Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Supreme Court Says Gov't Can Take Your House
Topic Started: Jun 23 2005, 08:10 AM (687 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I heard this morning the Court ruled that the government can seize your house or property if they have a better ($$) use for it...and use it for public or private commercial use?

Sorry, that's vague, but did anyone hear of this? Isn't it messed up!?!?! :angry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Here's a link I found:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2300783_pf.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
O'Connor was joined in her [dissenting] opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.


Now we see who the real Americans are. The liberals just sold out the entire US populace, and undermined one of the most important of human rights -- property rights.

This is to me indicative of the difference between the socialists (who see the person as subject to the State) and conservatives (who see the State as subject to the will of the people).

This is a far bigger issue than flag burning or gay marriage.

[size=14]To arms!!![/size]
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Actually, I know a great deal about this because I have done it as a consultant and I teach it. I have been watching this case since the Court decided to hear it. It was a good case for the Court to take and it was an area of constitutional law that needed to be determined because it is a very gray area.

The issue is this:

Government has always been able to take private property for public purposes (schools, streets, sewers, etc.) if it compensated the property owner. (This is the power of eminent domain).

Since California passed the Community Redevelopment Law in the late 1940’s/early 1950’s, which has subsequently been adopted in many other states, state governments have argued that blight clearance and redevelopment by the private sector is a public purpose because of the tremendous impact blight and slums have on the community as a whole. They have argued that it is within the purview of cities to clean up slums, the best way to do so is private investment. The problem is that the private sector cannot make a development project work financially if it must include into its development cost the purchase of buildings and the relocation of businesses and tenants simply because it wants to buy the land for development purposes.

Furthermore, since most blighted areas have smaller lots, no private developer is going to start purchasing lots knowing that when they get to the final few which they need, the private property owner can demand exorbitant prices simply because the private sector needs that last ½ acre or so.

Thus, the states argue that it is a public purpose to take private property for resale to private developers if there is going to be blight and slum removal and if a severely declining economic situation and tax drain is going to be turned around – which the states claim is a legitimate function of government.

There are those, however, who argue that while blight removal, slum clearance, reversing economic decline and stagnation and maximizing tax benefits may be laudable goals, they are NOT a public purpose in terms of the Constitutional requirement for eminent domain because the land is eventually handed over to the private sector for private investment, not public use.

A couple of things need to be noted. The requirements for just compensation are well spelled out and there is much case law concerning it and, if the government follows the requirements properly, the property owner whose property is being taken generally comes out financially better than they would if the private sector were to buy their property; although this does not mean they get what they THINK their property is worth. But when relocation benefits and a host of other things are included, generally the financial package is better than what would occur in a private transaction.

Secondly, most of the time the real debate is whether or not the government has really defined blight and slum correctly and if the area being redeveloped should fall under the special laws dealing with redevelopment.

Today’s Court’s decision is two fold. First it agrees that slum clearance/blight removal/economic development are legitimate public concerns and public purposes. Hence, taking land for this purpose is constitutional.

The second will go the heart of many people’s complaint – namely is a specific project proper under this ruling. Here the Court maintained a premise they have used in many other situations. The Court refused to step in and determine whether the state and local criteria for such projects are proper. The Court held that this is a state and local prerogative and it was not in the purview of the Court to second guess the legislative bodies or the sovereign power of the states to determine this within their own jurisdictions.

All in all, this is a significant case, but a decision which will not satisfy those who view the purpose of government more in libertarian terms than in social policy terms.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Thanks for the insight on this, Rick. Good post.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Whither the new America?

:angry:
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
What constitutes blight?

Suppose I have a relatively decent house in a mixed value neighborhood, and Mr. Trump suddenly decides that my neighborhood is the perfect spot for a new hotel.

Can Eminent Domain be so widely applied?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Jun 23 2005, 01:36 PM
What constitutes blight?

Suppose I have a relatively decent house in a mixed value neighborhood, and Mr. Trump suddenly decides that my neighborhood is the perfect spot for a new hotel.

