13 Nov

sd

                                       

[DELETED BY AUTHOR]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, November 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
| 126 views

21 Responses to sd

  1. Chris Knight says: 1

    WORST decision by the Supreme Court in at least fifty years! This is where we most brazenly began the slide toward sociali… no, excuse me, NATIONAL socialism!

    If that connotation scares the hell out of ya, then good. It’s *supposed* to.

    ReplyReply
  2. Hard Right says: 2

    It’s for the good of the people, so it’s ok. Where else have we heard that as of late?

    By the same logic, couldn’t I whack the local drug dealer and escape punishment?

    ReplyReply
  3. Pingback: Tweets that mention Abuse of Eminent Domain Results in Nothing But Vacant Lots -- Topsy.com

  4. Robin says: 3

    You know, I’m kind of tired of the Supreme Court bashing about this issue. The Court ruled that Connecticut had the right to determine it’s own eminent domain laws. If the people of Connecticut want to change their state laws, they have that right.
    It did not rule that the “State” can take what it wants for whatever reason. The Kelo decision was actually in the spirit of the 10th Amendment. Bottom line: Local and state laws are the responsibility of local and state voters, NOT the federal government.

    ReplyReply
  5. Chris Knight says: 4

    @Robin:

    Per that argument, the Supreme Court was justified in supporting the state’s Tenth Amendment rights over the people’s Fifth Amendment rights.

    Seems more than a little wonky to me.

    ReplyReply
  6. Robin says: 5

    I understand your point, but I believe you are mistaken. The “due process” in the Kelo case was observed. Unfortunately, the eminent domain “process” in Connecticut, while unfair, was observed to the letter of the law. The Court’s point was that if the state statutes are unfair it is up to the voters and legislators of Connecticut to correct the error. The federal government, under the Constitution, is prohibited from interfering with the internal processes and laws of a state. Changing state law is the correct answer; not bringing in the federal government.

    ReplyReply
  7. B-Rob says: 6

    The requirement is that the government use the land for a government purpose and give fair compensation when taking land. It is unfortunate that the development did not happen. But do you think that the years of ultimately futile litigation, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, had SOMETHING to do with the project failing to meet its objective? And what was the objective again? I remember now: enhance the town’s tax base so that YOU CAN KEEP INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY TAXES LOWER and maintain services.

    You could turn the Kelo argument on its head and point out that it is a typical plaintiff’s lawyer litigation abuse. Especially since no one has ever explained why the taking in Kelo was any different than taking land to make way for a railroad, which is where the takings cases were rooted in the first place. In that sense, Kelo was an easy decision; just apply the railroad cases. But the case had resonance with wingnuts because of the “little old lady” factor.

    But weren’t we supposed to expect judges to “calll balls and strikes” and not be concerned whether the property owner was a sympathetic little old lady, or a business (like the garage in Toledo, Ohio that was taken to builg a Chrysler plant)? Weren’t the judges supposed to just apply the law and NOT be concerned about the politics of the decision? If that is the standard, then Kelo was obviously decided correctly. Yet here we are, years after the fact, and cons are STILL claiming Kelo, which had its roots in decisions from the 1850s, was wrongly decided because . . . well, just because!

    I guess it would be asking too much to expect consistency from the right . . . the same people who swear government can do no right when it comes to health care decisions (which will cause people to die because of “death panels”), but who trust that same government to put together “death panels” that work in capital punishment cases.

    ReplyReply
  8. KathyP says: 7

    Similar situation in Norwood, Ohio (Cincinnati) played out here. An entire neighborhood was declared blighted, when it was clearly not. Most property owners sold out to the shopping center developer, but several did not. Eventually, a lone property owner prevailed in the Ohio Supreme Court. But by that time, there was only one house standing within a chain-link fenced in area. Even if you win, you lose. The shopping center has yet to see the first shovel of dirt.

    ReplyReply
  9. B-Rob says: 8

    “Eventually, a lone property owner prevailed in the Ohio Supreme Court.”

    How many millions in attorneys fees did the developer and the city spend to fight that case? How many new jobs would the mall have created? How much in increased tax receipts on income and property taxes? If today’s con fetishization of Ms. Kelo had been around in the 1850s, would we EVER have had a single railroad built? What about the interstate highway system in the 1950s and 60s? Would a single new road have been built? Probably not.

    The truth is, yes, it is a “collectivist” position to see the big picture and support eminent domain. But whether you are talking about the historic doctrine of “adverse possession”, or the government’s need to have access to the seashore for military purposes, there is a need to have a mechanism for collectivising real estate, or putting it to a higher use that the original owner might intend. Come to think of it . . . isn’t that what was done when we took Indian land, subdivided it, then parcelled it out to ranchers and farmers?

    ReplyReply
  10. I see B-Rob is coming out of the lib closet and openly supporting the destruction of middle class and lower income families all for the sake of big government/big money interests.

    Thanks for proving my point that is really conservatives who truly care about the rights of the little guy.

