frank james

Kelo v. City of New London,

Recommended Posts

Pipelines are not the only way to "take now, pay later" using eminent domain.

High Speed Rail, Low Speed Payment

Quote

Farmers in California's Central Valley say they are collectively owed millions of dollars for land seized by the state for a planned high-speed railroad as well as the costs of infrastructure such as new access roads and wells that the state promised to reimburse them for. Some of the payments were due three years ago. "We understand the concerns of private property owners affected during the acquisition of their property," said Don Odell, director of real property for the California High-Speed Rail Authority in a statement. But he offered no explanation for why the state hasn't made the payments.

It would be nice if the farmers could seize Mr. Odell's home and hold it pending their payments. And express understanding for his concern about wtf happened to his property, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news for property owners

Quote

Contrary to Williamson County, a property owner has a claim for a violation of the Takings Clause as soon as a government takes his property for public use without paying for it. The Clause provides: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It does not say: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without an available procedure that will result in compensation.” If a local government takes private property without paying for it, that government has violated the Fifth Amendment—just as the Takings Clause says—without regard to subsequent state court proceedings.

They overruled the Williamson County case and said that property owners can go to federal court without exhausting all potential state court remedies.

Quote

The Fifth Amendment right to full compensation arises at the time of the taking, regardless of post-taking remedies that may be available to the property owner.

Some people who now have a pipeline or a railroad on their property and are awaiting compensation (for years) are going to be happy to hear it.

Justice Kagan's dissent worries that a flood of state and local cases will head straight to federal courts that are ill-equipped to resolve them because of unfamiliarity with state and local laws. Maybe.

The real worry is that regulatory schemes will be invalidated because the whole "take now and maybe pay later" approach violates the 5th. Kagan notes that paying when the taking occurs just hasn't been a thing.

She seems to be right about that.

Quote

the majority contends that its rule follows from the constitutional text, because the Takings Clause does not say “[n]or shall private property be taken for public use, without an available procedure that will result in compensation.” Ante, at 6. There is a reason the majority devotes only a few sentences to that argument. Because here’s another thing the text does not say: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without advance or contemporaneous payment of just compensation, not-withstanding ordinary procedures.”

"We'll gladly pay you Tuesday* for property we'll start using today."

 

 

 

 

* March 12, 2024, for example, will be a Tuesday. Or maybe ordinary procedures will take longer. But because we may eventually pay at some point, no violation of the takings clause has occurred.

 

As usual, I liked Justice Thomas' concurrence, which was short but can be summed up with this quote.

Quote

A “purported exercise of the eminent-domain power” is therefore “invalid” unless the government “pays just compensation before or at the time of its taking.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 3). If this requirement makes some regulatory programs “unworkable in practice,” Supp. Brief 5, so be it—our role is to enforce the Takings Clause as written.

Or with two words that will be familiar to those awaiting payment for property that was taken years ago: Too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The whole Libertarian ethos sounds great as long as you don't have to apply it to the real world. Then you have to start justifying all sorts of flights of fantasy.


Seems to me we're right about eminent domain and Suzette Kelo got to apply that to the real world. Why was that wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The feral cats at Fort Turnbull will have some apples to eat

Quote

 

New London — A loose-knit group of local activists with a rebellious streak announced last week that it had begun secretly planting apple trees and vegetables on city-owned land at Fort Trumbull.

It’s no coincidence the plantings are on land seized by eminent domain and at the center of the landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case. The ruling established that municipalities have a right to take private land by eminent domain for economic development.

 

I'd say "confirmed" not "established" in that last sentence.

Quote

 

...

New London resident Kat Goulart applauded the group's efforts, which she had followed online.

“I support the orchard wholeheartedly. This group is trying to remove the stain of eminent domain from New London and turn it into something positive," Goulart said.

“When Fort Trumbull was thrust into the national spotlight in the late '90's I was just in high school, and even at such a young age I knew it was wrong. Land strongarmed from property owners all in the name of economic development. Except that's not what happened, and while the world has moved on, we've failed to do what we set out to with the Fort Trumbull parcel, and so it was all for nothing.“

Kathleen Mitchell, a local activist who fought against eminent domain and backed efforts of Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case involving eminent domain, approved of the group’s statement.

“What the hell has happened down there? Nothing. It's been over 10 years. ... The city has nothing to show for it,” Mitchell said.

 

The city does have the property and the favorable Supreme Court decision in the topic case. So there's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

I think that's why the 9 year old Kelo thread has attracted so little attention here. The nutjob libertarians lost but no one seems inclined to say why they were wrong. Because...?

 

1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

what does that even mean? 


It means none of your elk will visit this thread and explain why the nutjob libertarians responsible for the topic case were wrong on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In "take now, pay later" news, some congresscritters are carving out a narrow exception.

It only covers takings by the federal government and only for border infrastructure, so wouldn't affect things like the pipeline and RR cases mentioned above.

Still, it would set a precedent that the paying should occur at the time of the change of possession and that would be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2018 at 6:28 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Well, a year has gone by and one thing hasn't changed: "community development" boondoggles benefit crony capitalists.

Wisconsin's Massive Foxconn Boondoggle Is Getting Worse
 

Quote

 

...

Eighteen months after Foxconn bought a building in downtown Milwaukee that was supposed to be the first of several "innovation centers" to be built around the state, the building sits abandoned and empty, Wisconsin Public Radio reports. Other "innovation centers"—partnerships with local colleges and universities, each one supposed to create 100 to 200 high-tech jobs—planned for Green Bay, Madison, Eau Claire, and elsewhere also appear to be on hold.

