I honestly can’t believe the Supreme Court came to this decision. It’s appalling.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
Redwolf
And folks wonder why some of us support the second amendment…
Yeah, this is quite disturbing. They’ve basically concluded that increasing the tax base is always “for the public good”, even when it means government grabbing private property and selling it to someone else. I really don’t understand this ruling. 
I understand the “principle” of eminent domain. But the reality of it is something else entirely, at least in how it’s been used in this area. In many cases lately, it’s for strip malls, or another WalMart, etc. It also seems that it’s families that have been living in houses (that are well maintained) 30, 40, 50 years or more. Somehow, the local government declares the area “blighted” - then the developer gets to purchase the land for pennies on the dollar.
Meanwhile, we have a “cross county” highway that has been around in bits and pieces for close to 40 years. All but the last 5 or so miles of it was finished 5 years ago. That last 5 miles will NEVER be finished, and it will NEVER be a true cross county road, because those last 5 miles go through the most expensive neighborhood in the county. Think that will ever be taken by eminent domain???
I’ve always been uneasy with the concept of eminent domain, even when it meant using property for true public projects, such as new schools, libraries or roadways (at least partially because, while the local government is required to compensate the property owners, they are not required to pay full value for the property, but only what the government estimators consider to be its “fair value.” Often there’s a huge gap between the compensation paid and what the homeowner could have gotten by offering the home on the market…which also makes it difficult for the homeowner to find another place to live). This takes the cake, however. If a rich developer decides he wants to build a health spa and shopping mall where my home is, the city can seize my home and give it to him. That’s just plain wrong.
Redwolf
O’Connor’s opinion shows a lot of foresight and sense:
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
…
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
Yep… this is what happens in a corporate democracy – the money wins. The US is basically becoming just one big Wal-Mart now.
I never thought I’d see the day when Jack sided with Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist.
I have to agree with the consensus here, at first glance. Disturbing.
Yeah, spooky. I’ve yet to hear of any “Joe Schmoe” homeowner, right or left, who thinks this ruling is a good thing.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners’ property rights, even if the area wasn’t blighted.
jGilder took the words right out of my mouth in his previous post.
Anyone familiar at all with William Gibson’s work? Among his various ideas, he envisioned a global society where corporate entities were the actual powers (with paid military bodies) and government became relegated to a pro forma status, at least by comparison, and in actuality served as a functioning arm of whatever corporate power had the best leverage.
And to think I once thought the “future” would be a cool thing.
Ah, you and your “Star Trek” ideals… welcome to “Bladerunner”.
I’m afraid you may be all too correct.
Notice that O’Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas wanted to use vague and open-ended language in the federal constitution to take away the right of the states to govern their own affairs. But the state rights were protected from this blatant judicial activism by the majority opinion (Stevens, Kennedy, Bader Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer), who basically decided that it is not the role of the federal judiciary to tell the states what they consider public use.
Bloom - I understand your point - but wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to NOT hear the case at all if it was state’s rights that were being protected? By hearing the case, and making a ruling, the SC basically WAS sticking it’s nose in.
But, if a state government decided to make such land grabs illegal in that state, wouldn’t they get overturned in federal court on the basis of today’s ruling?
Call me paranoid, Bloo, but it seems to me that this sort of thing could have happened whether under the aegis of “states’ rights” or not. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that state govenment poses a much more tractable entity than national government, at least when it comes to the lure of the pocket, for the state surely benefits. Not that I’m against states’ rights, mind you. What appears to be happening --to my eye-- is something ultimately outside the state/federal arrangement. I would be highly surprised to learn that corporate influence had nothing to do with the ruling.
Then again, I’m not trained in law or economics. All I know is what it looks like.
You’re right. My feeling on the case is that if you look at the facts of the particular development in New London, the decision arrived at is right. As to the larger implications, of course…
The point of my post is this though: There is this constant brash accusation of the federal courts and the Supreme Court in particular of trampling states rights, of the “liberal” judges being irresponsible, political activists on the bench an all that. Most of those accusations are nonsense in my opinon, and just a smoke screen for political disagreement: If you don’t like the way the Supreme Court came out, its “judicial activism.” But I don’t hear anyone saying: I disagree with the court, I wish the court had been activist here, etc. etc.
Sorry if this is a bit too esoteric for general consumption. Carry on. 
No.
Look: My post was basically a parody of the constant and sickening litany about “activist judges” aiding and abetting the killing of Shiavo, letting the gays hump eachother in Texas, etc etc etc.
Just do me the favor and notice that the court can’t get it right: It’s always going to be criticized by someone or other. Think about that next time someone wants to tell you a scary tale of activist federal judges destroying states rights and selling us out in a million other ways.
BTW: I find that pretty lame of O’Connor to bash “corporate interests.” What are those exactly? That’s just pandering to popular prejudice and sentiment. When exactly is a corporation good and when is it bad? And if it is legal in this country to run and own a corporation, when does it start becoming an evil “corporate interest”? And how many of you have stock of these “corporate interests” in your 401Ks?
Do I sound like Weekenders inside-out, or what? 
Care to elaborate? If a state wanted to make it illegal but a city took the state to court (or vice versa), why couldn’t this ruling be used as precedent to favor the land grab? (Serious question. I’m not very educated in legal matters, so I fully realize I could be asking ignorant questions.)