the action public use, via Kelo, then IMO the decision was an activist decision. Why, because taking my business or home and giving it to some to create a strip mall is not a public work like a highway. That our founding fathers felt that personal property was an extremely important right, and activist judges who feel that government know who could use our property best, not public works related, than those judges have obliterated the original intent of the founding fathers.

Given the power of eminent domain, it should be limited to acquiring property for the legitimate functions of government. For most people, there is no such thing as “just compensation” for their home or business, especially given that value is subjective. Oftentimes, people simply aren’t interested in selling or moving, no matter how high the price.

In the private marketplace, a private buyer cannot force people to sell, no matter what the price that is being offered. As the ancient adage goes, a man’s home is his castle. Where is the morality in permitting a prospective buyer to accomplish an immoral end through the use of the government’s power of eminent domain? By limiting the just-compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment to its original intended purpose, we help to restore the sanctity of private property on which economic liberty is based. Of course, by repealing it we would help restore it even more.

 

[T Bell]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Not building it is out of the question if you don't like your cities burning down en masse due to slow response times from fire departments. That's out. As for "raise the price", I assume that you're operating on the assumption that public funds are limitless?

Even so, quite often these projects require more than one property to be taken in whole or in part. For example, the fire station itself might be wholly constructed on one property, but it's not unusual for slivers from teh frontages of adjacent properties to be taken to enable better ingress and egress for the trucks, a necessity for the project to go forward. You have two problems that not only can arise, but inevitably do arise.

First nobody wants to be the first person to do the deal with the government - they want to wait for the others to set the price. Second, and closely related to the first problem, is that the last person, aka the "holdout", has the most bargaining power. They can allow the government to make several other transactions, but then hold up the entire project with ridiculous demands for compensation, all while a town in need of a firestation nearby is left waiting.

That's very poor public policy to allow that to happen. And I say that as an attorney who represents property and business owners (exclusively) against public agencies in eminent domain cases.

Not raising it isn't out of the question. Not every town has a fire department. If it's too costly, then it shouldn't be built. Nothing prevents the town from secretly bargaining with multiple landowners, even adjacent ones.

And it sounds like in your example, you're not just taking some person's property: you're kicking them out of the town. So you're excommunicating someone so others in the town can live better. Sounds great.

You're living in la-la land if you think that the city can secretly do anything. As for the bolded part, are you overly dramatic much? Since when does eminent domain involve exile? It seems like you think of the open market as being a magically easy thing for public entities to maneuver for urban public works projects, but then it's suddenly an impossible thing for a private property owner to do something as simple as relocate to a new dwelling or place of business.

 

[T Bell]

I'm not proposing anyone specifically build highways. But I'm pretty confident someone will.

Back in the 1800s, fire departments were privately owned operations as well. If your house caught fire, the different engine companies would race to the site. First to arrive had the right of first negotiation with the homeowner for the fee they would charge to put out the fire. I imagine there wasn't much haggling as the owner watched his home burn--not much point in trying to knock 10% off the price while every second more and more property burned.Perhaps if we get rid of ED we can allow private fire departments to return. The good ol' days.

You can privatize anything. Wars have been fought from the beginning of time by mercenaries for example, and professional armies are a relatively recent innovation. The problem is that when you independently contract your services rather than control them with your public entities, you lose direct control over quality. Sometimes that can be a good thing, but given that public entities tend to do a good job delivering fire fighting services, I'm skeptical about such a model working in this context.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When Judges decide they can take your property, and sell that property to another business or another person and call the action public use, via Kelo, then IMO the decision was an activist decision.

Judges didn't decide to take any property.Judges didn't sell any property.And, Judges didn't decide whether or not "to call the action [in Kelo] public use."They yielded to legitimately elected representatives of the public, the legislator to decide each of the above.

 

[NCCommish]

When Judges decide they can take your property, and sell that property to another business or another person and call the action public use, via Kelo, then IMO the decision was an activist decision.

Judges didn't decide to take any property.Judges didn't sell any property.

And, Judges didn't decide whether or not "to call the action [in Kelo] public use."

They yielded to legitimately elected representatives of the public, the legislator to decide each of the above.

Yep and I for one am glad they did. It was a good decision in that it made the legislatures face up to their responsibilities because the voters went after them on it. There is no way all these states would developing the codes on ED that they are without Kelo.

 

[Christo]

Exactly. I think Kelo is a horrible decision but don't see how you can describe it as Judicial activism.

I think it's one of those decisions that will be forgotten pretty quickly except in the textbooks. Everyone hated the decision. It was universally lambasted. Bush issued an EO that no executive department was to condemn for purely economic purposes. And a majority of states altered their own laws so they couldn't condemn for purely economic purposes.

linkDefinition of Judaical activism.

Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs

I'm curious where you see the SCOTUS creating a right, amending a right or amending legislation in Kelo.

The Fifth Amendment, which reads in part as follows:

No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When Judges decide they can take your property, and sell that property to another business or another person and call the action public use, via Kelo, then IMO the decision was an activist decision.

