Reason Magazine

Site Search

What's Yours is Mine

The Supreme Court has rendered its verdict in Kelo v. New London, and the widely-expected result has come to pass: a 5-4 loss for property rights. As Raich taught us that growing pot in your backyard for personal consumption is "interstate commerce," Kelo informs us that taking people's homes to hand over to private developers building an office complex is a "public use."

You do wonder: Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?

UPDATE: The opinions are here. As with Raich (in a sense just a reaffirmation of Wickard), we're just seeing a particularly outrageous confirmation of what was already, in effect, the law. As the majority opinion says, quoting an earlier decision, the "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Which is to say, they've rejected the notion that "public use" means anything more stringent than: "legislators want to do this." The Court's view is that any "public purpose" will do, and such purposes apparently include increased tax revenue. The straightforward implication is that any taking of a private residence to hand it over to a business, or just from a poor person to a wealthy person, will be a taking in service of a public purpose: As a general rule, the rich pay more taxes than the poor, and businesses pay more taxes than households.

UPDATE 2:The Institute for Justice's press release on the verdict is here.

Send this article to:

« Low-Cost Showdown: Clifford the Big… | Main | Fascinating Source of Climate Change… »

Comments to "What's Yours is Mine":

RandyAyn | June 23, 2005, 11:12am | #

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN THIS GODDAMN COUNTRY? HAVE WE LOST OUR FREAKING MINDS?!?!?!?!?!?

RandyAyn | June 23, 2005, 11:15am | #

I apologize for that last comment. I'm just really upset right now.

Nathan | June 23, 2005, 11:16am | #

I'm not sure if the five justices who voted for live in the District or in the 'burbs, but Carol Schwartz should follow her Alcohol Ban bill by offering up the lots of any of the five up to any developer who want them.

Brian Marks | June 23, 2005, 11:17am | #

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.

Please read O'Connor's dissenting opinion.

Ammonium | June 23, 2005, 11:18am | #

If all you Gore/Kerry Would Have Been Better people had your way, we'd be looking at a generation of this crap. Now at least there's some hope. (Not that I wouldn't put it beyond Bush to screw it up.)

I'm willing to trade eight years of mismanagement of the budget and foreign policy, and temporary attacks at free speech to protect long term rights under the Constitution.

Number 6 | June 23, 2005, 11:18am | #

Insert your own string of profanity and vitriol here. No matter what you choose to insert, it can't express how disgusted I am.

MP | June 23, 2005, 11:19am | #

This is simply terrible news. It's hard to say which decision is worst, Raich or Kelo, but between the two of them, I truly fear what things will be like in ten years.

Is there no place on the planet where freedom is sacred? Where can I move to...Poland? Is that it?

Mr. Wilson | June 23, 2005, 11:21am | #

Are the opinions online yet? Anybody have a link?

Rhywun | June 23, 2005, 11:21am | #

Hey, now reality is just like SimCity - I can demolish anything I don't like, at any time!

Mo | June 23, 2005, 11:22am | #

What RandyAyn said.

Good to see that Scalia decided to stick to his principles this time. Of course, he didn't have a chance to stick it to those damn hippies this time.

kevrob | June 23, 2005, 11:23am | #

The bastards!

Quoting the AP story:

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority...joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.. issued a stinging dissent.... joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

O'Connor has surprised me. Given the deference she has usually shown state government, which may have something to do with her having been a state, not a federal judge, I fully expected her to side with the landgrabbers. Souter and Kennedy have gone completely native, though. Remember when we used to chuckle about Souter being a "stealth libertarian" on the court? Feh.

Kevin

ed | June 23, 2005, 11:24am | #

A very sad day indeed.
A Waco-style holdout would be fun, but that would be expecting too much from the homeowners.
However, one can dream...

joe | June 23, 2005, 11:26am | #

It may be legal to demolish that neighborhood, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Grumble grumble.

Still, I don't like Julian's implication that the justices should conform their decisions to the outcomes they want. That eminent domain can be used for a "public purpose" other than the physical occupation of the land by the government is settled law, and was not the question before the court.

joe | June 23, 2005, 11:28am | #

kevrob,

I wonder if O'Connor's western upbringing played a role. That is an unusual split.

drf | June 23, 2005, 11:28am | #

"and temporary attacks at free speech to protect long term rights under the Constitution."

huh?

oh - you're a spill constitutional milk to save the american pie. how cute.

would you like a baloon?

i guess since it's your side, the attacks on the constitution are okay. but not the other side.

the usual "greek curse" applies: may you live in a world where everybody else has your, um, principles except for you.

perhaps the worst part of your post is that you're assuming that "you kerry" people live here. um. um. well, your analysis and your powers of observation are about the same level. instead of a baloon, here's a tonka.

David T | June 23, 2005, 11:29am | #

"You do wonder: Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?"

No, they won't, as long as the Richard Epsteins argue that the basic post-New Deal system is unconstitutional, and get some support from the Judge Browns. As long as such views exist, most of the Left will view judicial toleration for even very bad economic regulations as the first line of defense against the conservatarians.

(As a non-libertarian, btw, I think their fears are greatly exaggerated, and that only Justice Thomas would go even substantially toward the goal they fear. But I have seen enough of once "fringe" views becoming "mainstream" to understand the fear...)

Evan Williams | June 23, 2005, 11:30am | #

Holy shit, dude, Sploid is the best thing on the internerd!

Gotta love their new headline:

SCOTUS Gives Away Your Free Property

Doc | June 23, 2005, 11:30am | #

>and temporary attacks at free speech to protect >long term rights under the Constitution.

Yes, with the likes of the Flag Desecration Ammendment, anti-same sex marriage ammendment, etc. :(

Think *any* Rep or Senator of *either* party will work to correct this? I don't. It doesn't sell to Ma and Pa Kettle as their other flash laws.

We're screwed. Plain and simple.

theCoach | June 23, 2005, 11:30am | #

ammonium,
just make sure you do not burn any flags in your anger!

To add to what Joe says, I too believe that this is the proper judicial deciscion, but a poor use by officials.

Showtime | June 23, 2005, 11:32am | #

I do not condone the murders of the innocent and children but, boy, does this make me applaud McVeighs resolve.

The Great Ape | June 23, 2005, 11:33am | #

Today is a great day for Communism and a vindication of 5-Year Plans around the country!! Rejoice in your newfound servitude!

Isaac Bartram | June 23, 2005, 11:34am | #

Yep, the enrichment of developers is always a legitimate public use.