Can Eminent Domain be so widely applied?

In California, which is the only place I know the law well enough, there are three types of blight identified.

1. Physical blight. Generally, this is exactly what you may think it is. It also includes toxic wastes, major topography problems, etc.

2. Economic blight. This is a little more esoteric, but makes sense when you think about it. The area needs to be below the norm in terms of investment performance. Land values substantially below other areas of the community, rates of return on investment below the rest of the community. Lacking investment. Inability to sell or lease property at market rates for similar properties, etc.

3. Social blight. High disease rate, high level of poverty, etc.

Usually the first two are what are used.

The city cannot just do this willy-nilly anywhere it wants in the City -- at least in California. It must identify a specific project area and legally define it. There are also a bunch of other technical things which need to be done. The entire process to set up one of these areas takes a year to a year and a half and requires extensive public involvement.

Not every property within the area needs to be blighted -- but the area must be substantially blighted. The courts have ruled many times on this and the rules are now pretty clear that non-blighted properties in the area need to be the rare exception, not the rule.

If a property is within the project area, it is subject to eminent domain even if it is not, by itself, blighted.

I might also point out that most project areas formed in the last 20 years or so do not include single family residential simply because it is so politically explosive to do so. Those cities who do include it will often place in the Redevelopment Plan a restriction saying they cannot use eminent domain on single family homes. More than one city council has been recalled for trying to place single family homes in a project area.

(Indeed, I would argue that the case the Court decided today would likely not have gotten there if the property in question were not single family homes).
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
There are no sharp lines here, Jolly.

What most of you don't know is that, in other areas, this is already the law ... as passed by your trusty state legislatures. For example, let's say that you own the stock of IBM. Let's say that Bill Gates takes an interest in IBM, and starts buying its shares. He does it all legally, he makes the required filings, he doesn't break any laws ... he just starts buying the stock. Eventually, he owns as much as 80%. He can take the company private ... he can buy out the remaining 20% ... and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. He can force you to sell your shares to him, whether you want to sell or not. The price is whatever is determined to be "fair".

That law has been on the books in most states for dozens of years. Enacted by state legislatures across the country. It may not have the visceral feeling of taking your house, but it's one citizen forcing another to sell him his property, sanctioned by the state. Nothing new.

As for eminent domain, state legislatures have the power to stop it. In most states, anyway, the state has the authority to stop localities from exercising their power of eminent domain. So, if you don't like this decision, put your faith in all those Republican state legislatures, and Republican governors. They have the power to stop it. Or, better yet, elect local governments that won't exercise the power.

It's not as emotionally satisfying as blaming the courts, but it's more effective.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
I found it somewhat ironic that the Supreme Court decision specifically noted that they would not usurp the legislative prerogative on this issue.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
So, if you don't like this decision, put your faith in all those Republican state legislatures, and Republican governors.


I would think that the importance of private property rights probably does carry a bit more weight on that side of the aisle.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
It's not quite that simple. Republicans are pro-business. Developers are part of that. Developers want to be able to use the eminent domain power in this way.

Don't be too surprised to see many Republicans in favor of this sort of exercise of the eminent domain power.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
yes. republicans are not libertarians.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Jun 23 2005, 02:19 PM
Quote:
 
So, if you don't like this decision, put your faith in all those Republican state legislatures, and Republican governors.


I would think that the importance of private property rights probably does carry a bit more weight on that side of the aisle.

Actually, Jolly, this system is pretty well supported by the GOP and well as Democrats.

Businesses do very well with this, finding all sorts of development opportunities that would not have been there without this. Plus, redevelopmet can provide them a lot of other subsidies.

Democrats like it because it is often used to upgrade neighborhoods, historic districts, provide services in the poorer areas of town and lots of other things.

Plus, in California, 20% of the revenues of a redevelopment area must go to provide affordable housing -- usually done by a subsidy to the private sector.

(I am editing this to add that in California, any affordable unit that is removed through Redevelopment, has to be replaced in the same affordability category and, of course, the low income tenants must be given full relocation benefits).

