trumptman
02-21-2005, 10:21 PM
Coming Supreme Court Cases (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-garbus21feb21,0,6775860.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will be faced with the following question: Under what conditions, if any, can the government take property from you or your business for the public good? Although the question sounds straightforward enough, its answer will have profound, complex — and terribly important — consequences for the future of American social policy.
High Court Hears Home Seizure (http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-eminentdomain.artfeb20,0,7443845.story?coll=hc-headlines-local)
The Fort Trumbull eminent domain controversy is the most significant Connecticut case to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 40 years, and offers the court its first opportunity in half a century to address the government's power to take private property for economic development.
CNN-Land War (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain/)
A fight by homeowners to save their New London, Connecticut, neighborhood from city officials and private developers -- an important property rights case with an unusual twist -- will reach the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.
At issue is whether governments can forcibly seize homes and businesses, for private economic development. Under a practice known as eminent domain, a person's property may be condemned and the land converted for a greater "public use." It has traditionally been employed to eliminate slums, or to build highways, schools or other public works.
Bye bye Neighborhoods (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.domain20feb20,1,3920584.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true)
It has been almost a generation since the Poletown neighborhood here was demolished to make room for a General Motors Cadillac plant, and in the sprawling factory's vast parking lots and neatly landscaped campus there are no signs of the 1,300 houses, 140 businesses and six churches that were razed or the pitched battle to save one of the city's oldest ethnic enclaves.
The memory of Detroit's Poletown has cropped up instead in communities across the country over the past 20 years, as dozens of municipalities and courts in at least 10 states have relied on a landmark ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court in that fight to justify using the powers of eminent domain for economic revitalization.
Obviously a huge case coming up starting tomorrow. This can affect the ability of governments to take private land for public development.
It is very interesting to note the different take here among the various articles. The LA Times seems to practice some weird contorted slippery-slope reasoning that moves to the government not being able to even regulate work hours or minimum wage.
The most interesting thing for me is that the attempt to limit eminent domain is labeled in many of these articles as a conservative cause. To me the labels are hard to apply at all in this instance. If you support the government seizing an entire neighborhood of homes to give the land and tax breaks to say, a Walmart that is going to be built, is that liberal or conservative. If you oppose the ability to do this should that be liberal or conservative?
I feel that this is a good issue to currently have before the court. In California, most cities have created redevelopment agencies that no longer attempt to just deal with older run down or blighted parts of town. Instead these agencies are often used as a means of bringing in large box retailers and the sale tax dollars that come with them.
The counterargument of course is that without the use of eminent domain, cities will not be able to adapt and change to the needs of a contemporary and growing society. The grabs might be made to enable large private/public partnerships that bring in large stores and big sales tax dollars, but they also serve a public interest in modernizing and insuring services that are necessary for a modern city.
The downside again is well stated here..
Critics counter that municipalities have overstepped their eminent domain powers and subverted the process into a huge corporate giveaway. A 2003 study by the Institute for Justice found that from 1998 through 2002, state and local governments seized or threatened to take more than 10,000 homes and small businesses for private development projects, many with dubious public benefit.
The study mentioned one instance in West Palm Beach County, Fla., where a family's home was condemned so the manager of a planned golf course could live in it. In another case from Lakewood, Ohio, officials designated a neighborhood of colonial homes as "blighted" - one step to begin condemnation proceedings - because the homes had small yards and lacked two-car garages. New plans for the neighborhood called for upscale condominiums and retail shops.
The study singled out Maryland, along with California, Kansas, Michigan and Ohio, as leading other states in the number of private-use condemnations filed in public records. Among cities, Detroit took first place.
How do you think this should be resolved? Sure the burger stand you grew up with on the beach is cute, neighborly and gives a sense of local flavor and community, but can it truly serve the same purpose it did when it was constructed. The new mega-McDonalds that replaces it, likely against the will of the previous owner, serves more people, is modern, and likely brings in a lot more tax dollars, but also contributes the a creating a conformity and sameness about everywhere you go.