    ReplyReply
  11. Pingback: Chew on this: China turns on the charm edition « Chockblock’s blog

  12. Mr. Irons says: 10

    What has been done and will be done by those seeking a private business investment by siezure of lands not in their rightful ownership is horrible no matter of the, “economical” bonuses of this behavior might bring (which is never.) This sort of thought process of forcing people off lands that is not used for public government projects, as in highways or infrastructure, but used for private business agendas will further add to a growing idea within legal American Citizens to revolt against their leadership via voting power be it discharging of leadership within that State or mass exodus from that State and commencing a starvation of State Revenue and potential labor forces.

    ReplyReply
  13. Robin says: 11

    I beg to differ. Sometimes it actually works. I live near the “Legends” just west of Kansas City. There was a lot of arguments just like yours that were wrong. The Legends is now considered a huge success by everyone involved; even the people that argued against it. It brought thousands of jobs and the quality of life in the area has improved dramatically. From an average residentail area to an economic powerhouse in just 4 years!
    Not every case of eminent domain for commercial development is bad. Just the government authorities and legislators making bad decisions.

    ReplyReply
  14. Mr. Irons says: 12

    I live in Kansas, and that deal between the land owners and the zoning is hardly within the same page as mass forcing of people off property for a private developer to do as they see fit. The State and Local City Governments acted as a mediator group between current land owners and those seeking to purchase the land. In the case of Legends, it is no different than BeechCraft seeking to purchase surrounding land plots to build a new runway and then landowners fighting what was the offers from Beechcraft from the appraisals for the land. In both of these situations, the owners actually contested the value of the land plots involved versus the appraisals and not the Government eviction from their homes.

    ReplyReply
  15. Madalyn says: 13

    I’m from the Government and I’m here to help HHHAAAA HAAAAHHHAAAAA HAAAA!
    madalyn

    ReplyReply
  16. Timothy says: 14

    This is an enviromentalist’s wet dream.

    –Corp wants some “Cap-n-Trade” street cred.
    –Whacks a few land owners under the guise of “developement”.
    –Land owners leave.
    –Land goes wild.
    –Land is donated to Seirra Club.
    –Corp gets kudos.

    BRILLIANT!!!!

    ReplyReply
  17. Timothy says: 15

    and Robin,

    Your “finger waging” (putting blame on the CT legislature) was a nice touch. It’s like a burgler (SCOTUS), stealing the HDTV, then blaming the house owners (CT legislature) for not having adequate locks. In your view, it’s a “blame the victim” mentality.

    The idea of using eminent domain, to bolster tax revenues and screw landowners, is most repulsive. Eminent domain has a triditional use in times of war, national defense or key national infrastructure projects. This smacks more of cronism.

    I can only guess that certain CT state politicos are enjoying increased campaign contributions and kickbacks out of this.

    ReplyReply
  18. Robin says: 16

    Timothy,
    Please read the Federalists Papers and re-read the Constitution before you make such an ignorant statement and analogy. It is evident that you haven’t studied the Constitution nor the intent behind its formulation. The Constitution was founded on non-interference in local issues. It has been morphed into some sort of invitation to meddle.
    Mr. Irons,
    I concede to you. Although I live less than 7 miles from Legends and the situation you described occurred less than 1/2 mile from my house, it is evident that you are much more informed than I am. I only attended the City Coucil meetings about the issue so it is not possible for me to defeat your arguments. Kudos to you!!

    ReplyReply
  19. yonason says: 17

    I’m guessing that case wasn’t about getting that particular property, but to establish the president. Now that it’s on the books, they can use it with impunity.

    ReplyReply
  20. Mr. Irons says: 18

    Sitting at the City Council proves nothing if you did not review the finalized paperworks and the legal papers over the matters. Legends, as in the same line as Beechcraft, sat forth an ammount of money to purchase the lands based on apprasials. By your own logic, the meetings you so attended should have been about the unlawful Government eviction of people from their homes. This did not happen within the legal battles that had happened. What happened was people were willing to sell their lands, just not at the appraisal rating the businesses were buying them for. In case of Beechcraft, an indepdendent firm was brought in to do a second appraisal of the land value of each plot they were seeking to buy. In the case of Legends, the business sought to bid for land from the land owners (not home owners, different matter) and the appraisal ratings at which Legends wanted to buy at was below actual value of the land worth by State audits and private firms. Home Owners generaly don’t always own the land their house sits on if they belong to a Housing development, the firm which allocated the land for the House does in certain legal contracts. But even with that little piece of tidbit, the land owners still have to repurchase the house back at the most current appraisal rate to even have an eviction notice. And being from Kansas, I can tell you people greatly mis-understand things or go with personal opinions as facts versus what was the legal documentations that detail what went on. Yes you went to the meetings, but were you allowed to the private court hearings?

    I suggest you also re-read your Federalist papers Robin, under the papers the Government can aqcuire the lands of a private owner if and only if it rightfuly purchases the lands from the owner. In the situation of Legends and Beechcraft, the State and City Government ensured that a private buyer had to buy at a fair market value. In the case of CT’s Phizfer situation, it was a different situation all together where the Government first attempted to purchase homes far under property appraisal ratings and home owners who refused to sell were labeled as blight and were evicted by Government force.

    ReplyReply
  21. Pingback: Real Estate News, Opinion, and Commentary: The Gambit of Eminent … | Montgomery County NY Real Estate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site