Jump to content

Kelo v. City of New London,


Recommended Posts

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

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...

Well, the compensation was one problem. I was just Google mapping stuff and took a look at the old Kendall Gliderport. The runway is overgrown and the hangar is gradually being consumed by jungle. The 800' transmission tower that was just to our left on takeoff is gone.

About what I expected. The sad part was near the top of this picture (the Gliderport runway and hangar are at the bottom). That was a really cool little state park that got a lot of use. It too was absorbed into the Everglades National Park, which seemed like a good idea to me at the time. Looks like the National Park Service has abandoned it and it's overgrown and disused.

KendallGliderport2021.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 552
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yeah, corporate and government fascism by the LIBERAL members of the court - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer   Dissenting - Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor, the conservatives you l

You can summarise the opposition to libertarianism with pretty much the same text. Society works because, for the good of the many, some liberties get curtailed. Which liberties are preserved and whic

Posted Images

Two days ago was the 12 year anniversary of an important victory over bogus blight buybacks in Long Branch, NJ.

Looking back.

Quote

In addition to setting precedent, IJ’s victory in Long Branch helped inspire a wave of post-Kelo legal reform.  States across the country amended their state constitutions and their eminent domain laws to curtail eminent domain abuse.  Often, these reforms outlawed the sort of “area wide” blight designations that enabled cities like Long Branch to offer developers entire neighborhoods based on ginned up blight designations for a handful of properties.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The State of California has confirmed that Justice Thomas was right when he said this about the topic case:

Quote

Those incentives have made the legacy of this Court’s “public purpose” test an unhappy one. In the 1950’s, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of “public use” this Court adopted in Berman, cities “rushed to draw plans” for downtown development. B. Frieden & L. Sagalayn, Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cities 17 (1989). “Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were nonwhite, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them.” Id., at 28. Public works projects in the 1950’s and 1960’s destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. Id., at 28—29. In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely “lower-income and elderly” Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. J. Wylie, Poletown: Community Betrayed 58 (1989). Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; “[i]n cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as ‘Negro removal.’ ” Pritchett, The “Public Menace” of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain, 21 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 1, 47 (2003). Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the “slum-clearance” project upheld by this Court in Berman were black. 348 U.S., at 30. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court’s decision will be to exacerbate these effects.

 

Bruce’s Beach can return to descendants of Black family in landmark move signed by Newsom
 

Quote

 

In a history-making move celebrated by reparations advocates and social justice leaders across California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has authorized the return of property known as Bruce’s Beach to the descendants of a Black couple that had been run out of Manhattan Beach almost a century ago.

Senate Bill 796, signed into law Thursday by Newsom before an excited crowd that had gathered on the property, confirms that the city’s buyback of this shorefront land — on which the Bruces ran a thriving resort for Black beachgoers — was racially motivated and done under false and unlawful pretenses.

“The land in the City of Manhattan Beach, which was wrongfully boughtback from Willa and Charles Bruce, should be returned to their living descendants,” the legislation declares, “and it is in the public interest of the State of California, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Manhattan Beach, and the People of the State of California to do so.”

...

 

So that's nice, if a bit late.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Save Burnet Road Coalition
 

Quote

 

Today, residents and supporters of the Burnet Road neighborhood in Clay, New York, announced the formation of a new group, the Save Burnet Road Coalition. The group of homeowners and local business owners is organizing to stop the Onondaga County Industrial Development Authority (OCIDA) from destroying a multi-generational rural neighborhood in order to expand a “commerce park” that has remained empty for decades. OCIDA claims that it needs additional land on both sides of Burnet Road to expand the White Pine Commerce Park and has threatened to use eminent domain to intimidate residents into selling their property quickly. In reality, OCIDA is aggressively working to uproot a rural community on behalf of a giant corporation that hasn’t even agreed to start building.

In August, OCIDA voted to authorize the use of eminent domain and could soon hold a public hearing to begin the process of kicking out the rightful owners to make way for a private development project. The blatant abuse of eminent domain for economic development—seizing land from private owners and giving it to a large corporation—is illegal in states across the country, but New York’s courts and legislatures have allowed it to run rampant.

...