The innovation centers were secondary to the main Foxconn facility that was supposed to be built in a Milwaukee suburb. But the problems with those other locations seem to reflect similar issues with the major project at the center of the multi-billion-dollar development that promised to create 13,000 jobs in total.

Kevin Vonck, development director for Foxconn's Green Bay site, tells WPR that the company is now "re-evaluating their strategy throughout the state." The Green Bay location, which was originally supposed to open in 2018, could open sometime in 2020, he says.

That's about par for the course. When former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) agreed to give more than $3 billion in subsidies to Foxconn, he promised that "working families would reap the benefits." President Donald Trump, who flew to Wisconsin last June to participate in a ceremonial groundbreaking for the plant, said the project was an example of "reclaiming our country's proud manufacturing legacy."

Instead, it's been an excellent lesson in why such crony capitalist deals are a hugely expensive mistake. Foxconn is already failing on its other promises. While the company originally pledged to create 5,200 jobs by the end of 2020, Foxconn said earlier this year that the actual number would be about 1,000.

...

 

The feral cats that inhabit Suzette Kelo's former property apparently just live in an empty field. Maybe they could be moved and upgraded to Foxconn's empty building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is destroying a home NOT a taking?

Lech v Greenwood reaffirms that the answer is: when it's an exercise of the police power.
 

Quote

 

although the Supreme Court has never expressly invoked this distinction in a case alleging a physical taking, it has implicitly indicated the distinction applies in this context. See, e.g., Bennis, 516 U.S. at 443–44, 453–54 (rejecting plaintiff’s Takings Clause claim where state court ordered vehicle “forfeited as a public nuisance” without requiring state to compensate plaintiff, who shared ownership of vehicle with her husband; reasoning that when state acquires property “under the exercise of governmental authority other than the power of eminent domain,” government is not “required to compensate an owner for [that] property.


...

Nevertheless, despite these persuasive authorities, the Lechs urge us to disregard the distinction between the police power and the power of eminent domain in resolving this appeal. In support, they point out that “the Takings Clause ‘was designed to bar [g]overnment from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’” Aplt. Br. 13 (quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960)). And they argue that upholding the district court’s summary-judgment ruling would do just that: it would force the Lechs to bear alone the cost of actions the defendants undertook in an effort to “apprehend[] a criminal suspect”—actions that were clearly “for the benefit of the public” as a whole. Id. at 13, 33.  

    We do not disagree that the defendants’ actions benefited the public. But as the Court explained in Mugler, when the state acts to preserve the “safety of the public,” the state “is not, and, consistent[] with the existence and safety of organized society, cannot be, burdened with the condition that the state must compensate [affected property owners] for pecuniary losses they may sustain” in the process. 123 U.S. at 669.Thus, “[a]s unfair as it may seem,” the Takings Clause simply “does not entitle all aggrieved owners to recompense.” AmeriSource Corp., 525 F.3d at 1152, 1154. 

 

Hmm. I think the court is right about what previous courts have held but am not so sure that civilized society would cease to exist if the public had to bear the costs of law enforcement.
 

Quote

 

Indeed, just like the house at issue in Bachmann, the Lechs’ home “had become instrumental to criminal activity”—it was serving as a hideout for a fugitive. Id. at 697. Thus, just as in Bachmann, “the damage caused in the course of arresting a fugitive on plaintiffs’ property was not a taking for public use, but rather it was an exercise of the police power.” Id.   

   The Lechs resist this approach, insisting that if we define the police power broadly enough to encompass conduct like the type at issue here and in Bachmann, it will amount to a “federally unprecedented expansion” of that power. Aplt. Br. 26. In support, the Lechs first insist that the police power encompasses only the state’s “power to establish laws”—as opposed to the power to “enforce[]” those laws. Aplt. Br. 28. Yet the Lechs expressly concede elsewhere in their brief that the police power encompasses the power “to make and enforce laws.” Aplt. Br. 30 (emphasis added). And caselaw supports this concession. See, e.g., AmeriSource Corp., 525 F.3d at 1153 (“The government’s seizure of property to enforce criminal laws is a traditional exercise of the police power that does not constitute a ‘public use.’” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). Thus, we reject the Lechs’ effort to limit the police power to actions that establish law, rather than merely enforce it.   

   We likewise reject the Lechs’ assertion that the police power does not encompass the state’s ability to seize property from an innocent owner. This argument is not without support. See, e.g., Wegner v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 479 N.W.2d 38, 41–42 (Minn. 1991) (holding that where “innocent third party’s property [was] damaged by the police in the course of apprehending a suspect,” such damage was inflicted “for a public use”).  Nevertheless, despite “the considerable appeal of this position as a matter of policy,” we join the Federal Circuit in rejecting this argument as a matter of law. AmeriSource Corp., 525 F.3d at 1154–55 (“o long as the government’s exercise of authority was pursuant to some power other than eminent domain, then the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The innocence of the property owner does not factor into the determination.”

 

The "considerable appeal" of ending the existence of civilized society? Not so sure about that one. I think the idea that the government must pay costs associated with law enforcement has considerable appeal because it would make for a more civilized society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

When is destroying a home NOT a taking?

Lech v Greenwood reaffirms that the answer is: when it's an exercise of the police power.
 

 

Basically, cops during the course of their duty are the Hand of God.  Lesson: If you have a home without homeowner's insurance,  kill any criminals that come near your property before the cops can blow up your house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Developers Form Governments
 

Quote

 

...