JonBuck | June 23, 2005, 11:35am | #

I'm speechless. Utterly speechless.

Evan Williams | June 23, 2005, 11:37am | #

[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" -Fifth Amendment, US Constitution
Emphasis mine. So, in effect, SCOTUS has declared that anything in the private sector which is predicted to benefit "the public" via jobs, tax revenue, etc., is thereby deemed "public"?

Or, alternately, the State can "authorize" private agents to exercise eminent domain on its behalf, and thus, circumvent the constitution.

Holy Christ. How can they sleep at night?

Julian Sanchez | June 23, 2005, 11:38am | #

Joe, you're killing me. In the wake of Raich, I watched one after another liberal op-ed page or blogger say something to the effect of: "Of course, it's insane that this activity should be regarded as reachable under a power to regulate interstate commerce, but if this went, maybe federal antidiscrimination rules would be challenged too." I don't need justices to cater their rulings to my preferred outcomes; I'd settle for a sane reading of the relevant provisions. The outcomes would take care of themselves.

Rhywun | June 23, 2005, 11:38am | #

Yep, the enrichment of developers is always a legitimate public use.

You're forgetting the enormous tax rebates New London residents will get due to the higher taxes paid by the new, superior development....

rdkraus | June 23, 2005, 11:39am | #

This was once, a long time ago, a great country.

Wonder what Washington, Jefferson, et als. would think about this. I don't think it's what they had in mind.

The Great Ape | June 23, 2005, 11:39am | #

to those who have read the majority texts, was a clear explanation provided for how public benefit = public use?

the definitions are at least recognizably disparate if not clearly disparate, no?

c-cipher | June 23, 2005, 11:39am | #

Maybe in the course of losing our freedom, we can win back use of the term liberal, which is miles more elegant than that clunker libertarian.

See? It's not all bad news.

Evan Williams | June 23, 2005, 11:41am | #

From the majority opinion:

"There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."

I like the idea of planning "development" right about where Justice Stevens' house sits. Oh, you like that house? It has a meaning that is beyond money? Heh, fuck YOU, cuz we're planning a DEVELOPMENT, beeyotch! Time to move out!

Dave | June 23, 2005, 11:43am | #

So I guess from now on nothing I own is really mine.

kevrob | June 23, 2005, 11:44am | #

In joe's comment do we see the evil "ratchet effect" of stare decisis. The Fifth Amendment doesn't say "public purpose". It says "public use." Prior decisions interpreted "use" as "purpose", and then went on to interpret "public purpose" ever more elastically. Rolling back some of those earlier, wrongly-decided cases would not only have been sensible, the Court should have seen that as its duty. The sad truth is that it has been some time since we had a Constitution of Articles and Amendments. The legal clerisy has decided for us that a footnote in a majority SCOTUS decision is more to be respected than the black letter law of our country's organic law.

Kevin

David | June 23, 2005, 11:45am | #

Not if someone with influence wants it.

Think of it as an existential question. "Who can really own anything?"

Jon H | June 23, 2005, 11:46am | #

"A Waco-style holdout would be fun, but that would be expecting too much from the homeowners."

It might be more effective if the homeowners just spiked their land with some toxic waste which would be expensive to clean up.

I have to say, the US and China are getting to the point where we might as well just merge.

eth4n | June 23, 2005, 11:47am | #

Lets just stop talking about the poor people getting abused by the big bad business men. It doesn't matter who is getting their property taken for what purpose, unless it's a road, bridge or tunnel the goverment should have no right to take what I purchased.

Also haven't we all learned that the goverment trying to figure out economic issues has almost never work, and even when it does it is a short term fix at best. Inevitable this complex will hurt New London in the long run.

Evan Williams | June 23, 2005, 11:47am | #

Great Ape:

Not really. The best they could come up with was some garbage about how the city authorized a private agent to exercise eminent domain, and that since the entire planned "development" was at the behest of the city, the city had a right to exercise ED (or, in this case, authorize third party agents to do so on their behalf). But, no, there's really nothing there that explains how predicted public benefit is somehow the same thing as public use.

MP | June 23, 2005, 11:48am | #

Rhywun, who are you kidding? Like New London isn't simply going to increase their public spending. Tax rebate? Har har har.

Mo | June 23, 2005, 11:49am | #

So what if the business development is a failure and the tax receipts end up lower than they currently are? Would the former property owners be able to sue that the development no longer had a public purpose and get their land back?

Jon H | June 23, 2005, 11:50am | #

The irony is that while this has been working out in court, the Pentagon decided that they want to close the Groton sub base, which will change the economics of the region quite a bit.

The land being taken might not turn out to be as desirable as it used to be.

MJ | June 23, 2005, 11:51am | #

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized."

Perhaps, but there is also no principled way of distinguishing it from rank corruption either. Whether or not this type of development will result increased employment or tax revenues is by definition speculative. The court puts far too much trust in government bodies that they will act fairly and wisely rather than prostrate themselves and sell out their citizens to any business with a large enough billfold.

How disheartening.

Dave | June 23, 2005, 11:51am | #

Well if someone's opinion determines whether or not I should own something I think I should be able to take whatever I want too.

The Great Ape | June 23, 2005, 11:52am | #

It might be more effective if the homeowners just spiked their land with some toxic waste which would be expensive to clean up.

Even better, run a few hoses 24/7 and create a wetland. Then they can't even do a cleanup.

Akira MacKenzie | June 23, 2005, 11:52am | #

"I have to say, the US and China are getting to the point where we might as well just merge."

All hail the great Alliance! I think I better invest in a brown coat.

Rhywun | June 23, 2005, 11:54am | #

Tax rebate? Har har har.

Was I not sarcastic enough in my post? ;-)

Lets just stop talking about the poor people getting abused by the big bad business men.

In a moment. Does anyone think that poor people WON'T be the big losers here? Eminent domain has ALWAYS been used against the "wrong" sort of people.

keith | June 23, 2005, 11:59am | #

Time to resort to the Second Amendment and the tme-honored American tradition of sitting on your porch with a shotgun and saying, "You want it? Come and get it."

Jon H | June 23, 2005, 12:01pm | #

"Does anyone think that poor people WON'T be the big losers here? Eminent domain has ALWAYS been used against the "wrong" sort of people."

Compared to the kind of business (ie, large or cash-rich) that benefits from this sort of thing, almost all people are "poor".