Current residents of Burnet Road, like Robin Richer and her husband Paul, grew up on the road and aren’t willing to sell. “This road has been a community for over 40 years,” said Robin. “No amount of money can replace that community or the history our family and friends have built here.”

...

The group is working with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a national public-interest civil liberties law firm dedicated to stopping the abuse of eminent domain. IJ represented Susette Kelo and her neighbors before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London

...

 

I wish them luck, but the topic case showed that we've already been through this.

Bottom line: a commerce park is projected to bring in more tax revenue than a bunch of homes, and more tax revenue is a public purpose and that's the same as a public use. Some amount of money absolutely CAN replace that community. It just has to be more than they pay.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/6/2021 at 6:17 AM, Seriatim Tom said:

And now there's another one. I hope Vicki Baker recovers damages.

A SWAT team destroyed a Texas home and refused to pay for the damage. Now the homeowner is fighting back.
 

 

Vicki Baker won an early round
 

Quote

 

...She sued. So the city asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.

"In its pursuit of the fugitive and pursuant to its police powers, Baker alleges the City caused significant economic damage—over $50,000—to her home. Then, the City refused to compensate her for the damage," writes Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. "Baker has alleged damage to her private property—and the City's refusal to compensate for such damage—that plausibly amounts to a Fifth Amendment violation."

The fact that this needed to be spelled out is a commentary on how difficult it has become to get meaningful accountability from the government. At the center of Baker's case is the Buybacks Clause of the 5th Amendment, which is supposed to provide recourse to those who had their property boughtback or destroyed by the government. But this protection has been weakened by a series of court cases creating carveouts for actions taken under the broad scope of "police powers."

"They're forcing unlucky individuals to shoulder the burden of doing something that's good for society," Jeffrey Redfern, a nutjob with the Institute for Justice, the nutjob law firm representing Baker, told me in March. "Taking dangerous criminals off the street is good for society. If the city decides that it really needs to put a road through your house, that might be the right call. It might be something the community really needs. But that doesn't justify making one unlucky owner bear the cost of doing something that's good for everyone."

...

 

(edited to update archaic language usage.)

I know we have lots of people here who oppose libertarians on this, and every other, issue. Still hopeful that one of them will come along and explain why the nutjobs are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2016 at 6:14 AM, Seriatim Tom said:

read here.

 

 

Quote

TransCanada, the company seeking to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, said Tuesday it has filed papers in Nebraska seeking to acquire the final 12 percent of easements from holdout landowners along the pipeline path.

 

The company is seeking to use eminent domain to compel reluctant property owners to sell easements for the use of their land.

 

 

Or here

 

Quote
TransCanada has used eminent domain to gain access to private land to build Keystone XL

 

TransCanada Pipelines boughtback land some years ago and now parent company TC Energy submits a formal Request for Arbitration under NAFTA Chapter 11.
 

Quote

 

...

As a public company, TC Energy has a responsibility to our shareholders to seek recovery of the losses incurred due to the permit revocation, which resulted in the termination of the project. 

...

 

They spent a lot of money and then had the rug pulled from under them so may well have a claim.

There's no real "undo" button for the former property owners, though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If our home isn’t safe from eminent domain, your home isn’t safe

 

Quote

 

We have spent our whole lives in our community on Burnet Road in Onondaga County. We grew up there, met there, fell in love there and got married there. We raised our family there. For decades, we have known our neighbors — and, usually, our neighbors’ parents and children, too. Now, the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) is doing everything it can to try to destroy our home and the community around it.

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with our home, and there’s nothing wrong with Burnet Road. But Burnet Road is right next to the White Pine Commerce Park, a huge tract of land that OCIDA has been trying (and failing) to develop since the 1990s. But now, Onondaga County Executive Ryan McMahon has decided that the problem with the county’s giant vacant lot is that it isn’t big enough. That is why OCIDA has been trying to buyback our home and our neighbors’ homes through eminent domain, supposedly so that a big semiconductor manufacturing plant will move in.

...

That vision never made sense, and even the bad excuses are running out. The sorts of manufacturers OCIDA claims it can lure to our land are choosing to go elsewhere.

