| 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: |
| Supreme Court Says Gov't Can Take Your House | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 23 2005, 08:10 AM (690 Views) | |
| ivorythumper | Jun 23 2005, 06:40 PM Post #26 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
1. Pianos 2. Roman Baroque architecture 3. (I forgot -- maybe an appreciation for the Supremativists) 4. SS reform 5. Free market organ harvesting with incentives (not mandatory) 6. Eminent Domain when worlds collide...
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 23 2005, 06:48 PM Post #27 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Lindy, Are you from So CA? Bunker Hill is the area in Downtown LA that is immediately adjacent to and west and south of the Civic Center. The Music Center is there, the financial district has been built there, hundreds of condo's and apartments have been built there and of course now there is the New Disney Hall. It was an area made up primary of old Victorian Houses that had been, for the most part, abandoned after WWII as the suburbs began to be built. By the early 1960's it was a major slum. The phenomenon of gentrification was still decades away. Here's a picture of some of what was there: ![]() And here is one of some of what is there now: ![]() The freeway confluence is, of course, the connection of the San Bernardino Freeway to the Santa Monica through the slot, Interstate 5 and the Hollywood Freeway, through its own slot and then the Pomona Freeway was added a few years later. All merge, interchange and pass through East Los Angeles within just a few blocks of each other. In the 50's and 60's, East LA was (and remains to some extent) a slum area. In this case, though, it was the State, specifically CalTrans, which demolished hundreds of houses and apartments and sent the residents packing. Here's a map showing the downtown Freeways and you can see how they all come together and pass through East Los Angeles and spread out from there. ![]() Residual resentment? I have seen some, but mainly from the Old Timers. The Dodgers and Dodger Stadium are such a fixture in LA, that how it got there is pretty much ignored and forgotten. I also think that as the political power of the Hispanic community has grown and they have come into their own as a force that not only must be reckoned with but can call the shots in many ways, Chavez Ravine is seen as a very old story from an earlier and not very nice time. Interestingly enough, in a class last year I required the students to research successful redevelopment projects, discuss their history and background and present their reports to the class. It was a group of Caucasian students who researched and presented the sordid history of Chavez Ravine -- and they presented it as a misuse of redevelopment powers, even though the project itself was highly successful. I have many Hispanics in my class, and few of them had even heard about the history. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 23 2005, 07:06 PM Post #28 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Amanda, (First, it's Rick! )You are correct when it comes to highways. Those left adjacent to it can see a diminishment of property values. I know some though who have sued over it and gotten payment. This, of course, is not true with all public faciltiies -- parks acquired through eminent domain, for example, can raise property values. However, usually in redevelopment projects the adjoining properties see an increase in value as the area that was dragging down values because it is blighted and often high in crime is eliminated and new investment and upscale development replaces it. And you are also correct -- as with many other things, it is usually the rich who benefit most. However, as I said earlier, there is often something gained by the economically deprived, especially if they are relocated from slum housing and placed in decent, safe and sanitary housing (which is required under California law), and that housing is then subsidized to maintain its affordability. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jun 23 2005, 07:19 PM Post #29 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Steve: Yeah, but what gets me is that this is twice in one night. I need to lie down, I must be hallucinating. ![]() I am surprised you are in favor of partial market incentives for organ donation sign up. I would have thought you would see slippery slope issues here. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 23 2005, 07:27 PM Post #30 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I don't like the new development at all. ![]() Many classic old buildings have been razed. I wish they would have left it alone. There were already plenty of chain restaurants movie theaters and Starbucks in town. All the businesses in that area, The Pike, are targeted to 13 year-old girls. The condominium towers are going up like weeds and choking downtown with even more traffic. Need I go on? |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 23 2005, 07:37 PM Post #31 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Kenny, I happen to know downtown Long Beach pretty well. The buildings that were razed were deteriorating and many were seismically unsafe and there was not sufficient money to retrofit them. They would have continued to deteriorate, not been occupied and become slums. Many already had. The Starbucks, movie theaters and chain resturants had all come because of the redevelopment going on, many