Supreme Court says your house is theirs
06-23-2005, 04:49 PM
#21
I think the concern is that the powers be may make decisions based soley on potential positive economic gain for the wealthy developers in conjunction with the city officials who have vested interest in pursuing this. Logical conclusion is that private homeowners are powerless to do anything about it if I am understanding this properly.
06-23-2005, 05:31 PM
#22
This article expressed exactly how I feel about this:
June 23, 2005
Report from the Front
One Giant Leap Toward Fascist America
Edward Hudgins
Executive Director
The Objectivist Center
ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org
The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing a local government to kick out of the house in which she was born 87 year old Wilhelmina Dery and her husband who has lived there with her for 60 years. Why? Because the government wants to seize their property, bulldoze theirs and many other houses and to sell the land to other businesses and developers for private uses. While one must take great care in choosing words in political discussions, one must not mince them either. This decision in the Kelo vs. New London case is another giant step towards classical corporatism or fascism in America.
In this case the city council of New London, Connecticut decided to condemn and take the homes and businesses of a number of citizens, including the Derys and Susette Kelo, who filed the case, in the name of economic development. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows governments to take property by eminent domain, as long as just compensation is paid, but only for public uses. These uses have always been understood to mean for necessary government-provided infrastructure such as courthouses or roads.
Otherwise property should be sacrosanct. Individuals, businesses or governments might seek to purchase it, but if the owner does not wish to sell, that is his or her right -- repeat -- right, meaning one need not secure the permission or blessing of one's neighbors, government or "society" in order to own property.
But in recent decades politicians have become more brazen in their elitist attempts to remodel our lives and communities. They more and more have welded the eminent domain sword to seize private homes and enterprises in order to turn them over to different businesses or developers that they believe will use the property in ways that are better for the community.
Now the Supreme Court has undermined fundamental private property rights by ruling, in effect, that governments can pretty much seize property for any reason they see fit.
Thus we have a situation in which, unlike under socialism, individuals can still hold title to their own property. But unlike under a free market system, they do not own their property by right. They hold it at the discretion of political authorities who can yank it away at a whim. This is the economic principle of the classical corporatist or fascist regime.
To call it corporatist or fascist is no mere epithet. It designates a system in which the veneer of property rights is maintained but in which political authorities have extensive powers to limit rights in the name of economic planning. This system by necessity means that the normal state of affairs is political conflict -- either out in the open in elections and legislation or behind closed doors with lobbyists and politicians making deals. It means that no one's property is truly secure.
Some pundits complain that Americans are too apathetic about politics. Yet in a corporatist regime everyone will be politically involved but for all the wrong reasons. Many individuals, whether through misplaced idealism, pandering paternalism or pure predation, will be involved by threaten the liberties of their neighbors while others will be involved in a never-ending battle to defend their lives, liberties and property. Everyone will need to be on guard against their neighbors. Instead of a peaceful society we will have a war of all against all.
Pundits complain that our society has become too nasty and uncivil, with every issue in life becoming a partisan political battle. That is the nature of our corporatist system and the Supreme Court's Kelo decision stokes the fires of conflict right down to the grass roots level.
What are the Derys and Ms. Kelo to think about their city council persons? What are they to think about their neighbors who fail to stand up for their property rights by denouncing these politicians, shunning them like the plague and voting them out of office? The only moral feelings they can have are resentment, and a sense of violation and deep injustice.
The Kelo decision is a wakeup call for the restoration the property rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to protect the rights of citizens against abuses by state governments, the U.S. House and Senate could pass new civil rights legislation to protect citizens' Fifth Amendment property rights. Congress could limit the scope of eminent domain to narrow public purposes and bar all takings of property for ultimately private uses.
Good fences make good neighbors. The right to private property is the cornerstone of any peaceful and prosperous society that respects the rights of the individual. In this battle there can be no fence-sitters; there's no better case than the Kelo's to demonstrate that property rights are civil rights.
June 23, 2005
Report from the Front
One Giant Leap Toward Fascist America
Edward Hudgins
Executive Director
The Objectivist Center
ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org
The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing a local government to kick out of the house in which she was born 87 year old Wilhelmina Dery and her husband who has lived there with her for 60 years. Why? Because the government wants to seize their property, bulldoze theirs and many other houses and to sell the land to other businesses and developers for private uses. While one must take great care in choosing words in political discussions, one must not mince them either. This decision in the Kelo vs. New London case is another giant step towards classical corporatism or fascism in America.