Just in the last few weeks, chip manufacturers like Samsung and Texas Instruments have chosen Texas, not Onondaga County, as the location of new chip plants. Neither one needed to use eminent domain to destroy a longstanding neighborhood to get the deal done.

But nonetheless, the county continues to threaten us and our neighbors on Burnet Road with eminent domain if we aren’t willing to sell.

...

But we’re not ones to be bullied. That is why we’re working with the Institute for Justice, the national public interest law firm that represented Susette Kelo, along with our friends and neighbors who believe in our cause, to fight back and demand that OCIDA revoke its authorization to use eminent domain and stop threatening innocent homeowners.

...

 

As I said above, I wish them luck, but they're going to need it. The case is very similar to the topic case, the only one the nutjobs at IJ have ever lost at the Supreme Court. It's a different court today, but not that different.

I think it very likely that Roberts would have gone with the majority in Kelo and pretty likely that Kavanaugh would. +3 = 5 and the nutjobs lose again, if it gets that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

  

20 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Many adopt libertarianism as merely a scholarly way to present their hate and misanthropy. That's what I always thought of Buckley, et al: Pompous learned assholes.

I guess the nutjobs who brought the topic case may have been motivated by hatred of Pfizer. Some people don't seem to like big pharma.

But how is that misanthropy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

15 hours ago, dfw_sailor said:

In my mind a true libertarian has no compulsion to do anything they do not want to at all. They could choose to live entirely off grid, on some unowned land somewhere, that no one has improved, and eke out an existence. I have no issue with that philosophy at all.  So long as they are not given resources others have invested in, without some payment as compensation. 

This post is more interesting in a thread with an example like the topic case.

Land was to be improved, meaning tearing down Kelo's house and giving the property to the development corp. Improvement is good, right?

There was payment as compensation, so that makes it all OK, right?

 

 

 

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

  

This post is more interesting in a thread with an example like the topic case.

Land was to be improved, meaning tearing down Kelo's house and giving the property to the development corp. Improvement is good, right?

There was payment as compensation, so that makes it all OK, right?

 

hmmm. Well before getting into the merits of Kelo....

Please explain how eminent domain can exist in a pure libertarian society. My argument is it cant, because eminent domain within a democracy is designed to be a tool to enable a form of compulsory property acquisition for the good of the community, so long as appropriate compensation is paid. 

And further - exactly how can a society functionally exist without eminent domain. NO freeways? No Interstates, No power grid? No telephony / comms or any other old or new infrastructure that needs to physically be placed somewhere?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the KELO situation was right, but that doesnt mean eminent domain is wrong per se, but the application was an abuse of eminent domain law, and therefore at some point society then changed eminent domain law to try and stop the abuses.

But my overall point still stays the same, and i am happy to discuss it here.

One can only be libertarian with oneself. As soon as the singular libertarian wants to interact with anything outside the libertarian's bubble, cooperation / compromise has to occur - and that runs foul of the libertarian ideal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dfw_sailor said:

hmmm. Well before getting into the merits of Kelo....

Please explain how eminent domain can exist in a pure libertarian society. My argument is it cant, because eminent domain within a democracy is designed to be a tool to enable a form of compulsory property acquisition for the good of the community, so long as appropriate compensation is paid. 

And further - exactly how can a society functionally exist without eminent domain. NO freeways? No Interstates, No power grid? No telephony / comms or any other old or new infrastructure that needs to physically be placed somewhere?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the KELO situation was right, but that doesnt mean eminent domain is wrong per se, but the application was an abuse of eminent domain law, and therefore at some point society then changed eminent domain law to try and stop the abuses.

But my overall point still stays the same, and i am happy to discuss it here.

One can only be libertarian with oneself. As soon as the singular libertarian wants to interact with anything outside the libertarian's bubble, cooperation / compromise has to occur - and that runs foul of the libertarian ideal.

I'm not really interested in hypothetical "pure" libertarians that you simultaneously invented and say don't exist. I agree that they exist only in your head.

OK, so the people at IJ and I are wrong to call ourselves libertarians. What word do you want to use?

As for eminent domain, I'd be happy to argue your strawman, but first, please find where IJ, I, or anyone on this thread said to eliminate eminent domain. Even Justice Thomas, with whom I agree on this one, did not go that far. Nor would I. So after you get done looking and not finding any evidence your strawman, we can talk more about it and why you invented it, or, alternatively, we could discuss positions taken by actual _____________________. (Please fill in the blank and tell me what I am.)