to buildings whose owners had received redevelopment assistance. Now, as to whether the type of development that has occured is the type you would have wanted, that is a matter of the market and city planning efforts. However, I do not think you would have seen Long Beach as a vibrant and viable downtown without redevelopment -- it would have continued to deteriorate until it became nothing but a slum unless the City's Redevelopment Agency had stepped in. I could be wrong. Perhaps the market would have taken care of it. But when old buildings deteriorate and need seismic retrofitting, they tend not to be very atractive to potential investors who cannot charge lease rates high enough to offset their costs. Besides, there are a lot of old buildings in Long Beach that are now being renovated and reused because of redevelopment money and because of the increase in investment potential created by the new development there. (And of course, it needs to be pointed out that just because redevelopment funds are used for a project, this does not mean eminent domain was used.) (Although the original enclosed Long Beach Plaza was one stupid idea!) |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 23 2005, 08:53 PM Post #32 |
|
Whatever side this issue falls on regarding political ideology, I don't even think about. My opinion of this is that we should go to case-by-case court rulings regarding private sector development. This Supreme Court ruling smells far too much of a dominant legal finding...one that private companies will bank on for a while. But thanks Rick for the summary, you have no idea how pissed I was when I heard this news....it felt like dirty communism at its finest. Still I whole-heartly disagree, but at least it makes a LITTLE more sense than the radio/tv news made of it. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 23 2005, 10:35 PM Post #33 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Only as opposed to "mandatory" donation. I would opt out for ethical reasons, but if someone else has different values -- say they want the $$$ and don't care that they are being killed to grab that heart and lung package before necrosis sets in -- that's their (hopefully informed) choice. Hope you feel better soon. You're no fun when you're agreeable.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 24 2005, 01:34 AM Post #34 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I don't think you can pin a "liberal" label on this decision. As you've seen, some of the liberal members of the board think it's wrong. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Lindy | Jun 24 2005, 03:39 AM Post #35 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Rick, No, I'm not -- opposite coast, almost. Western NY to be exact (and Minnesota originally). It was really the new Ry Cooder album about Chavez Ravine that really piqued my interest about this subject. That's why I've been reading up on it a bit lately. It's just coincidental that the SCOTUS happened to rule on an eminent domain case yesterday. Thank you for your most comprehensive replies! I've enjoyed reading them.
|
|
Kubota B-Series Tractors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ringo - "I am the best drummer in the world." Lennon - "He's not even the best drummer in the band." | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 24 2005, 11:51 AM Post #36 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh Crap Here comes WalMart: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortu...dex.htm?cnn=yes |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 24 2005, 12:16 PM Post #37 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It was inevitable, Kenny.. It's not about being an American -- its about the money. Eminent domain is a necessary fixture -- sometimes we just need to build a freeway through someone's living room -- but now a huge restraint has been lifted. Sure the big boxes have to contend with local politics, and they've got teams of PR folks and lawyers to do that. I am surprised that the Supreme Court sold America out. Time for impeachment. [size=14]TO ARMS!!![/size] |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jun 24 2005, 12:19 PM Post #38 |
|
Senior Carp
|
kenny: Yup, just what I thought. This was a very bad decision. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 24 2005, 12:48 PM Post #39 |
|
[size=14]TO ARMS!![/size]
|
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 26 2005, 04:58 AM Post #40 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
An interesting editorial on this from the Albany Times-Union, of all places. Seizing property The U.S. Supreme Court upholds eminent domain in cases involving private development projects First published: Sunday, June 26, 2005 Critics of the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on eminent domain are decrying it as an assault on the rights of individual property owners. But the decision should be viewed from another perspective -- that is, the need to strike a balance between individual rights and the good of the community. On that basis, the majority ruling was the correct one. It's never pleasant for the owner of a home or business to be ordered to pick up and move. But municipalities have used that power for years to clear the way for large public infrastructure projects likes bridges and highways. In Albany, eminent domain cleared the way for the Empire State Plaza. But the case before the Supreme Court raised the issue of whether governments could use eminent domain