In this case the city council of New London, Connecticut decided to condemn and take the homes and businesses of a number of citizens, including the Derys and Susette Kelo, who filed the case, in the name of economic development. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows governments to take property by eminent domain, as long as just compensation is paid, but only for public uses. These uses have always been understood to mean for necessary government-provided infrastructure such as courthouses or roads.
Otherwise property should be sacrosanct. Individuals, businesses or governments might seek to purchase it, but if the owner does not wish to sell, that is his or her right -- repeat -- right, meaning one need not secure the permission or blessing of one's neighbors, government or "society" in order to own property.
But in recent decades politicians have become more brazen in their elitist attempts to remodel our lives and communities. They more and more have welded the eminent domain sword to seize private homes and enterprises in order to turn them over to different businesses or developers that they believe will use the property in ways that are better for the community.
Now the Supreme Court has undermined fundamental private property rights by ruling, in effect, that governments can pretty much seize property for any reason they see fit.
Thus we have a situation in which, unlike under socialism, individuals can still hold title to their own property. But unlike under a free market system, they do not own their property by right. They hold it at the discretion of political authorities who can yank it away at a whim. This is the economic principle of the classical corporatist or fascist regime.
To call it corporatist or fascist is no mere epithet. It designates a system in which the veneer of property rights is maintained but in which political authorities have extensive powers to limit rights in the name of economic planning. This system by necessity means that the normal state of affairs is political conflict -- either out in the open in elections and legislation or behind closed doors with lobbyists and politicians making deals. It means that no one's property is truly secure.
Some pundits complain that Americans are too apathetic about politics. Yet in a corporatist regime everyone will be politically involved but for all the wrong reasons. Many individuals, whether through misplaced idealism, pandering paternalism or pure predation, will be involved by threaten the liberties of their neighbors while others will be involved in a never-ending battle to defend their lives, liberties and property. Everyone will need to be on guard against their neighbors. Instead of a peaceful society we will have a war of all against all.
Pundits complain that our society has become too nasty and uncivil, with every issue in life becoming a partisan political battle. That is the nature of our corporatist system and the Supreme Court's Kelo decision stokes the fires of conflict right down to the grass roots level.
What are the Derys and Ms. Kelo to think about their city council persons? What are they to think about their neighbors who fail to stand up for their property rights by denouncing these politicians, shunning them like the plague and voting them out of office? The only moral feelings they can have are resentment, and a sense of violation and deep injustice.
The Kelo decision is a wakeup call for the restoration the property rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to protect the rights of citizens against abuses by state governments, the U.S. House and Senate could pass new civil rights legislation to protect citizens' Fifth Amendment property rights. Congress could limit the scope of eminent domain to narrow public purposes and bar all takings of property for ultimately private uses.
Good fences make good neighbors. The right to private property is the cornerstone of any peaceful and prosperous society that respects the rights of the individual. In this battle there can be no fence-sitters; there's no better case than the Kelo's to demonstrate that property rights are civil rights.
06-23-2005, 05:48 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milford
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Jun 23 2005, 07:42 PM
.... This happened back in the day when the city didn't really bother to give you the fair value of your property. Our family felt emminent domain should not be allowed for ANY reason, short of civil emergency where a home must be destroyed to stop the spread of fire, for example.
So I ask you, is this simply a step to far for all of you, or are you opposed to the entire concept. ....
So I ask you, is this simply a step to far for all of you, or are you opposed to the entire concept. ....
I understand your points but I think the Supreme Court did a disservice to all citizens by even hearing the case.
I think that eminent domain is flawed in most of it's applications. Whether it is political flavor of the month favor currying or bogus economic redevelopment schemes, eminent domain has been (and continues to be) used to take advantage of people. AM General (makers of HUMMER) wanted to expand it's manufacturing facility outside of South Bend. Instead of making reasonable offers to the property owners in the area, they used their political clout to have the entire area re-zoned/condemned and essentially took the property. This is bullsh1t regardless of your political leanings. I tend to be pro free market and capitalism, but I don't think that the political connections that large corporations enjoy should be used to maximize profits on the backs of citizens.