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

I'm not really interested in hypothetical "pure" libertarians that you simultaneously invented and say don't exist. I agree that they exist only in your head.

OK, so the people at IJ and I are wrong to call ourselves libertarians. What word do you want to use?

As for eminent domain, I'd be happy to argue your strawman, but first, please find where IJ, I, or anyone on this thread said to eliminate eminent domain. Even Justice Thomas, with whom I agree on this one, did not go that far. Nor would I. So after you get done looking and not finding any evidence your strawman, we can talk more about it and why you invented it, or, alternatively, we could discuss positions taken by actual _____________________. (Please fill in the blank and tell me what I am.)

So you tell me why you dragged my comment across threads.

Don't know what you want from me on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dfw_sailor said:

So you tell me why you dragged my comment across threads.

Don't know what you want from me on this.

Because your post is more interesting in a thread with an example like the topic case.

What I want? Either a discussion of why you made up the straw man you did, or, alternatively, a discussion of actual _________________ positions. Oh, and I still want you to fill in that blank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eminent Domain Taking for Affordable Housing
 

Quote

 

City Manager Tom Ambrosino said after a legal analysis, the City believes that taking property at several locations in Chelsea for the creation of affordable housing would be appropriate.

“Based upon a legal analysis of taking property by eminent domain for affordable housing development, the City believes it would be an appropriate purpose for a public taking,” he wrote in a letter.

Council President Roy Avellaneda proposed the idea last month at a Council meeting, saying despite great efforts, he still didn’t think enough was being done for affordable housing. He proposed to take underutilized private property by Eminent Domain in order for the City’s new Affordable Housing Trust Fund effort to make new housing.

...

 

Any old "purpose" could be called a "public use" but some seem more like a highway or channel than others.

Justice Thomas pointed out who "underutilizes" property: poor people, often black. Systematically targeting them serves the public purpose of enhancing the tax base. That's the main lesson of the topic case and this is the legacy of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2021 at 3:52 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Because your post is more interesting in a thread with an example like the topic case.

What I want? Either a discussion of why you made up the straw man you did, or, alternatively, a discussion of actual _________________ positions. Oh, and I still want you to fill in that blank.

not a strawman - and I'm not going to play because i dont have time to read 6 pages of stuff because you cant nail down concisely what value you think i can bring.

I've got better things to do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dfw_sailor said:

not a strawman - and I'm not going to play because i dont have time to read 6 pages of stuff because you cant nail down concisely what value you think i can bring.

I've got better things to do.

Pretty much the position I got to.

I probably agree with Tom on the majority of these issues but dealing with the tendentious bullshit isn't worth the bother.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2021 at 3:56 PM, dfw_sailor said:

hmmm. Well before getting into the merits of Kelo....

Please explain how eminent domain can exist in a pure libertarian society. My argument is it cant, because eminent domain within a democracy is designed to be a tool to enable a form of compulsory property acquisition for the good of the community, so long as appropriate compensation is paid. 

And further - exactly how can a society functionally exist without eminent domain. NO freeways? No Interstates, No power grid? No telephony / comms or any other old or new infrastructure that needs to physically be placed somewhere?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the KELO situation was right, but that doesnt mean eminent domain is wrong per se, but the application was an abuse of eminent domain law, and therefore at some point society then changed eminent domain law to try and stop the abuses.

But my overall point still stays the same, and i am happy to discuss it here.

One can only be libertarian with oneself. As soon as the singular libertarian wants to interact with anything outside the libertarian's bubble, cooperation / compromise has to occur - and that runs foul of the libertarian ideal.

I'm not sure anything can exist in a pure libertarian society, but I'll at least try with our society.

A society can't functionally exist without eminent domain and no one I've seen is advocating that, so that would be a position you want to argue against, but which no one has actually taken. There's a word for it but I can't think of it.

So you could bring an argument against a position actually taken, such as the position that taking Kelo's house was (right/wrong).

I think it was wrong because public use does not mean public purpose, it means public use. Don't know how to make that more concise or less tendentious.