In 2006, Woodcrest Homes began planning to build a housing development outside the town of Parker, Colo., and purchased a small piece of land sandwiched between two larger parcels to begin the project. When the housing market went bust in 2008, the project stalled. But years later, Century Communities, a competing developer, picked up where Woodcrest left off. Using Woodcrest’s own plans, Century purchased the two pieces of land surrounding Woodcrest’s parcel and created a so-called “municipal district”—a pseudo-governmental body permitted in Colorado—comprising all three pieces of land and staffed by Century’s own employees. The district then “voted” on whether to use eminent domain to take away Woodcrest’s land and—unsurprisingly—Century “won.”

Woodcrest challenged the taking, arguing that it violated the Fifth Amendment of U.S. Constitution, which only allows property to be taken for “public use.” But the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the only thing that mattered was what Woodcrest wanted to put on the land (roads and utilities) not whether the process had been captured by a private developer serving its own ends.

“Eminent domain is supposed to be used by the government for the benefit of the public, not by developers for themselves,” said IJ Attorney Patrick Jaicomo. “Colorado law gives public power to private businesses to use for private gain. That’s plainly unconstitutional and we’re confident that U.S. Supreme Court will end this corrupt abuse of power.”

...

 

I wish I were so confident. In the thread topic case, the "public use" of the property in question seemed suspiciously agreeable to Pfizer. In that case, it seems suspiciously agreeable to Century. But once again I'm really only confident that one Justice will say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nutjob libertarians at IJ are mounting yet another assault on the American way of life.

Save The Pearl
 

Quote

 

Today, residents and supporters of Tulsa’s Pearl District announced the formation of a new group, Save the Pearl Coalition. The new group is dedicated to stopping the city and Tulsa Development Authority (TDA) from taking residents’ homes against their will for the purpose of redevelopment. While the TDA has publicized the plans as a drainage project to improve public safety, the city’s plans show that the Pearl District project is actually meant to make the neighborhood look different by bulldozing existing homes and engaging in redevelopment. Save the Pearl Coalition seeks to protect Pearl District residents and won’t stop its campaign against Tulsa’s landgrab until the city abandons the use of eminent domain in pursuit of its redevelopment plans.

Tulsa’s attempts to force Pearl District residents to sell their homes or else lose their property by force via eminent domain are not just wrong: They’re unconstitutional. In May 2006, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development, giving Oklahomans greater protections from eminent domain abuse.

 

The thread topic case was decided about year before the Oklahoma Supreme Court went the nutjob direction.

Probably one of many reactions to the Kelo result.

Quote

Rather than respect the limits the Oklahoma Constitution places on its power, the city chose to hand its so-called flood control project to the TDA years ago and it is now being used for one purpose: economic development. Tulsa has left a paper trail over the course of several years that shows that “flood prevention” is merely a pretext for the TDA’s redevelopment vision for the Pearl District.

So now it's not redevelopment. It's flood prevention (to promote redevelopment) that has nothing to do with redevelopment. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 6:17 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

When is destroying a home NOT a taking?

Lech v Greenwood reaffirms that the answer is: when it's an exercise of the police power.

Nutjob libertarians are asking for an en banc review

Quote

“The simple rule of the Constitution is that the government cannot arbitrarily single out private citizens to bear the costs of something that should rightly be the burden of society as a whole,” explained IJ Attorney Jeffrey Redfern. “If the government requires a piece of property to be destroyed, then the government should pay for it—and that’s just as true regardless of whether the people doing the destroying are the local school board or the local police.”

It's not really a nutty position if you ask me but they're likely to lose again because

Quote

The Lechs’ case, originally brought by Colorado attorney Rachel Maxam, who continues to represent the family alongside IJ, argued that the complete destruction of the house was a “taking” that required compensation under the U.S. Constitution. But a three-judge panel disagreed, ruling that actions by law enforcement officials could never amount to a “taking,” no matter what, and so the appropriate amount of compensation was zero dollars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Pott.jpg


Hah! Pfizer is so broke and desperate that they took the topic case to the Supreme Court and won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An eminent domain tidbit from Short Circuit:

Quote

Property owners decline $56k offer for easement allowing pipeline to bisect their 40-acre Lake County, Fla. property. The pipeline company employs eminent domain, and the pipeline goes in anyway. Yikes! A jury awards the property owners over $300k in just compensation. New trial? Eleventh Circuit: Nope. Pay up.

Reading the 11th Circuit's opinion, they didn't buy the pipeline company's idea that the owner of a piece of property is not a proper authority on what his land might sell for on the market.

Everyone agreed that the pipeline company could put in the pipe under eminent domain, so this was one of those "take first, pay later" cases and the controversy was over just how much the market value of the property was diminished. Amusingly, the pipeline co speculated on an amount then objected that the other side's amount was... you guessed it... speculative. Umm... unless you're having a closing and ownership papers and money are changing hands, that's always the case. The quarter million dollar gap between the "fair" price offered and what the jury found fair tells me that the offer wasn't all that fair and the owners were right to turn it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2006 Flashback

Bloomberg Says Power to Seize Private Land Is Vital to Cities

Quote

 

Wading into yet another contentious national debate, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg came out vigorously yesterday in support of the government's right to seize property by eminent domain, and said Congressional attempts to limit those powers would have dire consequences for the nation's cities.

His remarks come in the wake of a 2005 Supreme Court decision establishing the right of localities to seize properties for economic development projects. That ruling set off a firestorm that has spread across the country and in New York, where the potential use of eminent domain has drawn opposition in such projects as the proposed Atlantic Yards complex in Brooklyn.

...

City officials also argue that New York State law protects property owners from abusive uses of eminent domain because it requires property to be designated as a blight before it can be seized for private development and because people have access to the courts. But many critics dismiss that argument.

"New York's blight designation is a joke," Ms. Berliner said. "You can call anything in the state blighted under New York's definition."