D-FENS | June 23, 2005, 12:03pm | #

Anybody see "The Castle?" It was a big hit in Austraila (where it was made), so I hear. That one involved real public use (an airport) and had a happy ending. Making it absolutely unlike the present situation, unfortunately.

I'm going to paint a big pot leaf on an American flag and burn it on top of my house.

Dave | June 23, 2005, 12:04pm | #

Hopefully this will lead to some video and images of people being forced to leave their homes by the government. I just can't see how any rational person can justify this...

MJ | June 23, 2005, 12:06pm | #

The Left's concern for the "little" guy is easily trumped by their desire to conserve and expand government powers to promote social engineering. I think eminent domain is one of those powers. So while Leftists may privately cringe at who benefits and who's hurt by this ruling, they'll ultimately accept the result.

Crushinator | June 23, 2005, 12:07pm | #

Property taxes essentially reduce homeowners/landowners to simple tenants. We purchase our homes, and then we have to pay rent to the taxing agencies. Eminent domain provides a mechanism for the state to evict existing tenants for tenants from whom they can extort higher rents.

The concept of private property will remain a sham until property taxes are eliminated and the eminent domain laws are tightly restricted.

We are headed down the path to central government planning, the end of private ownership, Federal control of all aspects of life, the suppression of free speech and dissent, the establishment of a state religion, the collapse of the dollar and the American economy, censorship of the Internet, obstruction of scientific advances, infrastructure decay, inadequate energy supply, and egregious incarceration rates.

Did I forget anything?

Rational people need to fight this slide into hell with every weapon available. We cannot continue to stand on the sidelines flapping our gums and writing comments to this blog. We have to take back our country from these assholes who find new ways to shit in our sandbox every day.

gaius marius | June 23, 2005, 12:12pm | #

So, in effect, SCOTUS has declared that anything in the private sector which is predicted to benefit "the public" via jobs, tax revenue, etc., is thereby deemed "public"?

it's certainly in keeping with the third-way fascism we adopted earlier this century. the government/corporate compact could hardly get a more stark and ringing affirmation.

David | June 23, 2005, 12:16pm | #

If every plan than a politician endorses created the great jobs that they always claim, would we have any unemployment?

Dave | June 23, 2005, 12:17pm | #

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

I hope he stays there with a shotgun until the police show up and makes the national news seen. Maybe then people will quit paying attention to lost little boys, runaway brides, and hoochies in Aruba long enough to know that their rights are being taken away.

David | June 23, 2005, 12:22pm | #

Although it might make a nice example, these people have lost enough. We don't need to see them imprisoned or worse. Besides, the story would be forgotten after a few weeks.

What's sad is that true blight in CT is almost never addressed with eminent domain, just left to rot like an open wound.

Isaac Bartram | June 23, 2005, 12:26pm | #

Rhywun

Thanks for reminding me about "the enormous tax rebates New London residents will get...". That's saved me from becoming the worst kind of jaundiced cynic. :)

The Great Ape | June 23, 2005, 12:30pm | #

anyone want to organize a mass vomiting on the stoop of the SC?

Dan | June 23, 2005, 12:38pm | #

A severely disappointing decision for people with any appreciation of liberty -- but not surprising. Going back to Berman v. Parker (1954) and the horrid Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) decision, the Sup Ct has acted like the public use requirement was written in disappearing ink.

(I do find it intriguing that O'Connor dissented in today's decision, yet she wrote the anti-property decision in Midkiff 21 years ago, an opinion from which Rehnqiust did not dissent.)

Swill | June 23, 2005, 12:43pm | #

As a general rule, the rich pay more taxes than the poor, and businesses pay more taxes than households

Businesses do not pay taxes, people pay taxes. A business no more pays business taxes than a house pays property taxes.

Ammonium | June 23, 2005, 12:44pm | #

WTF is a baloon?

Like Bush, Kerry/Gore would not do anything to stop a flag burning amendment or same-sex marriage amendment. It's because the President has nothing to do with constitutional amendments!!!

Any policies by the administration are temporary and unconstitutional policies can be overturned by the courts. But once the Constitution loses all meaning, we lose that protection.

MP | June 23, 2005, 12:45pm | #

Dan,

She references Midkiff in her dissent and describes the difference between Midkiff and Kelo. I'll leave it to you to judge her rationalizations.

Showtime | June 23, 2005, 12:46pm | #

......and the sad fact is that ignorant people are going to see a dollar sign and blame capitalism and embract statism-syndicalism.

The only flag I sallute is the Gadsden.

thoreau | June 23, 2005, 12:49pm | #

I, for one, welcome my new developer overlords!

I'm surprised that gaius marius is upset by this. Don't you see, those selfish individualists were holding onto their homes rather than surrendering them to the business elite who could surely put them to better use!

joe | June 23, 2005, 12:50pm | #

Yes, Julian, you're the only sane one. All of the history, precendents, and rationales cited in the decision are the ravings of paranoid schizophrenics. This isn't about a legitimate difference in interpretation - it's about the four justices who ruled for the outcome you agree with being mentally sound, while the majority are all suffering from brain lesions.

Sigh.

Pedro Bento | June 23, 2005, 12:51pm | #

Evan: For a long time now, it has not been necessary (legally) for the government to prove public benefit. The fact that the government calls it 'public use' legally makes it 'public use' in the eyes of the law.

In the Trump case (CRDA v. Coking), the Judge ruled against Trump on a technicality - he found that, while a parking lot is appropriate 'public use' (since CRDA said it was), the deal between CRDA (the agency taking Coking's property) and Trump did not guarantee that the property would remain a parking lot.

ed | June 23, 2005, 12:53pm | #

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

MP | June 23, 2005, 12:53pm | #

All of the history, precendents, and rationales cited in the decision are the ravings of paranoid schizophrenics.

joe, when you pile shit on top of shit, it is still shit.

V the K | June 23, 2005, 12:54pm | #

You know what's ironic? It was the four left-liberals (and one weathervane) "justices" that ruled that government can take property away from citizens and give it to Big Corporations.

So, when the local Homeless Shelter & Needle Distribution Center gets bull-dozed to make way for a Wal-Mart SuperCenter, the left can thank Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter.

dave_b | June 23, 2005, 12:54pm | #

"Time to resort to the Second Amendment and the tme-honored American tradition of sitting on your porch with a shotgun and saying, "You want it? Come and get it."