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

Pretty much the position I got to.

I probably agree with Tom on the majority of these issues but dealing with the tendentious bullshit isn't worth the bother.

FKT

So you accept his idea that I must think eminent domain shouldn't exist at all, and you actually agree with it?

Yer nutz, that's not my position, and if you do actually espouse it, you're the "pure" libertarian who has been missing from this thread this whole time.

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

Pretty much the position I got to.

I probably agree with Tom on the majority of these issues but dealing with the tendentious bullshit isn't worth the bother.

FKT

DFW_Sailor made a sweeping generalization when he said "In my mind a true libertarian has no compulsion to do anything they do not want to at all." 

Tom is also libertarianish.  And, as such, said "here's something that I believe it.  Do you believe in it?"  DFW then tried again to deflect to justify his particular view of what a "Pure Libertarian" really is, as opposed to arguing with an actual libertarian point of view.  He got his pet rage pinata out and, in typical PA fashion, flailed away.  To which, Tom tried to bring him back again "This is what I, and some other Libertarians, believe in - Do you agree or disagree with THIS POINT?".

Tom is only tedious because people won't back off their strawmen.  Its easier to argue with 'those people' than an actual position.  PA doesn't have to be a binary world unless we want it to be that way.

 

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

Tom is also libertarianish.

That name seems to trigger people so I've been thinking of just going with nutjobish. OK, I'm a nutjob, why are nutjobs wrong? It still won't be answered, but at least the answer won't be, "You're not a nutjob!"

8 hours ago, BeSafe said:

Its easier to argue with 'those people' than an actual position. 

But apparently less fun for most. You're an exception to that rule, so here's something that might interest you, if not the rest.

Balancing Justice Needs and Private Property in Constitutional Takings Provisions: A Comparative Assessment of India, Australia, and the United States

Where we have Kelo and her former pink house, Aussies have the fictional Daryl Kerrigan and the real Graham French.

I thought it kind of funny that no one really seems to remember how/why the Aussie government got the power of compulsory acquisition back in 1901. It's a power of sovereigns, who live back in the UK, and they seem to have just wanted to clarify that it was delegated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll read it - thank you.

I said "Libertarianish" because I don't know i you're actually a libertarian or just play one on TV.  I'm currently a registered democrat FWIW but I vote for whomever I think will do the best job, based on what I know at the time.

As a party, I think the Libertarians are kind of an oxymoron.  There is JUST enough of them to end up on ballots but not enough of them to make an impact, so the Libertarian party has become a defacto place keeper for populist candidates.  It serves a purpose and makes a convenient scapegoat.  That being said, I have voted for Libertarian candidates in the past and I'm glad it exists.  More choice is better than less choice.  But it tends to be more practical at the state level than the national level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

I said "Libertarianish" because I don't know i you're actually a libertarian or just play one on TV.  I'm currently a registered democrat FWIW but I vote for whomever I think will do the best job, based on what I know at the time.

Well, my voter registration says I'm one, but I think it would be way funnier if it said "nutjob" under party affiliation. Not sure if that's allowed.

I'm not very involved with the party because those nutjobs think I'm too much of a statist. Really, they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

I'm not sure anything can exist in a pure libertarian society, but I'll at least try with our society.

A society can't functionally exist without eminent domain and no one I've seen is advocating that, so that would be a position you want to argue against, but which no one has actually taken. There's a word for it but I can't think of it.

So you could bring an argument against a position actually taken, such as the position that taking Kelo's house was (right/wrong).

I think it was wrong because public use does not mean public purpose, it means public use. Don't know how to make that more concise or less tendentious.

I was abrupt because of recent (12 months?) experience dealing with a significant number of people who i cannot avoid, who are using any label they wish that could possibly be of support to the 'fuck you, i'm ok' attitude - until they fall on hard economic or health issues and then beg like slimy snakes. Many of them fall back to being 'libertarian' as their guiding philosophy because it seems a convenient argument for them..

At which point I really try to bring them back to some basics - real life hypotheticals that can and will happen, and try and get them to process through the implications. I understand that is not you.