 

So he's pretty well aligned with Trump and the SCOTUS liberal wing on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

he's a republican billionaire.  Duh.

You mean like the guys who $pon$ored Suzette Kelo in the topic case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Short Circuit:

Quote

Displeased with developer who failed to build promised housing on vacant 1,060-acre parcel, Hawaii land use officials revert the zoning back to agricultural use, decreasing the value of the land (according to the developer) from $40 mil to $6 mil. An unconstitutional regulatory taking? Jury: Yes! District court: The state must pay the developer $1. Ninth Circuit: The developer overestimates the diminution in value; it can probably find some use for the "barren, rocky lava flow land" that fits with the zoning. So it's not a taking, and the state can keep its dollar.

A dollar? And even that was too much?

This one isn't an eminent domain case but we don't have a thread for regulatory buybacks or takings or whatever they're called. Seems related to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a hearing on Monday for a motion to dismiss we filed for our client on a condemnation case.

Local power company sued our client (a credit union) for an easement so they can do some power grid reconstruction.  The easement is extremely overbroad and amounts to shutting down the branch for several months, because they want to use most of the property as a staging area for all their pipes and equipment.  The power company has about 10 acres of open land less than half a mile away where they can stage.

We told them to pound sand - there are a dozen ways they can do their project without shutting down the branch and costing the client a great deal of money, including staging their gear at the other site.  They responded with a condemnation suit. 

In Michigan, a condemnation can only be the minimum necessary to accomplish their goals.  Under Michigan statute, they cannot condemn something solely for convenience or because it would save them some money. We will likely win the motion, or the judge will tell us what he thinks of the case and then tell us to sit in a room and work it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

We have a hearing on Monday for a motion to dismiss we filed for our client on a condemnation case.

Local power company sued our client (a credit union) for an easement so they can do some power grid reconstruction.  The easement is extremely overbroad and amounts to shutting down the branch for several months, because they want to use most of the property as a staging area for all their pipes and equipment.  The power company has about 10 acres of open land less than half a mile away where they can stage.

We told them to pound sand - there are a dozen ways they can do their project without shutting down the branch and costing the client a great deal of money, including staging their gear at the other site.  They responded with a condemnation suit. 

In Michigan, a condemnation can only be the minimum necessary to accomplish their goals.  Under Michigan statute, they cannot condemn something solely for convenience or because it would save them some money. We will likely win the motion, or the judge will tell us what he thinks of the case and then tell us to sit in a room and work it out.

Wow, that's really aggressive power company behavior. When the power co replaced the big cross-country lines that run across our property, they already had an easement and could replace them if they wanted to do it. Still, they sent an official "smoother of the waters" out here to talk to all of us and hear our concerns. I only had one: will your new poles and wires block our boat ramp? They showed us why it would not. But if it had, I'm pretty sure there would have been nothing to do about it.

Are they looking for a temporary buyback of the property for the duration of the project or do they want to buy it back permanently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 4:43 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Wow, that's really aggressive power company behavior. When the power co replaced the big cross-country lines that run across our property, they already had an easement and could replace them if they wanted to do it. Still, they sent an official "smoother of the waters" out here to talk to all of us and hear our concerns. I only had one: will your new poles and wires block our boat ramp? They showed us why it would not. But if it had, I'm pretty sure there would have been nothing to do about it.

Are they looking for a temporary buyback of the property for the duration of the project or do they want to buy it back permanently?

temporary grant of exclusive easement.  Fortunately we have a very good calculation of the economic impact because the branch had a similarly restrictive construction event for a couple months last year during renovation and they know exactly how much that one cost them in terms of lost business.  CU has zero desire to sell the biz and power company has zero ability to pay what it would cost the company to move to a new one: it would be millions and millions for just the one branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 12:43 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Wow, that's really aggressive power company behavior. When the power co replaced the big cross-country lines that run across our property, they already had an easement and could replace them if they wanted to do it. Still, they sent an official "smoother of the waters" out here to talk to all of us and hear our concerns. I only had one: will your new poles and wires block our boat ramp? They showed us why it would not. But if it had, I'm pretty sure there would have been nothing to do about it.

Are they looking for a temporary buyback of the property for the duration of the project or do they want to buy it back permanently?

Maybe the power transmission wires on your property (?) are shorting out your brain, and causing the race-baiter synapses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
On 3/8/2020 at 4:43 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Are they looking for a temporary buyback of the property for the duration of the project or do they want to buy it back permanently?

temporary grant of exclusive easement.  Fortunately we have a very good calculation of the economic impact because the branch had a similarly restrictive construction event for a couple months last year during renovation and they know exactly how much that one cost them in terms of lost business.  CU has zero desire to sell the biz and power company has zero ability to pay what it would cost the company to move to a new one: it would be millions and millions for just the one branch.

That's good. But "desire to sell" usually doesn't have a lot to do with an eminent domain buyback. Ms. Kelo had no such desire.

And Joe, you're still a creepy and persistent stalker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2019 at 5:59 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
On 11/4/2019 at 6:17 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

When is destroying a home NOT a taking?

Lech v Greenwood reaffirms that the answer is: when it's an exercise of the police power.

Nutjob libertarians are asking for an en banc review

Looks like that didn't go so well, so on to the Supreme Court.
 

Quote

 

...“For well over a century, the Supreme Court has enforced a simple rule: The government has to pay for private property it takes or destroys,” explained IJ Nutjob Jeffrey Redfern. “Today, we asked the Court to apply that simple rule in the Lechs’ case. If the government requires a piece of property to be destroyed, then the government should pay for it—that’s just as true regardless of whether the people doing the destroying are the local school board or the local police.”