Too bad that's not an option anymore. Since the property is no longer yours, then technically, you can't defend it. Even if you're sitting on the government's (formerly known as your) porch, then they'll probably still take you to jail for brandishing a firearm. The Constitution is dead.

aahpat (Pat Rogers) | June 23, 2005, 12:56pm | #

What is left of Constitutional governance in the United States when, even if it is in a minority opinion, a Republican Supreme Court Justice writing: "Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."?

joe | June 23, 2005, 12:56pm | #

As a matter of fact - not to let those get in the way - the majority specifically found, as part of the longstanding precendents that surround takings law, that transferring property from A to B in for the purpose of enriching B violates the Constitution, and that the government must show that its actions are being done in the pursuit of a public purpose, distinct from the benefits that will accrue to the new owner.

This is why O'Connor, the dissenting hero, approving cites the private-to-private takings that created the railroads - because of the public benefit that would accrue from having a system of passenger and freight conveyance. And why she approvingly cited Berman, which justified private-to-private takings for the purpose of alleviating extreme poverty, and Midkiff, which justified private-to-private takings for the purpose of creating a better, freer real estate market (which had previously been a plantation oligarchy, in which 22 people owned 79% of the land).

Nathan | June 23, 2005, 12:57pm | #

Also haven't we all learned that the goverment trying to figure out economic issues has almost never work, and even when it does it is a short term fix at best. Inevitable this complex will hurt New London in the long run.

Sure they work. The Pols get a nice wad of cash, be it in the form of contributions, swag (junkets, etc) or a nicy cosy job when they retire from public service. The Developers get some work on the tax payer's dime. Everyone's happy....

... well, except for the previous property owners and the tax payers, but you can't make an omlet (or a 500 room hotel) without breaking... yadda yadda yadda.

6Gun | June 23, 2005, 12:59pm | #

dave b: The Constitution is dead.

joe: All of the history, precendents, and rationales...ravings...paranoid schizophrenics... Sigh.

Oh, the rich irony.

dead_elvis | June 23, 2005, 1:00pm | #

Choice quotes from the decision:

"...this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.”

"Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments..."

"Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent."

"Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic."

That eminent domain can be used for a "public purpose" other than the physical occupation of the land by the government is settled law, and was not the question before the court.

That's the problem. I'm constistently flabbergasted by the level of deferrence given to its own past decisions. Do they think they were infallible? Did past courts walk on water? Doesn't it occur to them that perhaps some past decisions might have been based on *gasp* politics of the time? I almost sense tepid fear in some of these types of decisions. As though the majorities are afraid that striking a precedent would lead to a house of cards falling down. Well, sorry SCOTUS, we're not a house of cards, our country is stronger than that.

To paraphrase Hank Hill, would it kill a tree to overturn a precedent once in a while?

Just browsing the syllabus, there's just so much wrong with the winning opinion, who knows where to start. This and Raich looked like the right cases for their issues. If they couldn't win, no one can.

kevrob | June 23, 2005, 1:00pm | #

joe should read Thomas' dissent, if the very idea of that doesn't make his head `splode. He very calmly rips to shreds the thin reed of "public purpose" as the tissue of judicial whim that it is. That the likes of Souter and Kennedy haven't the guts to point out their predecessors mistakes and reverse them shouldn't surprise anyone, of course.

Kevin

thoreau | June 23, 2005, 1:05pm | #

joe-

The issue here isn't whether there's ever a case where it is Constitutionally allowable to use ED to transfer property to another private party. We can agree to disagree on that for today.

Today's ruling found that simply paying higher taxes is good enough reason to take somebody else's property. That's fucking scary!

Rhywun | June 23, 2005, 1:07pm | #

the government must show that its actions are being done in the pursuit of a public purpose

Yes, we got that... so how is enriching the town's tax coffers any guarantee of good "public use"? My state (NY) has received billions of dollars from the Marlboro Man to put to the "public use" of eradicating smoking. Guess where the money has gone instead? If you said, "into the general treasury to cover our massive debts" - you're right!

AMP | June 23, 2005, 1:11pm | #

Apparently, we now exist to serve government.

These poor folks should all paint the american flag across the outside of their houses, it'll make a great photo when the bulldozers come rolling in.

Anybody remember the following???

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

MP | June 23, 2005, 1:14pm | #

These poor folks should all paint the american flag across the outside of their houses, it'll make a great photo when the bulldozers come rolling in.

If they did that, who would be arrested for desecrating it? The painter or the dozer driver?

drf | June 23, 2005, 1:20pm | #

oh oh oh.

mr. tough guy. wow. can i feel your muscle?

i guess, though, since your powers of spelling are better than your analytic and observational abilities, you've figured out that there's only one kerry type here...

flex flex flex

joe | June 23, 2005, 1:25pm | #

kevrob, I'm not so impressed with Thomas's dissent. He makes three unimpressive points.

1. He quotes Marbury: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect." No one is presuming that the clause "for public use" is without effect. It does have a meaning - to forbid purely private transfers.

2. He says that he disagrees with a whole slew of previous rulings, and agrees with a few much earlier rulings. Well, buddy, that and four other justices will get you a decision.

3. He speculates about bad outcomes accruing to poor people. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Justice Thomas decides the Supreme Court should apply a social justice test to its decisions - but, oh, only in takings cases. Bzzt.

joe | June 23, 2005, 1:26pm | #

thoreau,

"Today's ruling found that simply paying higher taxes is good enough reason to take somebody else's property."

No, it doesn't. The decision explicitly mentions the several public purposes to be pursued.

joe | June 23, 2005, 1:29pm | #

"In addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to “build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London,” id., at 92, the plan was also designed to make the City more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park."

Show me the doctrine that states that these are not to be considered legitimate public purposes.

raymond | June 23, 2005, 1:30pm | #

If all you Gore/Kerry Would Have Been Better people had your way, we'd be looking at a generation of this crap. Now at least there's some hope.

Yes. Thank the Lord for Ford's, Reagan's, and Bush's appointees, who will keep you free.

John Paul Stevens - Ford

Anthony Kennedy - Reagan

David H. Souter - Bush

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton

Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton


So I guess from now on nothing I own is really mine.

Is it true that in some states (eg, Louisiana) that if you are a suspected dope something-or-other the government can take your car without having to prove you guilty of a crime?

dead_elvis | June 23, 2005, 1:33pm | #

These poor folks should all paint the american flag across the outside of their houses, it'll make a great photo when the bulldozers come rolling in.