So, regarding Kelo. Everything is wrong about kelo, but that is the fault of the mechanism, not the need for eminent domain. So why is the mechanism wrong? Vested interests, which exist in every freaken jurisdiction in the US. 

I'm tired of 'woe is me' when the claimant has not previously been interested in local politics. Politics doesn't just happen. Politicians will only be as responsive as the electorate demands.  

So to me there is not much point in going through the issues of Kelo because it is super localized to whatever political cabal has established itself for that area, and what the citizens are or are not doing to root out the cabal. Unfortunately from what I have seen there is really no option in a lot of situations but to cut and run.

Ideally, the mechanism would use eminent domain as a last resort, and the mechanism would have to pay a premium above market value for the inconvenience of compulsory acquisition. Once purchased, the property's community end use development of the property would then be assigned via tender / rfp / auction to the best bidder, and the declared end use of the property would have to be guaranteed for a lengthy period e.g. 20 years before it could possibly be used (or sold) for different uses in the future.

 

 

 

 

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

Ideally, the mechanism would use eminent domain as a last resort, and the mechanism would have to pay a premium above market value for the inconvenience of compulsory acquisition. Once purchased, the property's community end use development of the property would then be assigned via tender / rfp / auction to the best bidder, and the declared end use of the property would have to be guaranteed for a lengthy period e.g. 20 years before it could possibly be used (or sold) for different uses in the future.

I said that waaay back in this thread and Tom was against it on the grounds that it would be gamed.

Of course it would be gamed, if it could be.

But  - just like his incessant whining over a stupid 22LR, does he propose anything like a solution? Of course not, he just keeps on whining.

What Tom wants is things like eminent domain to be outright banned but he won't say that.

Of course he could show that I'm wrong by listing the changes he thinks should be made to the eminent domain process, but I'd be amazed if he actually did that.

So while I actually agree with him on this abuse and I also agree with him on most of the other abuses he posts (qualified immunity being an absolute classic of an authorised wrong IMO) in the end he's just boring.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I said that waaay back in this thread and Tom was against it on the grounds that it would be gamed.

Of course it would be gamed, if it could be.

Tom seems to hate hypotheticals, but one of my wishes would be for all politicians and lawmakers attend a primer on how to run hypotheticals al la Geoffrey Robertson. The low quality, short sighted lawmaking at US state and country level astounds me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dfw_sailor said:

Tom seems to hate hypotheticals, but one of my wishes would be for all politicians and lawmakers attend a primer on how to run hypotheticals al la Geoffrey Robertson. The low quality, short sighted lawmaking at US state and country level astounds me. 

Yeah. And everything proposed should go to a B team whose job was to find & exploit every single loophole & ambiguity before it gets to 'go live'.

That would save a hell of a lot of patches but the B team would become incredibly unpopular instantly when they destroyed pet ideas.

Had a programmer tell me once we didn't need to code for a certain event because that event couldn't happen - so I got one of my electronics engineers to ensure that it did.

Then told the programmer to stop being so fucking lazy & arrogant and FIX IT.

That's what needs to be done to proposed laws before they get implemented.

And BTW the low quality, short-sighted lawmaking is in no way restricted to the USA, as you'll find out if you come home to live. COVID has brought out the worst of the heartless stupidity currently.

FKT

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

I said that waaay back in this thread and Tom was against it on the grounds that it would be gamed.

Of course it would be gamed, if it could be.

But  - just like his incessant whining over a stupid 22LR, does he propose anything like a solution? Of course not, he just keeps on whining.

What Tom wants is things like eminent domain to be outright banned but he won't say that.

Actually, I propose fair market value vs a premium, which is at least something like a solution.

When considering eminent domain, as with any other issue, it's important to recognize that I sometimes say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs, so thanks for bringing that into the discussion.

Your mind reading is way off. I say what I mean and can actually do it under my real name. You make shit up and can't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dfw_sailor said:

So, regarding Kelo. Everything is wrong about kelo, but that is the fault of the mechanism, not the need for eminent domain. So why is the mechanism wrong? Vested interests, which exist in every freaken jurisdiction in the US. 

That doesn't make eminent domain wrong, and again, I'm not in favor of abolishing it, despite various claims by people who don't know much about me.