Actually, Kelo is exactly the opposite of judicial activism.Judicial activism is one of three things (1) creating laws where there are none, (2) ignoring precedent and (3) outcome oriented decisions (many times these go hand-in-hand). Kelo doesn't meet any of these criteria. ED is a power enumerated in the Constitution. And in prior ED cases the judiciary has been very deferential to legislatures about what constitutes public use. Taking for the purpose of eliminating blight is widely accepted. It is not too big a leap to take for the purpose of reinvigoration as well. But as is clear from the reaction to the decision, it's not a line that many want to cross.

If you want a classic example of judicial activism all you have to do is look at Roe v Wade. The court wanted to find a way to legalize abortion. So what did it do? It created a constitutional right to privacy which never existed prior to the decision being published. And then it went one step further and held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the newly created right. One of the worst decisions ever written. Not because of the outcome. But because of how it was reached. Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall and Powell should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[golddigger]

Exactly. I think Kelo is a horrible decision but don't see how you can describe it as Judicial activism.

I think it's one of those decisions that will be forgotten pretty quickly except in the textbooks. Everyone hated the decision. It was universally lambasted. Bush issued an EO that no executive department was to condemn for purely economic purposes. And a majority of states altered their own laws so they couldn't condemn for purely economic purposes.

linkDefinition of Judaical activism.

Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs

I'm curious where you see the SCOTUS creating a right, amending a right or amending legislation in Kelo.

The Fifth Amendment, which reads in part as follows:

No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When Judges decide they can take your property, and sell that property to another business or another person and call the action public use, via Kelo, then IMO the decision was an activist decision.

Actually, Kelo is exactly the opposite of judicial activism.Judicial activism is one of three things (1) creating laws where there are none, (2) ignoring precedent and (3) outcome oriented decisions (many times these go hand-in-hand). Kelo doesn't meet any of these criteria. ED is a power enumerated in the Constitution. And in prior ED cases the judiciary has been very deferential to legislatures about what constitutes public use. Taking for the purpose of eliminating blight is widely accepted. It is not too big a leap to take for the purpose of reinvigoration as well. But as is clear from the reaction to the decision, it's not a line that many want to cross.

If you want a classic example of judicial activism all you have to do is look at Roe v Wade. The court wanted to find a way to legalize abortion. So what did it do? It created a constitutional right to privacy which never existed prior to the decision being published. And then it went one step further and held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the newly created right. One of the worst decisions ever written. Not because of the outcome. But because of how it was reached. Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall and Powell should be ashamed of themselves.

Thank you- I stand corrected. What do you think of the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to judicial activism?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What do you think of the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to ED?

The opinion is too long for me to have read at this point, does it include provisions to condemn the property of heterosexual couples and give it to homosexuals as a wedding gift?Then again I'm sure it does ....

 

[Christo]

What do you think of the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to ED?

I'll need a little help here as I haven't read it yet. But I wasn't aware that it had anything to do with ED.

 

[bentley]

What do you think of the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to ED?

I'll need a little help here as I haven't read it yet. But I wasn't aware that it had anything to do with ED.

I'm pretty sure that he's talking about erectile dysfunction here.

 

[the moops]

What do you think of the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to ED?

The opinion is too long for me to have read at this point, does it include provisions to condemn the property of heterosexual couples and give it to homosexuals as a wedding gift?Then again I'm sure it does ....

 

[golddigger]

What do you think of the ?

I'll need a little help here as I haven't read it yet. But I wasn't aware that it had anything to do with ED.

What is your opinion about the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to judicial activism?

 

[golddigger]

When Judges decide they can take your property, and sell that property to another business or another person and call the action public use, via Kelo, then IMO the decision was an activist decision.

Judges didn't decide to take any property.Judges didn't sell any property.And, Judges didn't decide whether or not "to call the action [in Kelo] public use."They yielded to legitimately elected representatives of the public, the legislator to decide each of the above.

By they I meant Government.

 

[golddigger]

What do you think of the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to ED?

The opinion is too long for me to have read at this point, does it include provisions to condemn the property of heterosexual couples and give it to homosexuals as a wedding gift?Then again I'm sure it does ....

I deserve that. My son was kicking me off the computer and I was in a hurry.

 

[Christo]

What do you think of the ?

I'll need a little help here as I haven't read it yet. But I wasn't aware that it had anything to do with ED.

What is your opinion about the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to judicial activism?

I won't know until I read it. And a 117 page opinion on gay marriage rights in Cali doesn't exactly top my reading list at the moment.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What is your opinion about the California supreme court decision on gay rights as it relates to judicial activism?

In this thread you are suggesting that when a law allows the "state" to infringe on an individual's Constitutional Rights the court should strike down that law. That is the law that allowed New London, Connecticut to condemn Susette Kelo's and fourteen other Fort Trumbull properties to be sold to Pfizer should have been struck down as unconstitutional. Correct?I have only read 10 or so pages of the 100+ pages of the decision, so this is obviously an opinion based on a rather incomplete view of that decision. However, based on the first ten pages or so, it seems like the California Supreme Court is saying that since the legislature has determined that same sex couples should have all the substantive rights as opposite sex couples, that to constitutional name the legal processes two different things, you need a good reason. And, if I read on I assume they will tell me why, in the majorities opinion California doesn't have a good reason for having statutes creating two "separate but equal" legal classifications rather than one. Thus they strike down the statue as unconstitutional because the laws were allowing "the 'state' to infringe on an individual's Constitutional Rights". So if it is legitimate, even necessary for courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, even those that are favored by the majority of the legislator and population then this might be called "judicial activism" by some definitions, but it is certainly appropriate.