Excellent!

tarran | June 23, 2005, 1:35pm | #

AMP, why are quoting the declaration of independence? the U.S. govt invalidated that back in 1865. :)

Rhywun | June 23, 2005, 1:40pm | #

Show me the doctrine that states that these are not to be considered legitimate public purposes.

Aside from the fact that it's not the government's responsibility to do any of those things [although I have no big problem with them trying; however, the proper response when told that the land is not for sale is "OK, we'll look somewhere else", not "Gimme your land anyway"], what's to stop new London from simply levelling the town and building nothing but mansions in its place? Doesn't that make the city more "attractive" to other wealthy taxpayers?

David | June 23, 2005, 1:40pm | #

Joe,

Let's see even most of that actually happen. Most of the case is built on speculation. It might revitalize downtown, might create more jobs, might create more tax revenue. I hate to put it this way, but contractor promises are generally worthless.

For example, when an expansion project of my parents' neighborhood was built, there was to be a park built between the existing street and the addition, and a connection to the another main road at the end of the addition to defray traffic. Neither exists, and the company created for the project has since dissolved.

drf | June 23, 2005, 1:41pm | #

"Is it true that in some states (eg, Louisiana) that if you are a suspected dope something-or-other the government can take your car without having to prove you guilty of a crime?"

Hey Raymond!
I think it's even worse than that, if possible...

http://reason.com/ml/ml041901.shtml
http://reason.com/0107/ci.ml.railway.shtml
http://reason.com/bi/fb90.shtml
http://reason.com/0108/fe.gc.the.shtml

and many of the supporters of such measures have these glib excuses and explanations. and they sing "proud to be an american" and talk about "freedom"....
puke.

mfG,

drf

6Gun | June 23, 2005, 1:42pm | #

Is it true that in some states (eg, Louisiana) that if you are a suspected dope something-or-other the government can take your car without having to prove you guilty of a crime?

Based solely on lobby-induced bad law and a culture of manufactured gender fear, it'a already legal in all 50 to lose your house (and your income if you were foolish enough to parent a kid or three) if your spouse/ex/SO (typically, if same is female) merely accuses you of domestic violence. And has a lawyer.

Jason Ligon | June 23, 2005, 1:42pm | #

joe:

The argument against such a broad swipe is that in effect all revenue generating practices of government can be justified on the grounds that said revenue will always be said to be spent on some form of community improvement somewhere. The effect is that to take from one private party and give to another who will pay more taxes will always meet the terms of this ruling.

Can you envision any possible way to fail to meet the requirements as listed?

The Great Ape | June 23, 2005, 1:42pm | #

joe,

"public purposes" is an infinitely nebulous term that can be used to justify everything from nothing to communism.

"public use" is the specific Constitutional term and should be applied as such b/c the authors would have said "purpose" or "interest" if it was meant to be so broad and.

Evan Williams | June 23, 2005, 1:43pm | #

"Show me the doctrine that states that these are not to be considered legitimate public purposes."

Is it a public USE? It's clear that ED was reserved for public infrastructure, so that some poor sap couldn't derail a massive PUBLIC interstate highway project by holing up in his house and refusing to sell. Making the subjective judgment that a particular private development is a "public purpose" simply because the public stands to benefit from it is not in the spirit of the ED provision. The public ALSO benefits by being free from the government stealing their property and giving it to private developers. "Benefit" is a subjective term, Joe. And "benefit" certainly does not equal "use".

Born Again Iconoclast | June 23, 2005, 1:44pm | #

Well, throwing this out to the scholars of this board who are much more learned than me, are there any countries presently that have better laws protecting privately owned land than ours?

I ask, as I am scheduled to take my LSAT soon, but I figure, what the hell, I could instead spend the money for law school on a plane ticket to a place that still believes in markets and private property. Any room left in the former Eastern Bloc?

Let's see if our idiot solons in D.C. get as worked up about this issue as they do about the flag (if they even understand the issue at all)

Well, if I believed in God, I would now be praying for a natural disaster to wipe out the homes of all the justices in the majority in this decision as an example of cosmic irony and justice. Alas, I'll just have to be content to let out a stream of obscenities.

Chuck | June 23, 2005, 1:44pm | #

Since this office complex is now officially a public use, maybe once it is constructed we, as members of the public, should go there and, uh, use it.

6Gun | June 23, 2005, 1:45pm | #

Show me the doctrine that states that these are not to be considered legitimate public purposes.

Show me the doctrine that states that "public purposes" in this context is considered constitutionally legitimate.

Steve | June 23, 2005, 1:45pm | #

joe,

The point is, the court has set a very low bar for cities to meet when they claim something is "public use." (I notice you said "public purpose," which is a more accurate term for what the court is talking about, although it's not found in the Constitution.) Courts have also shown very little desire to scrutinize any city's definition of "public use." Any city can find "public purposes" such as the ones you described when it wants to take land for higher tax revenues. Of course a new development is probably going to look better than an old one.

In other words, it's not enough that the court mentions public purposes. It should look at them with a critical eye and determine whether they're actually "public use."

speedwell | June 23, 2005, 1:47pm | #

I'm calling Tea Party. For five cents and a guarantee I can have my job back later if I live, I'd go to Connecticut, wrap myself in the flag, and lie down in front of the bulldozers.

Why don't we all just meet there and then we can decide what to do when we get there?

Steve | June 23, 2005, 1:49pm | #

I already know what joe's going to say: Past courts have ruled that "public use" really means "public purpose," so who are we to say they were wrong?

kevrob | June 23, 2005, 1:51pm | #

joe:

Thomas' dissent thoroughly discusses the history of the replacement of the actual words of the Fifth Amendment, "public use," with the "public purpose" interpretation of the Constitution. He notes the often casual expansions of the scope of the government's power, and chides his fellow justices for citing those decisions uncritically.

Perhaps, because I put text before legislative intent, and both before penumbras and emantations, I find Thomas' argument more compelling than you do. Constitutions are not ouija boards, after all.

Once one permits takings for public purposes in addition to public uses, no coherent principle limits what could constitute a valid public use, at least, none beyond Justice O'Connor's (entirely proper) appeal to the text of the Constitution itself. - from Thomas' dissent

Kevin

David Woycechowsky | June 23, 2005, 1:52pm | #

I have to admit that I haven't read the decision. It would harsh on my good mood today.

However, I would be more comfortable with the decision if there was a requirement that these enhanced tax revenue base has to inform (that is, inflate) the purchase price.