I think you're mistaken about the why. As I said, it's public purpose vs public use.

Most anything can be a public purpose, something very convenient for the "vested interests" of whom you speak. In the topic case, enhancing the tax base was a public purpose. In the Jones Beach case, negro removal was the public purpose. Can be anything.

Public USE seems much more narrow to me, and would shear away lots of those vested interests.

You can't get rid of vested interests, but changing the rules under which they can grab property can help.

Is it for something that someone can argue is a "public use?" No eminent domain for you!

 Is it something the public actually uses, like a road? Yes, eminent domain is appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2021 at 1:48 PM, dfw_sailor said:

So, regarding Kelo. Everything is wrong about kelo

I'd just add that at least two things were not wrong:

The nutjobs who brought the case were not wrong. They're wrong to call themselves libertarians when you know better, but if we just agree to call them nutjobs, that objection goes away. On the issue of the case, buyingback Kelo's house, they were right.

Also right, at least almost completely, Justice Thomas. His dissent is not a whole lot longer than your word count in this thread and is, no offense, a lot more worth reading.

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 .

Never thought I'd see it, but I think we actually have competition in the "most ignorant post about eminent domain" category.

On 12/16/2021 at 8:39 AM, learningJ24 said:

Except the court is leaning in a reactionary activist direction; money is speech, guns are an individual right, Roe is not settled precedent, imminent domain for private development

Frank James had 5 years to figure out who supported buyingback Kelo's house and why and failed.

Learning has had a lot more time and also failed and has "learning" in his screen name, giving him the edge in my book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2021 at 1:48 PM, dfw_sailor said:

Ideally, the mechanism would use eminent domain as a last resort, and the mechanism would have to pay a premium above market value for the inconvenience of compulsory acquisition.

If inconvenience should be compensated, how about breaking a spiritual bond?

From the article above:
 

Quote

 

...

And recent judicial authority suggests that this definition of property may include a “spiritual connection” to land as part of native title held by Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

...

 

What's a fair premium for obliterating cultural heritage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2021 at 6:11 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

If inconvenience should be compensated, how about breaking a spiritual bond?

From the article above:
 

What's a fair premium for obliterating cultural heritage?

I look forward to your recommended solution. Perhaps you should review tribal law first, then the mabo case, then how western law can /could mesh with tribal principles etc.

It's a challenge when  one religious philosophy (dreamtime = mostly all encompassing / all enveloping / indistinguishable from nature, richness is oneness with nature) collides with protestantism and the focus on personal property.

In other words, I see your raise from shitty local bastardization of eminent domain to tribal belief issue on another continent; and I raise it again to  the level of incompatibility of 2 different legal systems based on entirely different life value propositions.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dfw_sailor said:

I look forward to your recommended solution. Perhaps you should review tribal law first, then the mabo case, then how western law can /could mesh with tribal principles etc.

It's a challenge when  one religious philosophy (dreamtime = mostly all encompassing / all enveloping / indistinguishable from nature, richness is oneness with nature) collides with protestantism and the focus on personal property.

In other words, I see your raise from shitty local bastardization of eminent domain to tribal belief issue on another continent; and I raise it again to  the level of incompatibility of 2 different legal systems based on entirely different life value propositions.

 

Has Tom actually proposed anything definitive WRT eminent domain, how it can be used with heavy restrictions on abuse, and how people can be properly compensated for the confiscation of their property?

No?

Wake me when he does. Until then - I have a boat to play with.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dfw_sailor said:

I look forward to your recommended solution.

OK, but you could as easily look upthread.

12 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Has Tom actually proposed anything definitive WRT eminent domain, how it can be used with heavy restrictions on abuse, and how people can be properly compensated for the confiscation of their property?

No?

Readers would know. Of course, they might have also figured out that I would not abolish eminent domain and am not secretly hiding that desire, as you wrongly guessed.

There have been changes in process in some areas in response to Kelo, but no change in process can change a court precedent.

The problem is not process at all, it's interpretation.

Does "public use" mean "public use" or does it mean the much broader "public purpose?"

I agree with Justice Thomas that it means "public use" but the majority disagreed.

We fix those kinds of problems by constitutional amendment or by the Supreme Court reversing itself.