To me, this all makes good business sense from many angle -- both public and private.

The debate, to me, is whether it is appropriate for government to do this. The Supreme Court says it is consitutional, but that does not mean it is an appropriate function of government.

As Quirt said, if this is happening in your state (probably is) and you don't like it, the remedy is in the Legislature and Executive of the State. And, of course, since it is cities who do this, it is a perfectly appropriate to stop your local community through the City Council, if you want to.

The problem that has to be faced, though, is how then does a city clean up areas that are dying. Or does the city just wait until it is dead and hope that the market may come around and somehow, somewhere a developer will take a risk in an otherwise slum area..
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Rick,

Good and helpful summary. I have yet to read the opinion, but it was my understanding that the property taken in this case was not blight--that in fact there were some pretty nice homes being taken.

jf

Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lindy
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
This ruling brought to mind Ry Cooder's new album "Chavez Ravine" (Great album, BTW)
Posted Image

Chavez Ravine was a Mexican American village in downtown Los Angeles that was betrayed by greed and corruption. It was razed in the 1950s to build Dodger Stadium. The city of Los Angeles abused Eminent Domain and stole property from American citizens. The property was sold for a song to a private business -- the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Sad Story of Chavez Ravine:
Chavez Ravine -- What Price Baseball?

This all happened well before I was born, but from what I've read about it, it was a really stinky, smelly, corrupt back-room deal that unjustly put a lot of poor people out of their homes, while at the same time enriching Walter O'Malley, the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

TNCR California members -- do I have this about right?
Kubota B-Series Tractors
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ringo - "I am the best drummer in the world."
Lennon - "He's not even the best drummer in the band."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
I don't like this.

It is only good for the richest and most powerful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Lindy
Jun 23 2005, 06:34 PM
This ruling brought to mind Ry Cooder's new album "Chavez Ravine" (Great album, BTW)
Posted Image

Chavez Ravine was a Mexican American village in downtown Los Angeles that was betrayed by greed and corruption.  It was razed in the 1950s to build Dodger Stadium.  The city of Los Angeles abused Eminent Domain and stole property from American citizens.  The property was sold for a song to a private business -- the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Sad Story of Chavez Ravine:
Chavez Ravine -- What Price Baseball?

This all happened well before I was born, but from what I've read about it, it was a really stinky, smelly, corrupt back-room deal that unjustly put a lot of poor people out of their homes, while at the same time enriching Walter O'Malley, the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

TNCR California members -- do I have this about right?

Yep, pretty much correct.

The City of Los Angeles was one of the first in California to use redevelopment extensively and hence one of the first in the nation. It was because of Chavez Ravine and Bunker Hill, as well as the building of the confluence of freeways in East Los Angeles, that the relocation laws were adopted and then strengthened significantly.

In each of those cases, the problem was not so much the clearing of the land -- since the areas were slums, indeed Chavez Ravine was a squalid, squatters camp. The problem was that the people were simply kicked out and told to leave, with little or no assistance in finding new places to live. And this at a time when Mexican Americans was far less accepted in Southern California than they are now.

This cannot be done any more, at least in California.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
kenny
Jun 23 2005, 06:46 PM
I don't like this.

It is only good for the richest and most powerful.

Kenny, if memory serves me correctly you live in Long Beach.

Do you like what they have done in the downtown? That's all redevelopment, much of it utilizing eminent domain. Without eminent domain and redevelopment, downtown Long Beach would have continued to deteriorate like it was doing in the 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's.

Which would you prefer?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lindy
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jun 23 2005, 09:48 PM
This cannot be done any more, at least in California.
I've got to read up on Bunker Hill and the freeway thing. Were there other abuses over time that helped bring the changes about?
It's good to know that they've clamped down on that sort of thing.