This would be sort of a self-correcting mechanism in that the enhanced revenue would have to be big to do an eminent domain based soley on the enhanced revenue. We would then be sure that a piece of that big money went to the landowners. this seems fair to me because the likely prospect of greatly enhanced revenue would certainly inform the market value absent condemnation.

In other words, the homeowners would get a lot more money for a condemnation based primarily on enhanced tax revenue than for condemnations based on truly *public* "public uses." Shades of Peevyhouse, maybe.

Somehow I doubt the decision puts my preferred safeguard into place as a Constitutional matter, but I think it can be reasonably considered as part of "fair market value" as an interpretational matter.

6Gun | June 23, 2005, 1:53pm | #

I already know what joe's going to say: Past courts have ruled that "public use" really means "public purpose," so who are we to say they were wrong?

The best way to undermine freedom surely must be to convince its defenders to rationalize it on your terms.

V the K | June 23, 2005, 1:53pm | #

Question: Could Congress or the State Legislatures now pass laws limiting ED to legitimate public purposes, or barring the use of ED to transfer property from one private entity to another?

Kevin | June 23, 2005, 1:55pm | #

The Great Ape: Instead of mass vomiting, lets do a mass flag burning at the less than supreme court?

David Woycechowsky | June 23, 2005, 1:57pm | #

Further to V the K's question:
If a state were anti-condemnation, could the developer do a condemnation through the federal government based on Kelo?

drf | June 23, 2005, 2:00pm | #

Mr. Ape and Kevin:

the flag burning might be a better idea. Mass vomiting falls under the Patriot Act paragraph 10995633943454.443 on page 284867205876012897624 of the document:

mass exodus through reverse parastalsis is equivalent to a chemical attack. violators will be submitted to 20 hours of "barney vs elmo: who is more friggin wholesome" while listening to subliminal messages contained within Don McLean's never number one-one-hit-wonder, "American Pie".

where flag burning simply gets you a fine, scorn, derision, columny, and an environmental fine.

MP | June 23, 2005, 2:01pm | #

Question: Could Congress or the State Legislatures now pass laws limiting ED to legitimate public purposes, or barring the use of ED to transfer property from one private entity to another?

Answer: Congress has no jurisdiction here. State Legislatures have always been in a position to refine ED. See Utah for an example.

David T | June 23, 2005, 2:03pm | #

V the K: The states can of course always limit ED. As for Congress, it can always limit federal ED. It cannot limit state ED in the name of enforcing the Fifth Amendment (as the Court indicated in invalidating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress can no more expand constitutional rights--as interpreted by the Court--than contract them) but it could try doing so on the ground that arbitrary state use of ED has an effect on interstate commerce. (And indeed, it actualy does--I might be less likely to move to Connecticut and do business there if I knew my property there could always be taken for the "changing needs of society"; at the very least this looks much more like a plausible case for the commerce power than medical marijuana...)

Jeff Shapiro | June 23, 2005, 2:04pm | #

Re: precedent. In Dred Scott the Court held that black people may be considered property. In Plessy v. Fergeson the Court held that "separate but equal" facilities are permissible. In Korematsu v. US the Court held that during wartime, American citizens may be interred solely due to their race. Once these decisions were made, should they have stood for all time? Stare decisis is a necessary and useful tool which insures continuity in the law. But, it cannot be applied automatically. If it is, then past injustices can never be corrected.

Hydroman | June 23, 2005, 2:04pm | #

Same Shit different day.
Our first Republican President took the property of the Plains Indians and gave it to a bunch of Yankee railroad barons.

R C Dean | June 23, 2005, 2:10pm | #

"In addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to “build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London,” id., at 92, the plan was also designed to make the City more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park."

So all you have to do is cobble together a "plan" that is supposed to achieve a variety of nebulous, speculative, and/or subjective outcomes.

C'mon. I know a number of venture capitalists who would wet themselves laughing at a business plan that was as weak as what is described above. Its pretense, a sham, plain and simple. Sure, you can choose to fall for it (yeah, joe, I'm looking at you), but that doesn't make it legitimate or real.

This would justify just about any "taking" to create a Walmart, for example. How would that go down, joe? Well, it'll creat jobs and raise tax revenue, so who cares how much seizing the family farm puts in Sam Walton's pocket, eh?

I can't decide which has been a blacker day - today, the day the Court upheld McCain-Feingold, or the day the upheld federal jurisdiction over medical marijuana. Truly, the American experiment in government via a Constitutional republic is dead.

kevrob | June 23, 2005, 2:14pm | #

IJ's press release makes a good point:

Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for Justice, said , "The majority and the dissent both recognized that the action now turns to state supreme courts where the public use battle will be fought out under state constitutions. The Institute for Justice will be there every step of the way with homeowners and small businesses to protect what is rightfully theirs. Today's decision in no way binds those courts."

Most ED cases involve the states or their creatures - municipalities, counties, or quangos such as the development corporation in the Kelo case. If defenders of property rights can get the states to adopt laws or constitutional amendments that define "public use" more strictly than the SCOTUS has, those rights can be protected by appealing to the state constitution. That won't be much good if the Feds come for your property, but so far that is still unususal.

Kevin

V the K | June 23, 2005, 2:14pm | #

Hydroman --- It was the left-liberals on the court (Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer) who ruled in favor of letting local government confiscate property and give it to Big Business.

Also, it has historically been the Democrat Party that has taken things away from people and giving it to a favored class. Andrew Jackson (Democrat) drove Indians out of the southest to benefit settlers and plantation owners. Antebellum and Jim Crow Era southern Democrats took freedom and labor from Africans to benefit those same plantation owners.

Eric the .5b | June 23, 2005, 2:15pm | #

In addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to “build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London,” id., at 92, the plan was also designed to make the City more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park."

Good to know that our inalienable rights will be violated for absolutely nothing less vital than pork.

The Great Ape | June 23, 2005, 2:18pm | #

I can't decide which has been a blacker day - today, the day the Court upheld McCain-Feingold, or the day the upheld federal jurisdiction over medical marijuana. Truly, the American experiment in government via a Constitutional republic is dead.

Let's just blend it all into "The Second Dark Ages" for the purposes of the history books. I'm seeing many similarities.

RandyAyn | June 23, 2005, 2:18pm | #

For some reason I just started thinking about the cover of the album "The Royal Scam" by Steely Dan. A tramp flops on a park bench underneath enormous buildings which have become raging animals at war with one another.