...

The petition filed by IJ today asks the Supreme Court to uphold its precedents requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court has never found that the use of police power exempts government from paying when property is taken or destroyed. The appeal does not second-guess the police department’s use of force or tactics used to apprehend the suspect, only whether the homeowners or the public should be made to bear the cost incurred by the police department’s actions.

“The police are allowed to destroy property if they need to in order to do their jobs safely,” said IJ Senior Nutjob Robert McNamara. “But if the government destroys someone’s property in order to benefit the public, it is only fair that the public rather than an innocent property owner pay for that benefit.”

...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lech v Jackson reply brief of petitioners
 

The core issue that Redfern and associated nutjobs are arguing is that the categorical exemption from compensation in police power cases has to go.

Quote

 

...Respondents argue that there is no cause for con-cern because the broad sweep of the police power has long been established. Br. 29–30. So it has, but the scope of the police power is not at issue in this case. Federal courts have only recently begun holding that the “police power” is categorically exempt from the Just Compensation Clause. Pet. 23. It is that growing trend that threatens to undermine this Court’s just-compensation jurisprudence more generally, and it is that growing trend that justifies this Court’s intervention.

...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2010 at 5:27 PM, frank james said:

In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .

Only ten years since the topic post, which I still find funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Did you get Kelo right? 


I think so. If you think not, start by reading the opinions and sharing your views here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

(Joe's question is thread-bumperd): Did Tom Ray present the Kelo matter honestly?)


I think so. If you think not, start by reading the opinions and sharing your views here.

No thanks, Tom.  You twist shit, and guess what,  I don't need twisted shit.

 

You read Miller but you presented the Miller case law as being about "the people." 

(Then you just denied that you had repeatedly presented gun rights for "the people" in the context of Miller.)

You openly defy peer-reviewed work in key areas, so there's that.

You "read" the twenty pages of the very compassionate Frederick Douglass, then framed his wisdom with gun quotes.

You "read" Winkler's "Embarassing Second Amendment" but had to STFU about the content.

You failed to read Priorities for Research, AFAICT.

 

I am not in your orbit. Perverted shit I do not employ, but it sometimes catches my eye. Again, see ya around. 

Dogballs forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2011 at 8:41 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

I agree with Thomas re Kelo.


Oh dear. Some might point out that

8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

It's a dissent.  That means it's not an accurate statement of the law.  You could save everyone the time by writing "Do think Thomas' dissent was a correct statement of the law" if you wanted to write accurately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:


Oh dear. Some might point out that

 

I agree with Thomas too in Kelo.  It's still not an accurate statement of the law. 

Is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I agree with Thomas too in Kelo.  It's still not an accurate statement of the law. 

Is it?


Did anyone say it was? If so, ask that person.

Do you think Kelo could have won if she had credible legal representation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy Coney Barrett and Property Rights
 

Quote

 

...

Protect Our Parks is a carefully-written and easy to read opinion that respects precedent and defers to a high-profile local government decision.  There is little or nothing in the opinion to suggest that Justice Barrett has any particular vision on property rights, much less a different vision than the late Justice Ginsburg, author of Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, an 8-0 opinion that held that the Takings Clause protects against all government invasions of private property, even if the intrusion is not permanent.    It is simply too early to tell whether a Justice Barrett would ultimately be a champion of property rights, or otherwise.  But it is perhaps noteworthy that Judge Barrett went beyond addressing the issue of the plaintiffs’ lack of property interest—which sufficed to fully resolve the takings claim—to address the relief the plaintiffs sought, relying on Kelo, a highly disputed eminent domain case from 2005 in which the late Justice Ginsburg was in the 5-4 majority.  There have been many calls to overturn Kelo, and Judge Barrett elected to cite that case affirmatively when she could have stopped short of addressing it.

...

 

It's hard to tell whether ACB agrees with Trump and Notorious RBG on Kelo but that's not a good start.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 9:12 PM, Steam Flyer said:

There has never been a case where Thomas and Alito decided in favor of a poor person over a rich person, a citizen over a corporation, or a Democrat over a Republican.


This comment is way funnier in this thread. Alito wasn't around back when Suzette Kelo outbid Pfizer for Thomas' vote but given how the rest voted, I suspect he would at least join the primary dissent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, serious question. Have you ever been to New London, CT?

Do you know what the place is like? We're not talking Groton Long Point here.... This is across the river, and might as well be in a different country, or on a different planet, in some ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Tom, serious question. Have you ever been to New London, CT?

Do you know what the place is like? We're not talking Groton Long Point here.... This is across the river, and might as well be in a different country, or on a different planet, in some ways.

Does that actually matter WRT the principle involved?

If a corporation can come along and promise a local or State government higher tax revenue if they forcibly acquire real property using eminent domain laws against the wishes of the owners, is this something you'd support?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

If a corporation can come along and promise a local or State government higher tax revenue if they forcibly acquire real property using eminent domain laws against the wishes of the owners, is this something you'd support?

FKT

Congratulations, you’ve described the Mid-19th century history of compulsory purchase in England. Railway wants land, government takes it for them. Which bits of Oz modeled itself after England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Tom, serious question. Have you ever been to New London, CT?

Do you know what the place is like? We're not talking Groton Long Point here.... This is across the river, and might as well be in a different country, or on a different planet, in some ways.

Lefty, serious question, have you ever been in Suzette Kelo's house?

 

2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Does that actually matter WRT the principle involved?

No, of course not, but gossip about people is way more interesting than principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Congratulations, you’ve described the Mid-19th century history of compulsory purchase in England. Railway wants land, government takes it for them. Which bits of Oz modeled itself after England.