Is there much lingering resentment on the part of the LA Mexican-American community regarding Chavez Ravine?
Kubota B-Series Tractors
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ringo - "I am the best drummer in the world."
Lennon - "He's not even the best drummer in the band."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Although I am inclined to be a libertarian, I realize that property rights are not absolute and must fit a dynamic and growing economy. People cannot light bonfires on their lawn and must pay taxes legally imposed. Nevertheless, to seize single family homes for a private office park seems over the line. Was there no other area in the city to build an office park? The desire of the corporate execs to have offices with water views is not a sufficient reason to forcibly seize private homes. Soon other companies will try to negotiate similar deals with their local government to get what they want, and the local governments now have the power to kick anyone out. This was a bad decision. While there are reasonable issues here, and property rights are not absolute even on a family home, this is too liberal a definition. Rights protect us against government abuses, and idiotic bureaucratic decisions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
That makes 6, Jeff. Maybe the consummation of those apocalyptic prophesies is imminent.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Steve: "That makes 6, Jeff"

I must be slow tonight. 6 of what? 6 times we have agreed about anything?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jeffrey
Jun 23 2005, 07:07 PM
Although I am inclined to be a libertarian, I realize that property rights are not absolute and must fit a dynamic and growing economy. People cannot light bonfires on their lawn and must pay taxes legally imposed. Nevertheless, to seize single family homes for a private office park seems over the line. Was there no other area in the city to build an office park? The desire of the corporate execs to have offices with water views is not a sufficient reason to forcibly seize private homes. Soon other companies will try to negotiate similar deals with their local government to get what they want, and the local governments now have the power to kick anyone out. This was a bad decision. While there are reasonable issues here, and property rights are not absolute even on a family home, this is too liberal a definition. Rights protect us against government abuses, and idiotic bureaucratic decisions.

Jeffrey,

You espouse a valid position.

When I teach redevelopment to aspiring young urban planners, inevitably the question comes up why eminent domain and relocation is so expensive.

I point out to them that I believe there are three primary coercive powers we give the government that are the most serious of all....the power to take our lives in war and the death penalty, the power to take our money in taxes and the power to take our property through eminent domain.

I tell them that it is my belief that if we as a people are going to give government coercive powers like this, it should not be easy or cheap for the government to do so. We, as citizens, need to make sure the government thinks twice if not three or four times before using any of them.

I can tell you from my experience in redevelopment (and I have done many of these deals overthe past 30 years), the moment a project comes up that includes eminent domain, cities think long and hard about it and consider a variety of other possible actions -- mainly because it is not cheap and it is not easy, especially politically easy, especially in smaller cities where the City Council is much closer to the people. I have seen many a project set aside because the city did not want to go through the problems caused by eminent domain.

This is as it should be, I think.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Kenny:
Quote:
 
I don't like this.

It is only good for the richest and most powerful.

Exactly how I see it. With the added novelty that the very richest are now taking precedence over the merely rich, in many cases.
To quote from my post in WTF on the same topic...

I wonder, though, if this hasn’t been going on for a long time and that what’s causing indignation now is that it’s affecting the middle and upper-middle class….Don’t forget, we’re entering the age of a corporate aristocracy. The insulated wealthy of before are now effectively losing a class in comparison to the very, very rich who are working with the government, supposedly to bring national wealth. The trickle-down isn’t much consolation to those losing family homes – especially if it’s trickling down to people who had enough already!

It also bothers me (Steve Zimmer) that regardless of what home-owners are compensated when their home is outright confiscated, there is no compensation for the depreciation of homes remaining adjacent. Mostly - not always, but mostly - they lose tremendous value from the greater traffic and loss of the residential character/zoning of their area. When it's an actual Highway that's gone up in their backyard, their homes are virtually unsaleable as such.

This very nearly happened to our neighborhood, for a major Highway Bypass, so I'm very aware of the issue. Fortunately, the studies showed that one of the alternate routes was better for the road. Probably not coincidentally, this route crossed a rather poor area.

Man, those people have money coming out the wazoo. When I contacted the study team to ask for specifics, I was sent a huge hand-painted map with my home highlighted, as well as an aerial photograph or ALL the prospective routes! The overnight Fed-Exed glass fiber envelope itself looked like a medieval communication from royalty.
[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3