(I am not a lawyer, have not read the entire opinion, and am on the opposite coast from California so I have no idea what the California constitution and statutes say at any level other than to offer this lay person's rebuttal to where I think you are going.)

 

[T Bell]

Guys, just so we're all clear here, Kelo in the vast majority of states, didn't change any part of the law of Eminent Domain. In CA, for example, eminent domain procedure remained exactly as it had been. Essentially Kelo simply reinforced that the status quo was in fact constitutional.

The reason why Kelo is significant is that it was the first eminent domain opinion by the USSC in quite some time and it therefore brought some scrutiny to an issue that people hadn't thought much about in a while. Consistent with Kelo's holding, that scrutiny has resulted in people petitioning their legislatures to tighten up eminent domain law, which is a good thing IMHO.

 

[Redwes25]

Guys, just so we're all clear here, Kelo in the vast majority of states, didn't change any part of the law of Eminent Domain. In CA, for example, eminent domain procedure remained exactly as it had been. Essentially Kelo simply reinforced that the status quo was in fact constitutional.The reason why Kelo is significant is that it was the first eminent domain opinion by the USSC in quite some time and it therefore brought some scrutiny to an issue that people hadn't thought much about in a while. Consistent with Kelo's holding, that scrutiny has resulted in people petitioning their legislatures to tighten up eminent domain law, which is a good thing IMHO.

Disagree on this one though I have not read the decision in a long time. The problem with Kelo is that they basically said anything is a public use including redevolpment projects to take property from one individual and give it to another because it increased the tax base, etc... That is a poor decision as it basically places no limit on government action, which I think is against a clear reading of the constitution.

 

[videoguy505]

California has 2 ED propositions on the ballot for the state primary on June 3rd.Both are constitutional amendments to prevent the state government from using ED to transfer property to private person or business entity. Both are terrible, though, I think. Really sucks that the state reps can't just draft us up something simple and direct without throwing in curveballs. Whichever of the two passes with more votes will become a constitutional amendment.

Didn't feel like eliminating rent control, so voted no on 98 and yes on 99. Wish they'd amend the amendment next year to protect more property.

 

[T Bell]

Guys, just so we're all clear here, Kelo in the vast majority of states, didn't change any part of the law of Eminent Domain. In CA, for example, eminent domain procedure remained exactly as it had been. Essentially Kelo simply reinforced that the status quo was in fact constitutional.The reason why Kelo is significant is that it was the first eminent domain opinion by the USSC in quite some time and it therefore brought some scrutiny to an issue that people hadn't thought much about in a while. Consistent with Kelo's holding, that scrutiny has resulted in people petitioning their legislatures to tighten up eminent domain law, which is a good thing IMHO.

Disagree on this one though I have not read the decision in a long time. The problem with Kelo is that they basically said anything is a public use including redevolpment projects to take property from one individual and give it to another because it increased the tax base, etc... That is a poor decision as it basically places no limit on government action, which I think is against a clear reading of the constitution.

Your response is a non-sequitur insofar as you said you disagree. States were and had been doing this already with expansive definitions of "blight". The USSC simply affirmed that this was constitutional, and incorrectly so IMHO. BTW, please note which justices voted for this and which voted against. Your friends are not on the Left when it comes to property rights, folks.

 

[Sarnoff]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

 

[Chaka]

Sometimes you need to knock down some homes to build an aqueduct.

I guess there are no fans of the Caesar video games in here.

 

[kentric]

There are situations where ED is beneficial to the area and there are some cases where ED is abused by gov't. Can't answer simply yes or no on this one.

 

[NCCommish]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

 

[Sarnoff]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

 

[NCCommish]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

They decided they need the lot for what they are doing which is a public works project. They tried to lease it. They tried to buy it. They used ED as a last resort. I have no problem with that use.

 

[T Bell]

I need to read more about the Seattle situation to form an opinion, but don't have the time now. I'll try later.

 

[Sarnoff]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

They decided they need the lot for what they are doing which is a public works project. They tried to lease it. They tried to buy it. They used ED as a last resort. I have no problem with that use.

I don't see if the lot is "needed", or if the city just thinks they'd rather have the revenue for people parking there, than have it go into private hands. The "need" is for ample parking in the area, and surely the lot already provides that as is.

If they tried to lease it, then their need for it is a lot less eminent than, say, the need to take over a house to build a freeway.

Say the Mayor likes your house. He'd like to live there as his official residence. He asks if you'd move out so he can rent it from you, you say no. He then offers to buy it, you say no. So he says, "That's OK, we'll seize it from you." Being told no twice doesn't in of itself justify ED.