When the government decides who owns what

A great day for big government

from JoeUser Forums

So now local authorities can unilaterally confiscate private property from one citizen to give to another citizen.  That's according to the US Supreme court in a narrow 5 to 4 ruling.  Not surprising, the 5 votes in favor of the ruling come from the left.  After all, the best run country is the one in which the central government assigns each of us to our allotted duties. A central government that decides where we live, how we work, how we live, and where we can go.

Okay, maybe that's reading more into the decision that the case merits. But consider the logical conclusion of this case -- local governments can now evict someone from their property and hand it over to another based on the local government's own criteria of what is good for society.  Anyone who has had to deal with local governments for any length of time can cringe collectively.  If you think national politics are mean-spirited, petty, and arbitrary, you should see what local politics looks like.  If you think federally elected politicians -- senators, representatives, the President are fools, idiots, corrupt, or just useless, then you should see the pieces of work that sit on many local councils.  And now these people will have the right to evict property holders if they so choose.

One can imagine the scenarios that could potentially play out.  One local government decides they want to rezone vast swaths of their community to be something completely new and different. So they invite some investors and start kicking out the people who inconveniently happen to live and work on this land. 

Here in Canton Michigan, they're trying to build a new urban "Cherry Hill Village" complete with a theater, shops, etc.  Unfortunately, it's too far from where people live so things aren't going so well.  If only they had built this new urban area closer to where people live.  Like say 5 miles east where there's a lot of new development, big houses, and near the highway.  Oh, but wait, there's a few square miles of older homes in that perfect spot.  No problem, just kick those people out. Out out you go. We have various chain restaurants and stores that need to go in.

And that's not even the worse scenarios.  One can imagine some personal disputes between private citizens and elected local officials in some rural area where the elected official gets his revenge by rezoning the land his opponent lives on for commercial use -- a perfect place for Walmart or Starbucks. Obviously I don't think these scenarios are likely to be widespread, but it wouldn't surprise me to see some incidents of this. 

The state should not have the right to take away the land of one citizen to give to another. This is supposed to be one of the founding principles of our country.  Consider that in the Declaration of Independence the colonists were ripped that British Soldiers were being housed in the homes of colonists.  They were ripped enough about it that it was put into the constitution.  And yet now, the state can do much worse, they can just take away the house entirely and turn it into a barracks (and they could before but now the bar has been lowered so much that if you can take away land from the Johnsons to give to Starbucks then certainly you can take away property from them to give to the US military..).

This is definitely not a shining day in our nation's history.

politics
11,133 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not to mention the enormous incentive that big business will now have to bribe Joe Shmoe on the local council. ... you know, the swing vote guy. Thanks, Supreme Court.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
So Brad, you thought three articles on this wasn't enough?
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sadly, I don't think that this decision was really about the power to take the land, was it? I think it was more of a state's/local rights thing as to who has oversight. They decided that basically no one could trump local authority.

Maybe nitpicky on my part, but what should be addressed isn't who decides, but the power to take land at all should be revoked entirely. Sure, it would mean curvy roads and oft-aborted local projects, but dammit either the property belongs to us, or it doesn't.

As it stands we are all basically tenants. We rent the land, and can be evicted at will. If we don't pay our property tax our landlord comes and kicks us out. If the landlord wants to rent to someone else, now he can kick us out.

I don't think the flaw is really at what level we can be kicked of our land, rather that we can be kicked off it at all.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The constitution does not give the state the right to transfer private property from one private citizen to another.  Eminient domain was supposed to stop at things like roads (and even that was a pretty big concession).  The slippery slope advocates will be able to point to this situation for years.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW, Iconoclast, what you did was copy and paste CNN's article to your blog.  I haven't seen any significant JoeUser created editorial on this issue.  So from my vantage point, it's not 3 articles on this issue, this is the first article I've read on JU that was actually written here as opposed to basically copying and pasting from somewhere else (though PJ's has some).
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I haven't seen any significant JoeUser created editorial on this issue.


Can't the editorial be in the discussions of people who reply?

it's not 3 articles on this issue


Then what are they?

All of the important points you've made have already been made in the other articles. Everything else here is just your opinion. I gave my opinion succintly in the sub-title.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
And no, three articles on this issue is definitely not enough.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm with PJ - 3 articles aren't enough and iconclast, original writing always beats out copy/paste.  Technically, I should probably remove iconclast's "articl"e since it violates CNN's copyright.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
With "this" kind of BS going on, I'm siding with BRAD and PJ. NO 3 articles are NOWHERE near enough!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
This kind of the thing has been going on for years, though. Look into what happened when TVA decided to build Tellico Reservior in Tennessee.

People were dragged, kicking and screaming from their homes to make way for a huge lake and dam to generate electricity. Hurray for progress, right?

Hmm, well, oddly enough the lake didn't end up being quite as big as the planners had expected *cough*. There was all these thouands of acres of lake-front property left over just sitting there. After much feigned discussion, it ended up being managed by its own entity, and turned into wealthy gated golf communities.

It has been decades and they still haven't gotten done developing it yet. I saw Eric Estrada on Tv the other night selling lots there on an informercial. In the end, most of this eminent domain crap always ends up being an excuse for private profit. Whether it is pork projects given to develop by cronies or out-and-out theft, it should never be done.