Your thoughts and views are welcome,
Nick
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will be faced with the following question: Under what conditions, if any, can the government take property from you or your business for the public good? Although the question sounds straightforward enough, its answer will have profound, complex — and terribly important — consequences for the future of American social policy.
High Court Hears Home Seizure (http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-eminentdomain.artfeb20,0,7443845.story?coll=hc-headlines-local)
The Fort Trumbull eminent domain controversy is the most significant Connecticut case to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 40 years, and offers the court its first opportunity in half a century to address the government's power to take private property for economic development.
CNN-Land War (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain/)
A fight by homeowners to save their New London, Connecticut, neighborhood from city officials and private developers -- an important property rights case with an unusual twist -- will reach the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.
At issue is whether governments can forcibly seize homes and businesses, for private economic development. Under a practice known as eminent domain, a person's property may be condemned and the land converted for a greater "public use." It has traditionally been employed to eliminate slums, or to build highways, schools or other public works.
Bye bye Neighborhoods (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.domain20feb20,1,3920584.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true)
It has been almost a generation since the Poletown neighborhood here was demolished to make room for a General Motors Cadillac plant, and in the sprawling factory's vast parking lots and neatly landscaped campus there are no signs of the 1,300 houses, 140 businesses and six churches that were razed or the pitched battle to save one of the city's oldest ethnic enclaves.
The memory of Detroit's Poletown has cropped up instead in communities across the country over the past 20 years, as dozens of municipalities and courts in at least 10 states have relied on a landmark ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court in that fight to justify using the powers of eminent domain for economic revitalization.
Obviously a huge case coming up starting tomorrow. This can affect the ability of governments to take private land for public development.
It is very interesting to note the different take here among the various articles. The LA Times seems to practice some weird contorted slippery-slope reasoning that moves to the government not being able to even regulate work hours or minimum wage.
The most interesting thing for me is that the attempt to limit eminent domain is labeled in many of these articles as a conservative cause. To me the labels are hard to apply at all in this instance. If you support the government seizing an entire neighborhood of homes to give the land and tax breaks to say, a Walmart that is going to be built, is that liberal or conservative. If you oppose the ability to do this should that be liberal or conservative?
I feel that this is a good issue to currently have before the court. In California, most cities have created redevelopment agencies that no longer attempt to just deal with older run down or blighted parts of town. Instead these agencies are often used as a means of bringing in large box retailers and the sale tax dollars that come with them.
The counterargument of course is that without the use of eminent domain, cities will not be able to adapt and change to the needs of a contemporary and growing society. The grabs might be made to enable large private/public partnerships that bring in large stores and big sales tax dollars, but they also serve a public interest in modernizing and insuring services that are necessary for a modern city.
The downside again is well stated here..
Critics counter that municipalities have overstepped their eminent domain powers and subverted the process into a huge corporate giveaway. A 2003 study by the Institute for Justice found that from 1998 through 2002, state and local governments seized or threatened to take more than 10,000 homes and small businesses for private development projects, many with dubious public benefit.
The study mentioned one instance in West Palm Beach County, Fla., where a family's home was condemned so the manager of a planned golf course could live in it. In another case from Lakewood, Ohio, officials designated a neighborhood of colonial homes as "blighted" - one step to begin condemnation proceedings - because the homes had small yards and lacked two-car garages. New plans for the neighborhood called for upscale condominiums and retail shops.
The study singled out Maryland, along with California, Kansas, Michigan and Ohio, as leading other states in the number of private-use condemnations filed in public records. Among cities, Detroit took first place.
How do you think this should be resolved? Sure the burger stand you grew up with on the beach is cute, neighborly and gives a sense of local flavor and community, but can it truly serve the same purpose it did when it was constructed. The new mega-McDonalds that replaces it, likely against the will of the previous owner, serves more people, is modern, and likely brings in a lot more tax dollars, but also contributes the a creating a conformity and sameness about everywhere you go.
Your thoughts and views are welcome,
Nick