to make way for private development. The city of New London, Conn., had done just that in an attempt to proceed with a hotel, housing and office complex in a declining neighborhood. City officials argued that New London needed the tax revenue and new jobs to revive its distressed economy. But some homeowners went to court rather than sell their homes, and their attorneys argued that their property rights were protected under the Fifth Amendment. The majority opinion, however, ruled that just as with public projects, governments have the power to condemn private property if the purpose was to benefit the public as a whole. New London's plan met that standard, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the 5-4 majority. In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned that the majority ruling would give too much power to those with money and influence, while placing individuals who have meager means and no political clout at the mercy of private developers who want to seize their properties for profit. There's a danger that could happen, of course, if local officials were corrupted by bribes or bowed to political pressures to go along with a project. But the courts have always been there to hear complaints from property owners in eminent domain cases involving public projects. They can serve the same function for private development projects. The flip side of Justice O'Connor's dissent actually undermines her objection. That is, why should a few property owners have the power to block development that community officials and a vast majority of community residents want? That question is especially apt in communities in the Northeast, where land is often divided into many small lots owned by many individuals. That makes development especially difficult if just a few of the owners refuse to sell or, worse, hold out in hopes of driving up prices. But now a balance has been put in place. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 26 2005, 05:15 AM Post #41 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
The take from Forbes:
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 26 2005, 09:12 AM Post #42 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't buy their reasoning -- so Pfizer could find NO other property for their development? Or could not work in their development into available land? I would bet that the Pfizer bean counters even calculated how much it would cost if this case went to the Supreme Court and they won, versus going to a more expensive property elsewhere. They have the money to have batteries of lawyers and accountants and PR folk on staff to squash the little guy. The rhetoric in the first editorial is that it had to happen, and the language is not convincing -- e.g., "declining neighborhood". Even if, there are plenty of ways of reviving declining neighborhoods and rebuilding the tax base through New Urbanism designs that could work in and around the existing properties. The worst part is that the future of people's lives were determined by low level petty bureaucrats who work in a Planning and Zoning department -- career civil servants who are very difficult to fire, and establish the little fiefdoms. Typically, when a P&Z dept gives on opinion to the City Council, the City Council follows it. Very rarely do they not implement what P&Z recommends. This might be a flaw in the system, but this case shows the potential egregiousness of the process.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 26 2005, 09:22 AM Post #43 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
For more on the case, see Cottage Coalition Home Page. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 26 2005, 09:46 AM Post #44 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Let me know when find a way to blame this one on the courts. It's really very simple. If you don't want eminent domain used ... in this way, or at all ... elect like-minded people to the state legislature and the City Council. Personally, I haven't reached a conclusion on the issue. From a policy perspective, both sides make very valid points. You can't redevelop land unless you have some way to get all the land, and everyone suffers if slums are allowed to remain slums, but it doesn't feel right to kick people out of houses that they've lived in for 100 years either. So I don't have an answer, I just don't like the random potshots at the Court. The City Council isn't forced to use its eminent domain power, after all. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 26 2005, 10:13 AM Post #45 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I do blame the courts for presuming that local authorities are protecting the rights of the individual. These arguments were made in the dissenting opinions. I already granted that these abuses are precipitated at a lower level (P&Z, city council) and so that is where the citizenry needs to take up arms. And no, you do not NEED to acquire all the land. (IIRC, your local Pacific Design Center had the odd hold out that involved a work around). New models of land planning, such as the New Urbanism principles can easily work around existing buildings and create a more humane environment. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 26 2005, 10:40 AM Post #46 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Remember, though, that when your house is seized through eminent domain, you receive just compensation. If it's truly just, it will be enough to buy you an equivalent house in an equivalent neighborhood elsewhere. The problem, though, is that it's hard to reduce a house to sheer economics. There is the sentimental value associated with it. There's the comfort value of living in the neighborhood you know, with the neighbors you know. There's the not-insignificant irritation value of being forced to move, and the associated stress. There are ancillary costs of moving. There are potential tax consequences. Assuming the ancillary costs and tax consequences are dealt with, it still doesn't account for how to deal with the emotional costs. Which is why I struggle with this one. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 26 2005, 10:52 AM Post #47 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