All the local politician has to do is make a teary-eyed speech about building a library for orphans, get the funding, and his cousin larry makes a fortune building the thing, a sizable amount of which ends up back in the pocket of our politician. Five years later they close it because it doesn't get enough visitors. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Our system was designed in the hope that no one person could manipulate it like that. That's why we have checks and balances. The court today made a horrendous situation that much worse, but it was horrendous to begin with.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
3 articles aren't enough


Ok. Point taken. Sorry.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently this is not new.

Link
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Eminent Domain has its place. I think this is taking it too far. Way too far.

A good case for eminent domain is happening in our neighbor city (we are divided by a river so it is pretty much one big town). Through poor city planning, they were faced with a train issue. A single railroad track crosses the two major east west roads and two tracks cut off a section of town in the north and the south. This has posed a major problem for emergency vehicles. We have a major depot for Kansas City Southern RR here. The project to build an overpass so that emergency vehicles could reach all areas wasn't easy. The local cable provider didn't want to give up some really good property. They were forced to give in. In the end the private citizen was not forced to move it was a matter of safety over business.

To allow people to be forced out to provide economic growth is not what eminent domain is about. This is just wrong.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
In Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the government used eminent domain to tear down a number of houses that would readily be conceded as eyesores, and in some cases, as hazardous (some of these houses had railroad tracks crossing through their front yards...I'd be VERY concerned about living there, personally). The problem? This street (about 4 blocks long) was turned over to a PRIVATE developer (for $1) to build apartment complexes. Now, to be fair, the law DID require him to reserve a percentage of the apartments for low income families, BUT...my contention is that "public interest" would have been better served by helping the owners to either repair the properties or, in the case of abandoned properties, turning them over to nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity that assist low income families in home ownership.

The concept of eminent domain isn't flawed at the core; but the common practice of the law is GREATLY flawed; especially when it allows for seizure of private property for the profit of the wealthy.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
well put brad, again my lack of command of the english language shows how poorly, my articles stack up against good writers.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
The idea of people/property belonging to the state is a key concept in a socialist society; this decision only underscores my thesis that we effectively LOST the cold war by assimilating socialist thought into American politics.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

The concept of eminent domain isn't flawed at the core; but the common practice of the law is GREATLY flawed; especially when it allows for seizure of private property for the profit of the wealthy.

The use of ED, when it is truly for public use (i.e. anyone and everyone can benefit) is a necessary part of living in society.  Grabbing land for private use based upon one man's opinion of benefits is akin to why we fought a war 230 years ago.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, I have to disagree with the idea that eminent domain has a place in a capitalistic, free-market society. We go way beyond in terms of government ownership of state and national parks and reserves already. The government owns huge amounts of national resources.

Eminent domain just proves that we really can't own anything in the US. We rent it with our property taxes until such time the government decides someone else should have it. Without eminent domain, they would have no such tool. With it, all that is needed is tweaking the already-existing power.

Take the power away from them entirely. If you want to live in Star Trek land where the 'greater good' steamrollers the individual, great, but that is not my definition of freedom or liberty or private ownership of property. It's facetious to claim that you are free and that you live in a capitalist society when the government can waltz in and take your home or business to build a railroad.

The kind of oppression we face in the US today is vastly worse than the oppression imposed upon us by Britain, which made us form this nation in the first place, and we feed that oppression with all this talk of 'the greater good', whining for the government to help us and wanting it so badly we give them the power to oppress us.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
The use of ED, when it is truly for public use (i.e. anyone and everyone can benefit) is a necessary part of living in society. Grabbing land for private use based upon one man's opinion of benefits is akin to why we fought a war 230 years ago.


You put it FAR better than I could.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is disturbing. Yes I agree that property rights are one of the distinguishing points were part of the american culture. From property rights came capitalism and free enterprise. Take away this and the foundation will begin to crumble. It is sad how Orwellian things have become.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

You put it FAR better than I could.

Coming from you, that is indeed high praise.  Thank you.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
hmmm... just in time for that new Super Highway that Texas is building, and in New York the downtown Brooklyn staduim as well as the new extention for Javitts in Manhatten.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
staduim = stadium..

Also... just wondering how exaclty would some projects like transportation, building projects and such get built if there is no way to reclaim the land?

I wonder if this taking of land is just that i.e. we take it and don't pay you for it (with interest and a small profit)? Are they just taking land and just saying get off of it without paying for you to move, buying you land from you, and giving you a reasonable profit as if it was you who was selling it?

hmmmm....
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
The part that is constantly overlooked is that even when the property ends up in the hands of the government, they can do whatever they like with it thereafter. In addition, the government doesn't really build anything. They hire contractors for work like this, PRIVATE contractors most often, who make millions building these "projects".

So, dishonest government officials can steal, yes STEAL, property from individuals, and make millions in government money making these projects. Many times they end up being a stadium or industrial infrastructure to benefit private industry?

Your cronies need a job? Steal some property and build something for "the public interest". Your cronies need a new 4-lane leading to their factory? Steal the property and build a road for them. Your cronies want a new factory but don't want to spend money buying land? Then steal the property, do all the preparation at government expese, and then "lease" the property to them for a pittance.

We need to stop the practice entirely.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have none to blame but ourself.We all sit idly by and watch as our fedral state and local governments draft law after law designed to control us. While defileing our constitutional rights.Think of the word CONTRIVE: to think up; devise, manage, to control.Buck up folks it's
gonna get alot worse!! Here is a passage from a song by a rock group called RUSH some Canadian fellows.I think it personifies where were heading in the good old USA. It goes:
We've taken care of everything the words you read the songs you sing,the pictures that bring pleasure to your eyes.One for all all for one, work together common sons, never need to wonder how or why.