We are that tramp. Those buildings are the powers which control our lives, over which we ourselves have no control. We close our eyes and sleep, fearful of what we might encounter should we awaken.

Let us read from the Book of Steely Dan:

And they wandered in
From the city of St. John
Without a dime
Wearing coats that shined
Both red and green
Colors from their sunny island
From their boats of iron
They looked upon the promised land
Where surely life was sweet
On the rising tide
To New York City
Did they ride into the street

See the glory
Of the royal scam

They are hounded down
To the bottom of a bad town
Amid the ruins
Where they learn to fear
An angry race of fallen kings
Their dark companions
While the memory of
Their southern sky was clouded by
A savage winter
Every patron saint
Hung on the wall, shared the room
With twenty sinners

See the glory
Of the royal scam

By the blackened wall
He does it all
He thinks he's died and gone to heaven
Now the tale is told
By the old man back home
He reads the letter
How they are paid in gold
Just to babble in the back room
All night and waste their time
And they wandered in
From the city of St. John without a dime

See the glory
Of the royal scam

metalgrid | June 23, 2005, 2:20pm | #

I fail to see what the big deal is. The SCOTUS is basically allowing each state to do it's own thing with regards to how it handles private property. If you don't want your state to pull shit like this, your legislature is the place to address it.

Shouldn't all you states rights people be praising this?

Ira Weatheral | June 23, 2005, 2:22pm | #

I like the idea of going to the steps of the SC and throwing up, maybe on copies of the ruling.

I'd actually do that, it's only a 4 hour drive!

Instead of a million man march, it could be the Hundred Thousand Hurl!

Eric the .5b | June 23, 2005, 2:23pm | #

Metalgrid - look into the 14th Amendment.

ChrisO | June 23, 2005, 2:26pm | #

I'm sure those leftist devotees of stare decisis on the Supreme Court think that Brown v. Board of Education is illegitimate, and that separate really is equal. After all, the Brown court had no right to overturn Plessy. :)

I'm not surprised by the Kelo decision--I used to do work on Takings issues, and the Public Use Clause has been a judicial dead letter for decades. The appetite of government is insatiable, and the Supreme Court gave up enforcing the Constitution two or three generations ago.

However, if you want to be a pure textualist, you have to support this result, since there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that applies the Bill of Rights to limit the power of state governments--only a dubious extra-constitutional tool known as the "Incorporation Doctrine". I suppose the parallel provision of the Conn. Constitution should prevent private ED abuses in New London, but the U.S. Constitution is, strictly speaking, silent on the issue.

Our constitution dies a little more each day, and with it our republic.

ChrisO | June 23, 2005, 2:28pm | #

The 14th Amendment, which applies to the states, does not contain a Public Use Clause--only the Fifth has that, and only by jury-rigging the 14th Amendment through the Incorporation Doctrine can one arrive at the result of applying the Bill of Rights to the states.

joe | June 23, 2005, 2:28pm | #

Rhwyun,

"Aside from the fact that it's not the government's responsibility to do any of those things" The federal government, maybe, but this plan and these takings were the actions of a local government, which is, in fact, charged with doing that sort of thing.

"the proper response when told that the land is not for sale is "OK, we'll look somewhere else", not "Gimme your land anyway" Ah, the fallacy of assuming that what is proper for the government is what is proper for individuals. Tackling someone and putting handcuffs on him when he won't get into your car by his own volition is not "proper" for individuals, but is proper for government.

"what's to stop new London from simply levelling the town and building nothing but mansions in its place? Doesn't that make the city more "attractive" to other wealthy taxpayers?"

State Constitutions and political pressure.

annonymous | June 23, 2005, 2:31pm | #

>I fail to see what the big deal is. The SCOTUS is basically allowing each state to do it's own thing with regards to how it handles private property. If you don't want your state to pull shit like this, your legislature is the place to address it.

Shouldn't all you states rights people be praising this?

annonymous | June 23, 2005, 2:31pm | #

>I fail to see what the big deal is. The SCOTUS is basically allowing each state to do it's own thing with regards to how it handles private property. If you don't want your state to pull shit like this, your legislature is the place to address it.

Shouldn't all you states rights people be praising this?<

The Supreme Court's opinion rests on the interpretation of the term 'public use' as anything that the government deems as potentially generating more tax revenue that what a property is currently being used for. Kinda reminds you of how, only 2 weeks ago, we learned that 'commerce' means giving certain leaves to another person.

Anyone who holds the quaint belief that the law was meant to be something more than a set of guidelines that clever lawyers can argue around to suit the current political climate should abhor rulings like this.

joe | June 23, 2005, 2:32pm | #

Jason Ligon,

I actually agree with you that the door is left too open in this decision. I was hoping the court would provide more guidance. They left it at a "know it when I see it" doctrine.

V the K | June 23, 2005, 2:33pm | #

So, no whining from Joe when the city seizes the Womyn's Organic Foods Co-Op and Herbal Medicine Center so that Wal-Mart can build a SuperCenter.

joe | June 23, 2005, 2:34pm | #

Evan,

"It's clear that ED was reserved for public infrastructure." No, it is not. The railroads built on taken land were not public infrastructure, but private property.

Evan Williams | June 23, 2005, 2:34pm | #

"Ah, the fallacy of assuming that what is proper for the government is what is proper for individuals. Tackling someone and putting handcuffs on him when he won't get into your car by his own volition is not "proper" for individuals, but is proper for government."

And yet, somehow, giving a private entity authority to forcibly evict another private entity from their own property so that they may take ownership of it against the will of the original property owners, that's "proper"? In what silly-assed world is that a "proper" government action?

Evan Williams | June 23, 2005, 2:39pm | #

"No, it is not. The railroads built on taken land were not public infrastructure, but private property."

Which was ALSo an unjust usage of eminent domain seizure.

joe | June 23, 2005, 2:42pm | #

V the K, as the majority decision states, many states do have higher restrictions on the use of ED than the federal constitution.

RC Dean, "So all you have to do is cobble together a "plan" that is supposed to achieve a variety of nebulous, speculative, and/or subjective outcomes." The Supreme Court held today, and has always held, that judgement calls like this are the proper territory of the legislative branch.

"I know a number of venture capitalists who would wet themselves laughing at a business plan that was as weak as what is described above." The planning document runs to several hundred pages - that's just a statement of its mission, which venture capitalist put out all the time. But somehow I doubt the quality of the plan would make a difference in your judgement, so why are you bringing it up?