06-23-2005, 05:48 PM
#24
Registered User
Originally Posted by cordycord,Jun 23 2005, 11:49 AM
...
We're dealing with our local city now regarding the route of a proposed street. Even at the city level, it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to affect any change. In fact, it's quite evident that our local government calls up the developers first to see what THEY want, not the residents.
We're dealing with our local city now regarding the route of a proposed street. Even at the city level, it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to affect any change. In fact, it's quite evident that our local government calls up the developers first to see what THEY want, not the residents.
1. How much money have you given the local politicians in campaign contributions lately?
2. How much money have the developers given the local politicians in campaign contributions lately?
QED
06-23-2005, 05:58 PM
#26
Registered User
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Jun 23 2005, 07:42 PM
...
So I ask you, is this simply a step to far for all of you, or are you opposed to the entire concept. If it is just a step to far, then why is economic revitalization a less worthy goal than roads or public housing?
So I ask you, is this simply a step to far for all of you, or are you opposed to the entire concept. If it is just a step to far, then why is economic revitalization a less worthy goal than roads or public housing?
Yes, I am absolutely opposed to imminent domain when it's used to protect the profit margin of a private developer. A road, reservoir, etc. is at least a public use of the land. Imminent domain because the developer wouldn't make enough profit otherwise is just plain WRONG.
This decision basically says that if I own a modest home in one of the affluent suburbs that are "built out", they can take my home just because someone will tear it down and build a bigger one than I can afford, thus increasing tax revenues. I'm afraid I'm just too redneck to accept that lying down...
06-23-2005, 06:01 PM
#27
Originally Posted by anarky,Jun 23 2005, 09:48 PM
Bill,
I understand your points but I think the Supreme Court did a disservice to all citizens by even hearing the case.
I think that eminent domain is flawed in most of it's applications. Whether it is political flavor of the month favor currying or bogus economic redevelopment schemes, eminent domain has been (and continues to be) used to take advantage of people. AM General (makers of HUMMER) wanted to expand it's manufacturing facility outside of South Bend. Instead of making reasonable offers to the property owners in the area, they used their political clout to have the entire area re-zoned/condemned and essentially took the property. This is bullsh1t regardless of your political leanings. I tend to be pro free market and capitalism, but I don't think that the political connections that large corporations enjoy should be used to maximize profits on the backs of citizens.
I understand your points but I think the Supreme Court did a disservice to all citizens by even hearing the case.
I think that eminent domain is flawed in most of it's applications. Whether it is political flavor of the month favor currying or bogus economic redevelopment schemes, eminent domain has been (and continues to be) used to take advantage of people. AM General (makers of HUMMER) wanted to expand it's manufacturing facility outside of South Bend. Instead of making reasonable offers to the property owners in the area, they used their political clout to have the entire area re-zoned/condemned and essentially took the property. This is bullsh1t regardless of your political leanings. I tend to be pro free market and capitalism, but I don't think that the political connections that large corporations enjoy should be used to maximize profits on the backs of citizens.
There's no good behind eminent domain these days. Noone ever gets their money out of it - what do you think a public notice of imminent eminent domain does to market value? That's how the local govt gets your property for a song. Noone else wants it, and you have no choice about selling. Market value by definition goes down the tubes.
Don't get me started........
JonasM
06-23-2005, 06:05 PM
#28
Originally Posted by anarky,Jun 23 2005, 09:48 PM
I tend to be pro free market and capitalism, but I don't think that the political connections that large corporations enjoy should be used to maximize profits on the backs of citizens.
(By definition, if you're forced, it's not a free market).
JonasM
06-23-2005, 06:08 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Monica
Posts: 5,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonasM,Jun 23 2005, 02:38 PM
This has been happening for decades at least. Noone hears about it unless it happens to you.
This has been going on for many MANY years.
Eminent Domain was used by the government back in the 1800's to force farmers and ranchers off their land to make room for the railroads.
If the local admini$trator$ felt that it was in the public interest to have the railroad go through their particular piece of property, the poor farmer was $crewed.
At least the folks in this case probably got fair market value for their homes as opposed to those poor ba$tards 150 years ago.
06-23-2005, 06:17 PM
#30
Read "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York" by Robert A. Caro. Not only will it open your eyes to the dangers and abuses of eminent domain but it will open your eyes to the dangers and abuses of urban planners and urban planning left unchecked.