The W
Views: 99992119
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.07 1123
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - It gets worse for eminent domain victims in New London
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(255 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (6 total)
too-old-now
Bockwurst
Level: 48

Posts: 317/545
EXP: 798904
For next: 24644

Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1299 days
Last activity: 225 days
#1 Posted on 19.8.05 1300.52
Reposted on: 19.8.12 1301.37
I don't know if this'll hold up, either, but I like the line

"Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot."

http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000

Not only did they lose their homes, but they lost them retroactively and may owe back rent.

A friend of mine took a ride through New London recently, and told me the place is pretty much a dump. Most of the rest of the neighborhood has been levelled. Most of the other neighborhoods are old, decaying small houses on tiny lots where poverty runs rampant.

Promote this thread!
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 715/1091
EXP: 2205165
For next: 8944

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2842 days
Last activity: 2570 days
#2 Posted on 19.8.05 1333.13
Reposted on: 19.8.12 1335.16
Trying to collect rent from someone whose property you confiscated takes a lot of nerve. I know it's been a few months since this case was decided, but I still can't believe that anyone, let alone five people supposedly qualified to interpret constitution, could think that taking property for "public use" means giving it to a drug company to "increase the tax base". This is another reason the Court needs Strict Constructionists. Hopefully Judge Roberts will fit that bill.

vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 2018/2042
EXP: 6310517
For next: 82282

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3034 days
Last activity: 248 days
#3 Posted on 19.8.05 1429.44
Reposted on: 19.8.12 1429.45
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I know it's been a few months since this case was decided, but I still can't believe that anyone, let alone five people supposedly qualified to interpret constitution, could think that taking property for "public use" means giving it to a drug company to "increase the tax base".


IIRC, it wasn't so much a case of the SC approving of the action as the SC stating that they really didn't have jurisdiction over the action, i.e. that it was up to local government to determine what constituted a legitimate public purpose for private land, and there wasn't a clear Constitutional basis for overriding local government's decisions about that.

Not that it doesn't suck.

The buyouts being based on 2000 rates is state law, according to the article, so there's not much they can do about that. The back rent demand, on the other hand, is as clear of a "fuck you" from the state to the defendants as could possibly be delivered. It's "you delayed our project for four years, so we'll hit you where it hurts" spite money, and what's worse is that depending on how state law is set up, it may well hold up legally.

BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 716/1091
EXP: 2205165
For next: 8944

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2842 days
Last activity: 2570 days
#4 Posted on 19.8.05 1622.37
Reposted on: 19.8.12 1629.02
    Originally posted by vsp
    IIRC, it wasn't so much a case of the SC approving of the action as the SC stating that they really didn't have jurisdiction over the action, i.e. that it was up to local government to determine what constituted a legitimate public purpose for private land, and there wasn't a clear Constitutional basis for overriding local government's decisions about that.


I don't think that's the case. The 5th Amendment (applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment) says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The question to be decided was whether the public use clause would allow the actions of the city, namely transferring property through eminent domain from one private entity to another. Obviously the majority took an overly broad view of that clause and ruled that expanding a city's tax base qualified as "public use", essentially removing any effect the clause has.

Even better is that Justice Stevens said that the "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." Apparently it's illogical to think that giving people's homes to a drug company is not what the Constitution means by "public use". Good to know.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 3267/5403
EXP: 27162137
For next: 690603

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 21.8.05 2230.16
Reposted on: 21.8.12 2237.11
While I disagree as well with the way the Court looked at this ruling, I'm not sure that the Strict Constructionist approach necessarily would be against this ruling. After all, a lot of what those folks who complain about activist judges and their ilk harp on is the continued deterioration of the 10th Amendment. It seems to me that the ruling that this is something to be decided on a local level, that each community can determine its own standards for "public use", would fit neatly into the Federalist Society line of thinking.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 721/1091
EXP: 2205165
For next: 8944

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2842 days
Last activity: 2570 days
#6 Posted on 21.8.05 2303.30
Reposted on: 21.8.12 2307.21
I don't see how that's the case. The 10th Amendment ensures that the national government is one of limited, expressed powers and that powers not given to the national government are retained by the states (i.e. legalizing or not legalizing abortion). It doesn't give the local gov't the authority to make an end-run around clear constitutional protections. SCOTUS ruled on whether the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment was violated by the town and said not that it wasn't applicable to the states but rather that it hadn't been violated by the states.

(edited by BigSteve on 22.8.05 0004)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: How can Yahoo justify this?
Next thread: Oil Solutions?
Previous thread: Israel's Shrinkage
(255 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - It gets worse for eminent domain victims in New LondonRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.183 seconds.