Noel | June 23, 2005, 2:42pm | #

OK GUYS...I AM USING CAPS SO YOU WILL READ THIS:
THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE PROPERTY SQUATTERS... AS IN WHEN 99% OF THE AREA HAS BEEN BOUGHT OUT AND A COMPANY IS WAITING ON ONE .25 ACRE 80K LOT THAT THE OWNER IS ASKING 2MILLION DOLLARS FOR... THEY ARE MAKING IT SUCH THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN GIVE THE OWNER THEIR LAND VALUE RATE AND THEN SAY: "LEAVE".

This does not mean that the goverment can come in and take your land whenever they want. They have to have justification and a well thought out WIDELY AGREED UPON PLAN that has been AGREED BY THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

So... take a chill pill... and realize there are no evil plots out to get you. Oh... and stop smoking so much pot... it makes you paranoid (as well... too much caffeine can have similar if not the same paranoia affect.)

So... take yoga... cleanse your body... eat right... and chill out. This whole thing is COMPLETELY misunderstood by the press...

zach | June 23, 2005, 2:43pm | #

hmm, taking private property for the sake of the common good. isn't there a word for this? like "communism" or something?

R C Dean | June 23, 2005, 2:45pm | #

The place wouldn't be the same without joe, no doubt about it.

However, if you want to be a pure textualist, you have to support this result, since there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that applies the Bill of Rights to limit the power of state governments--only a dubious extra-constitutional tool known as the "Incorporation Doctrine".

Oh, I dunno. The takings clause doesn't specify which level of government it applies to, unlike some other provisions of the Bill of Rights ("Congress shall make no law. . . ."). I see no textual reason to limit the takings clause to the federal government, even without the incorporation doctrine.

zach | June 23, 2005, 2:46pm | #

noel, agreed by the local community, but not you. it's not the specific incidence of the case that's got people scared, it's the justification behind it, and the precedent it sets.

in related news, the local community has just agreed to beat the crap out of you. no it's not illegal, or even wrong for that matter, because jeeze, everyone agrees.

Fabius Maximus | June 23, 2005, 2:46pm | #

If the US once again becomes a country where liberty is jealously guarded Kelo and Raich will be seen as analogous to Dred Scott. Stare decisis enabled separate but equal; justice destroyed it. Unfortunately many, many more people will have their property taken to enrich those with political pull before such takings are seen to be unjust.

If not ...

"... in a free government almost all other rights would become worthless if the government possessed power over the private fortune of every citizen." John Marshall was an intelligent man.

Richard R | June 23, 2005, 2:48pm | #

Here in California property taxes are held down by Proposition 13. When you buy a piece of property it's assessed at the purchase price, but as long as you own it the assessment can only go up by a very small amount (1%? Something like that) per year.

In a time when property is increasing at 20-30% per year, people who've had their property for a long time are paying a fraction of what their neighbors pay.

So, lets say a city wants more money (hard to imagine, I know). They form a redevelopment agency, condemn everything in the city, and offer it for sale for the condemnation price. The old owners get first crack at it.

The assessment goes up to current fair market value, the city gets LOTS more money. The SC has ruled that increasing taxes is "public use." Of course, the old people on fixed incomes get the shaft, but we didn't want them living here anyway.

What do you think?

Eric the .5b | June 23, 2005, 2:49pm | #

They have to have justification and a well thought out WIDELY AGREED UPON PLAN that has been AGREED BY THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

I could say, "Um, no, Noel. You see, there are these people called "bureaucrats" who work in government "agencies" who are not elected by the people and who don't have to get popular approval for a plan they approve...", or in the case of elected officials, explain the difference between "community" and "politicians".

But why bother?

joe | June 23, 2005, 2:49pm | #

Evan, good on you. To be consistent, you actually do have to go all the way back to the railroads, and even further back to the laws allowing mill owners to flood their neighbors' lands, in order to object to public purpose takings.

V or K,

"So, no whining from Joe when the city seizes the Womyn's Organic Foods Co-Op and Herbal Medicine Center so that Wal-Mart can build a SuperCenter."

There will be enormous amounts of whining. I would whine about the legitimacy of the public purpose in front of the appropriate venues, and wisdom of the plan in front of the city council.

Finally, stare decis is, as others have noted, not an eternal absolute. It is, however, to be violated rarely, with caution, and only when there is dire necessity.

R C Dean | June 23, 2005, 2:50pm | #

Kinda reminds you of how, only 2 weeks ago, we learned that 'commerce' means giving certain leaves to another person.

Its worse than that. We learned last week that interstate commerce is involved when someone grows a plant and then burns that plant, all on their own property.

NOEL - NOWHERE DOES THE OPINION LIMIT EMINENT DOMAIN TO THE SITUATION YOU DESCRIBE. In fact, eminent domain is used all the time to seize all or most of the land used in large projects like stadiums, not just the last few parcels. Oh, and OWNERS BY DEFINITION CAN'T BE "SQUATTERS".

Fabius | June 23, 2005, 2:50pm | #

Uhh ... make that Plessy. Don't know what I'm thinking today.

Yeah, and I'm so slow others already made my point.

RandyAyn | June 23, 2005, 2:52pm | #

For:

"WIDELY AGREED UPON PLAN that has been AGREED BY THE LOCAL COMMUNITY"

substitute:

PRIVATELY NEGOTIATED PLAN that has been INSTITUTED BETWEEN DEVELOPERS AND CORRUPT CITY OFFICIALS

Just correcting a few grammatical errors, Noel.

V the K | June 23, 2005, 2:53pm | #

They have to have justification and a well thought out WIDELY AGREED UPON PLAN that has been AGREED BY THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

In other words, four wolves and a sheep get to vote on who's for dinner.

kevrob | June 23, 2005, 2:54pm | #

Shouldn't all you states rights people be praising this? - metalgrid

If you find some "states' righters" around here, `grid, tell then to listen up. States don't have rights, PEOPLE do! The fondness we libertarians have for the tenth amendment, and even moreso for the ninth, is about properly delineating the enumerated powers of the various levels of government, as set against the rights of the people. Sometimes we have deposited a power with the Federal government, sometimes with the states, sometimes a bit with both, and sometimes we reserve a power so that no level of govt. can muck with our rights. In Kelo we had hoped that the Feds would have interpreted "public use" more strictly than the states and feds have recently. Nothing in that