Quite true and still applies here for State governments. Our Federal Govt can only take private property on just terms (which of course is a matter for expensive lawyer debate).

State Govts, OTOH, can pay what THEY consider is fair value and no resort to Australian Constitution will help there.

I acknowledge that some form of eminent domain is necessary but the compensation should be 2X the current market value to discourage rapacious and corrupt use.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I acknowledge that some form of eminent domain is necessary but the compensation should be 2X the current market value to discourage rapacious and corrupt use.

That would just open up a new flavor of corruption. I have a couple of properties I'd like to sell at the moment. If getting them taken (or boughtback) by the government could double the price, I'd be strongly motivated to make that happen. I'm not politically connected enough to actually do it, but others are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Quotidian Tom said:

That would just open up a new flavor of corruption. I have a couple of properties I'd like to sell at the moment. If getting them taken (or boughtback) by the government could double the price, I'd be strongly motivated to make that happen. I'm not politically connected enough to actually do it, but others are...

Point. So the question is, how does one arrive at fair terms for a forced sale? In your case, it wouldn't be a forced sale so the 2X factor wouldn't apply anyway.

There are lots of tricks governments can play, like changing zoning to reduce theoretical value, then forcibly acquiring at the new lower value. Even more so if they team up with private enterprise to force a sale on behalf of a private company. That should flat out be prohibited.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Point. So the question is, how does one arrive at fair terms for a forced sale? In your case, it wouldn't be a forced sale so the 2X factor wouldn't apply anyway.

There are lots of tricks governments can play, like changing zoning to reduce theoretical value, then forcibly acquiring at the new lower value. Even more so if they team up with private enterprise to force a sale on behalf of a private company. That should flat out be prohibited.

FKT

We have county property appraisers. If a value is good enough for taxation purposes, why not for buyback purposes?

The appraisers tend to shoot a bit low so that no one will argue with the appraisal but they're usually not all that far off.

The grass airstrip where I used to tow gliders was targeted for absorption into the Everglades National Park. OK, made sense geographically and a park is a public use. Problem was, they appraised how much it would bring on the market AFTER announcing it was targeted. Meaning, after no one would want it. My old boss was still fighting about this last I heard. She was incensed because it was a big piece of her retirement plan and she was too old to make a new one. She was particularly irritated at officials bragging about saving the taxpayers money on the deal. Um, yeah, that did happen but it wasn't fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quotidian Tom said:

We have county property appraisers. If a value is good enough for taxation purposes, why not for buyback purposes?

Lot of cases where the valuation exceeds market value here. Depends on whether the market is going up or down at the time of course.

Easy way to put a brake on inflated valuations though. First stage, appeal. Second stage if appeal for a reduction is rejected, forcible put of appraised property at the market value used for taxation purposes followed by an unreserved public auction within 3 months of acquisition. This last to stop govt bodies building a property empire and also to ensure the market sets the current actual value.

Never get passed into law though, too many affected interests.

Going sailing tomorrow so I'm leaving this for now.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Lot of cases where the valuation exceeds market value here. Depends on whether the market is going up or down at the time of course.

We have rules in various states to cap the max increase per year, mostly to prevent retirees from being taxed out of their homes.

"Just value" is a subjective guess until there's a sale. If you added a zero to what the appraiser says my place is worth, you still would not be close to a price that would tempt me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

some form of eminent domain is necessary but the compensation should be 2X the current market value to discourage rapacious and corrupt use.

 

that profit margin will create rapacious and corrupt use every time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Lefty, serious question, have you ever been in Suzette Kelo's house?

 

No, of course not, but gossip about people is way more interesting than principles.

No. But you didn't answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

that profit margin will create rapacious and corrupt use every time.  

And lack of a disincentive to a forced acquisition on an unwilling seller got you the Kelo case.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:
On 10/19/2020 at 3:47 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Lefty, serious question, have you ever been in Suzette Kelo's house?

 

No, of course not, but gossip about people is way more interesting than principles.

No. But you didn't answer the question.

OK, the answer is no, I haven't been to New London.

You're apparently able to form some opinion on this case without going into Kelo's home, and I can form one without going to New London. My opinion is that CLEAN and Sol are right about Justice Thomas being right. I don't know if either of them has ever been to New London or visited the little pink house Kelo owned there, but they're able to figure out the principles involved anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

that profit margin will create rapacious and corrupt use every time.  

I agree with this.

On 10/19/2020 at 4:38 AM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

In your case, it wouldn't be a forced sale so the 2X factor wouldn't apply anyway.

That's exactly why it would be corrupt. If I actually want to sell but pretend I don't and get a friend in government to buyback the land, what would you call it?

12 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

And lack of a disincentive to a forced acquisition on an unwilling seller got you the Kelo case.

FKT

That and a nutjob libertarian law firm. I still wonder if Kelo might have prevailed if she had credible legal representation instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never a day when New London wasn't going to sop to Pfizer back then. And yes, I have been to New London, and to the outside of Kelo's home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

That and a nutjob libertarian law firm. I still wonder if Kelo might have prevailed if she had credible legal representation instead.

Revisionist bullshit ^^^. Alternate reality too ^^^. 

You trot out the same idea with the Miller case. (That is, that the basic and longstanding court precedent would have been different if the legal representation had been more suitable to your cause.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

OK, the answer is no, I haven't been to New London.

You're apparently able to form some opinion on this case without going into Kelo's home, and I can form one without going to New London. My opinion is that CLEAN and Sol are right about Justice Thomas being right. I don't know if either of them has ever been to New London or visited the little pink house Kelo owned there, but they're able to figure out the principles involved anyway.