True, Quirt -- about the collateral issues. I don't know what was being offered to the hold outs, but Pfizer could no doubt make these folks very rich and still have a viable development. Have you seen any stats on this? The area (from the cottagecoalition website did seem rather blighted -- I don't know why anyone would choose to live there -- but I still think that as a principle the local authorities should have to make a clear and compelling case that there is no other way to promote the true public good apart from eminent domain as applied in any particular instance. The power of place -- and of home -- is just too important in terms of the human psyche (as Maurice Halbwachs argues). |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 26 2005, 02:46 PM Post #48 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
So, thumps, are you arguing in favor of federal intrusion into local land use decisions? It sure sounds as if you are calling for a stronger central government -- is this true? Land use has traditionally been the prerogative of States in our sytem of government. The States have traditionally given their authority for land use control to cities and counties. In the case before the Supreme Court, I felt the only legitimate question from a Federal standpoint was the constitutionality of the use of eminent domain for private development when the local jusrisdiction, under the State's laws, found that development to be in the public purpose. The Supreme Court said yes it was constitutional and then refused to rule on anything else because they saw anything beyond the constitutional question as a legitimate question for state and loval governments, not the federal government. Are you argung the Court was wrong and that this should have been found unconstitutional? If so, under what portion of the Constitution would you find eminent domain constitutional for a bridge that benefits the public but not assistence to develop a factory that will provide jobs in a depressed area? Or are you saying the Supreme Court should have been more activist and interpreted the Constitution in a way which limited a state and local government's rights to control land use -- because you do not trust local government to do the right thing and therefore think the Federal government should intrude into local government prerogatives by stepping in to protect the citizens of a city from their own city council? When did you become such an activist for the power of the central government? I always took you to be a political conservative. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 26 2005, 03:01 PM Post #49 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
If you were a careful reader, you would see that I am not advocating judicial activism, but only that the constitutional rights of the individual American citizen are protected against the abuse by intermediating local and state authorities. That is a right we have as citizens. This in no way can reasonably be construed as my desiring a stronger central government or judicial activism. The status quo is fine with me. Stick to what I write, and not what you think I wrote. A majority opinion did not see that the citizen's constitutional rights were being violated. Four members of the Supreme Court did, and gave cogent arguments for their dissenting opinions which led them to consider the grounds of this particular eminent domain issue as violating the constitutional rights of the citizen-- which I share. They were outvoted and we now have a new rule of law which I suspect will be very bad for the matter of personal property rights -- unless very carefully ruled on by lower courts in subsequent cases. You have a problem with that? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 26 2005, 08:35 PM Post #50 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I have no trouble with it, but the bottom line is you want activist Federal judges to usurp the rights of local government. Property rights are not sacrosanct in our system of government and never have been. The infringement on property rights through all sorts of legislative, judicial and regulatorty measures has been going on since before the writing of the Constititution. There are clearly legislative remedies to limit this on both the state level and then on the local level. To argue that the Supreme Court should ignore these remdies and the citizens ability to enact those remedies is nothing more than wanting the central government to step in and limit state and local power in an area that has traditionally been theirs. Give me any argument you want, but it is nothing more than the use of the strong arm of the Federal Government as big brother -- nothing else. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









)

4:59 PM Jul 10