You don't seem to know what my opinion on the matter is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

OK, the answer is no, I haven't been to New London.

You're apparently able to form some opinion on this case without going into Kelo's home, and I can form one without going to New London. My opinion is that CLEAN and Sol are right about Justice Thomas being right. I don't know if either of them has ever been to New London or visited the little pink house Kelo owned there, but they're able to figure out the principles involved anyway.

I have been twice, once on my own and once to show Mer, who isn't a law geek and was like "so cute!".

  It's right on the way from mom's house to newport. The house itself ain't much, the story is compelling though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

If I actually want to sell but pretend I don't and get a friend in government to buyback the land, what would you call it?

 

The GOP calls it a "public/private partnership"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

nutjob libertarian law firm. I still wonder if Kelo might have prevailed if she had credible legal representation instead.

Advocacy organization, and probably. The brief was very meh, lead counsel for Kelo is a zealot who has spent his entire career working for conservative orgs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Advocacy organization, and probably. The brief was very meh, lead counsel for Kelo is a zealot who has spent his entire career working for conservative orgs.

Did the lead counsel program herself every morning on reason.com? Did she spam reason.com all over her forum community, with predictability?  That publication has subterfuge down to a fine art.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Did the lead counsel program herself every morning on reason.com? Did she spam reason.com all over her forum community, with predictability?  That publication has subterfuge down to a fine art.

 

Lead counsel was a dude who is now the president of the IJ, which was founded and run for decades largely on donations from Charlie and David (may he rot in pieces) Koch.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I discovered the IJ, as a Koch mechanism, by sniffing around at putrid matter. 

But thanks Alan, I didn't grasp that the Kelo attorney cranks out the libertarian PR on a daily basis, on rea$on.com. LMFAO.

 

@Quotidian Tom  You are being spoon-fed by the guy who lost Kelo?

I figured Kelo had problems because I could smell it: it was presented by yourself. 

 

When a person googles "lead counsel, Kelo," this is what one gets.

Jeez.  :(  

Quote

Dana Berliner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

image.png.69a48cef9ee1085fbb9552e8ef1948d8.png

hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

Dana Berliner is Litigation Director at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm in Arlington, Virginia founded in 1991 by Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick. She was co-lead counsel for Susette Kelo in the landmark United States Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London.[1]

Berliner received her law and undergraduate degrees from Yale University, where she was a member of the Yale Law Journal and represented clients through the legal services program. After law school, she clerked for Judge Jerry Edwin Smith on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Berliner has distinguished herself through her work in the area of eminent domain. Along with co-counsel Scott Bullock, Berliner litigated the landmark case Kelo v. City of New London. More recently, Berliner acted as lead counsel for Bill Brody in the New York eminent domain case Brody v. Village of Port Chester".[2] In 2015, Berliner represented the Community Youth and Athletic Center, a non-profit boxing gym for children in National City, California, defending it from potential eminent domain use by the city.

In addition to her work in the courtroom, Berliner has authored two works concerning eminent domain and been involved with the issue in other ways. In 2003, she wrote Public Power, Private Gain: A Five-Year, State-by-State Report Examining the Abuse of Eminent Domain. She also authored Opening the Floodgates: Eminent Domain Abuse in the Post-Kelo World, a report published by the Castle Coalition on the use and threatened use of eminent domain for private development in the year since the Kelo decision. Berliner has also written amicus curiae briefs on constitutional eminent domain issues in more than ten states. Over the past few years, she has also taught many continuing legal education classes on public use. She works with owners around the country in opposing the condemnation of their homes and businesses for private use.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Oyez: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. ___ (2005), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument
  2. ^ "Institute for Justice: Private Property Rights Cases: New York Eminent Domain". Archived from the original on 2007-08-13. Retrieved 2007-08-07.

External links[edit]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I figured Kelo had problems because I could smell it: it was presented by yourself.

You might try reading about Kelo on your own, rather then just relying on someone else to give you their take.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Charlie and David (may he rot in pieces) Koch.

I thought "progressive" sorts were supposed to be understanding of other peoples views?

Oh, who am I kidding - lefty "open mindedness" only applies to those who agree with them. Just look at the way minorities get treated if they dare to leave the (D) party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

I agree with this.

That's exactly why it would be corrupt. If I actually want to sell but pretend I don't and get a friend in government to buyback the land, what would you call it?

That and a nutjob libertarian law firm. I still wonder if Kelo might have prevailed if she had credible legal representation instead.

I agree that the 2X rule could be gamed. Certainly would be gamed.

Now what is your suggestion - something that enables a justifiable forced acquisition of property without the burden falling unfairly on the person owning the land?

I doubt you'll come up with anything because you're far better at whining about how unfair X is than actually offering possible alternatives.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Now what is your suggestion - something that enables a justifiable forced acquisition of property without the burden falling unfairly on the person owning the land?

Answered.

On 10/19/2020 at 4:44 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

We have county property appraisers. If a value is good enough for taxation purposes, why not for buyback purposes?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

@Quotidian Tom  You are being spoon-fed by the guy who lost Kelo? 

I figured Kelo had problems because I could smell it: it was presented by yourself. 

I continue to agree with Sol, CLEAN, and Justice Thomas about why she should not have lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

You don't seem to know what my opinion on the matter is.

No, I don't. If you have stated one, I missed it. So do you have one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Quotidian Tom said:

No, I don't. If you have stated one, I missed it. So do you have one?

Of course I have an opinion. Do you? Or do you just knee jerk react to certain stimuli?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bpm57 said:

You might try reading about Kelo on your own, rather then just relying on someone else to give you their take.

 

Well, I usually look at the train wrecks on PA, keeping a safe distance. But since Tom is selectively informed on the gun subject by CATO, I can expect the same on the subject of imminent domain. Would you expect quality on a second subject if you find garbage in the first?

Hi there, Buttplug '57. How bad is this situation?

  • Tom didn't know that security bonds were used for open carry for 500 years.
  • Tom can't even weigh in on The Standard Model of the Second Amendment, which has CATO DNA.
  • Tom is now an SAF man, he says...and my take on that outfit is that they are not up to the task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

imminent domain.

Who wants to tell him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Who wants to tell him?

i had a kelo headache, was livid about citizen's united too, was inundated by dogballs and misinformation, was not thinking straight for one brief moment in time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Who wants to tell him?

You may as well, your imminence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Just look at the way minorities get treated if they dare to leave the (D) party.

I think you refer here to the Nazis, right ?  

Yeah, it was tragic the way they stormed out

decked out famously in their too, too sexy sturmmann waffen regalia. 

After all, how can ya storm out without a sturm ? 

Sturmmann - Wikipedia

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Of course I have an opinion. Do you? Or do you just knee jerk react to certain stimuli?

Yes, I have an opinion. I guess you missed it a whole bunch of times in this thread, so here it is again.

10 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

I continue to agree with Sol, CLEAN, and Justice Thomas about why she should not have lost.

The "she" in question is the woman at the center of the topic case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2020 at 12:05 AM, AJ Oliver said:

I think you refer here to the Nazis, right ? 

So your new plan to deflect from (D) party treatment of blacks who dare disagree with them is to invoke Godwin?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2020 at 10:15 AM, MR.CLEAN said:
On 10/20/2020 at 5:54 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

nutjob libertarian law firm. I still wonder if Kelo might have prevailed if she had credible legal representation instead.

Advocacy organization, and probably. The brief was very meh, lead counsel for Kelo is a zealot who has spent his entire career working for conservative orgs.

Specifically, what would you have done to make it less "meh" or even good?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Specifically, what would you have done to make it less "meh" or even good?

 

i've got this alan

avoid libertarian pinheads when you need a lawbrief 

cuz the the overview of The Federalist Society

 

Standard Model urinal.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rethinking the Seattle "CHOP" Buyback Case
 

Quote

 

...

Property owners have sued the city, seeking compensation for the damage they suffered, and for temporary loss of access to their land and buildings. One of the claims they have made is a demand for compensation under the Buyback Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the equivalent provision in the Washington State Constitution. As co-blogger Eugene Volokh notes, a federal district court recently denied a motion to dismiss three of the claims made by the plaintiffs, including the buyback claim.

When I initially heard about the buyback claim in this case, I was very skeptical. But reading Judge Thomas Zilly's careful opinion has led me to reconsider. I'm not yet sure who deserves to prevail here. But the plaintiffs may have a much better case than I previously thought.

The reason for my initial skepticism is that the Buyback Clause and similar provisions in state constitutions generally only require compensation for the seizure of property rights by the government. If, for example, the government buysback your land to build a road or a military base  on it, the state must pay "just compensation" (usually the fair market value of the property taken). On the other hand, you generally cannot sue the government for a buyback if your property was seized by private criminals acting on their own. Thus, if a (private) thief steals your car, there is no buyback for which the government is liable. And that's still true even if the thief got away with it because the local police do a terrible job of deterring and apprehending auto theft. The thief himself may be liable (if you can find him!). But not the government.

On the other hand, the government can still be liable for a buyback if they have somehow helped a private party gain control over your property. If, for example, the government delegates the power of eminent domain to a private firm, such as a railroad or a public utility, they are still required to pay compensation under the Buybacks Clause. The same is true if the government itself buysback the land for purpose of transferring it to a private party, as in the notorious 2005 Kelo case, where the Supreme Court ruled that the government can buyback private homes for purposes of transferring them to another private owner in order to promote "economic development." While the parties in that case disagreed over whether the buyback was for a purpose that qualifies as a "public use" (as required by the Fifth Amendment), no one denied that a buyback had occurred and that the government owed compensation to the owners, if the state's actions were constitutionally permissible at all.

...

As I see it, the key question here is whether the City's actions were closely enough connected to the CHOP activists' violations of the owners' property rights to  be considered as assistance "sufficiently direct and substantial" enough to qualify as a buyback.

Given the scale of the city's alleged assistance to the private occupiers, I tentatively think the answer is yes. The city authorities apparently provided extensive aid to the CHOP activists both by giving the material assistance, and by allowing them to use city property. And it was foreseeable they would use these resources to violate local landowners' property rights.

...

 

(Helpfully edited a bit to conform to modern word usage.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY country club used to shoot 'The Wolf of Wall Street' and 'Red Oaks' could be boughtback by eminent domain
 

Quote

 

The town of Harrison, New York, is preparing to start an eminent domain proceeding to buyback Willow Ridge Country Club.

The 121-acre private club known has been struggling financially for years and has recently been losing members, according to three sources familiar with the club’s operations and status.

A club spokesman didn’t immediately return a phone call on October 30.

If it ultimately buysback the property, Harrison would become the third town in the area with a municipally-run club along with Rye Golf Club in neighboring Rye and Lake Isle Country Club in Eastchester.

...

The property is up for sale although it doesn’t appear to have been placed commercially on the market, sources said.

...

According to its IRS 990 forms, the club ran in the red by at least $320,000 every year from 2012 to 2018, the last year the forms were available.

...

 

Makes me wonder what kind of "public use" this is and why the town would want to buyback the property at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now