I don't think an amendment is needed. "Public use" seems fine to me.

So that leaves one way to change it: SCOTUS reversal.

Now that I've once again spelled out the problem and solution, let's hear your solutions?

Oh, wait, I remember now, you only ask for those from others and never offer one yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Eminent Domain, Police Power and Pandemics: When Does the Government Have to Pay?

Interesting article on the legal history of emergency takings, especially temporary ones during a pandemic.

It was written in April, prior to Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which changed how temporary takings are viewed under the law.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

How "urban renewal" (aka "negro removal") worked out in Detroit...

The Destruction of Detroit's Black Bottom
 

Quote

 

...

Detroit's Black Bottom neighborhood provides the perfect prism through which to see the unfortunate ways in which public housing and its close cousin, urban renewal, destroyed African-American institutions and robbed residents of the chance to accumulate wealth. It's a story well told in a lively phone conversation in July 2020 with historian Jamon Jordan, the president of the Detroit chapter of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History.

Increased appreciation for what was lost when Black Bottom was cleared has led the onetime middle school social studies teacher to a new career. He now works as a tour guide for university and high school groups interested in the handful of buildings (including public schools) that remain of what was once a dynamic community of 130,000, replete with more than 300 black-owned businesses.

...

In 1946, real estate developer Eugene Greenhut first proposed their demolition—and the idea found favor with Detroit Mayor Edward Jeffries. "This area [should] be acquired by the city and completely cleared of all buildings thereon," Jeffries wrote. "The area [should] then be re-planned, with the object in mind of disposing of as much as possible to private enterprise for redevelopment for housing and incidental commercial purposes after providing sufficient space for parks, playgrounds, schools and other public uses." It was modernist planning.

The city's Common Council voted to approve the idea and to broadly condemn the neighborhood's buildings. But the idea stalled for lack of city funds to compensate property owners, many of whom were white (even when the businesses themselves were black-owned). Indeed, Jeffries' successor as mayor, Albert Cobo, campaigned against the idea of spending city money on public housing and its attendant costs. The plan might then have stalled permanently were it not for the entrance of the federal government and its deep pockets.

The National Housing Act of 1949—which would vastly ramp up the vision of Catherine Bauer and Edith Wood—included funding for "urban renewal." The few public housing projects built during the Depression and early war years would be augmented on a grand scale. As a latter-day summary by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development would put it, the act "authorizes Federal advances, loans, and grants to localities to assist slum clearance and urban redevelop-ment." At the same time, it provided funding to expand public housing by up to 810,000 additional units over a six-year period.

This would make possible both the clearance of Black Bottom and the construction of the six high-rise public housing towers known as the Frederick Douglass Apartments, which were combined with a single previously built project to become the Brewster-Douglass Homes. The plan suited the purposes of two seemingly disparate forces: the progressive Democrats of the post-war Truman administration, who were convinced that public housing would provide the "safe and sanitary" conditions too many Americans lacked, and Detroit's Republican mayor, Albert Cobo, whose racially charged campaign included promises to maintain white neighborhoods as white. The Michigan Chronicle characterized it as "one of the most vicious campaigns of race-baiting and playing upon the prejudices of all segments of the Detroit population."

First elected in 1950, Cobo was capitalizing on hostility to the Supreme Court decision barring real estate racial covenants. But making good on the pledge to keep black people in Detroit from moving into white neighborhoods—keeping them confined and concentrated instead in what amounted to high-rise reservations, modern and gilded before they rapidly deteriorated—would have been unlikely absent the National Housing Act. Progressive housing policy did what even the race-baiting local mayor might never have been able to do.

It was made easy, Jordan notes, because Black Bottom was already a discrete and concentrated neighborhood: "It was so easy to just wipe it out." Business owners, for the most part, received no compensation. And the public housing itself, Jordan says in understatement, "was problematic." In the short term, it provided better physical accommodations for those relocated. "A significant number of people clamored to be on the list." But "after years living there, all you would have would be rent receipts. African Americans would get the projects; whites would become homeowners. And property ownership is the way to accumulate wealth in America."

Housing projects were not the only obstacle to black wealth accumulation. There was also the well-documented race discrimination of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which made post–World War II homeownership possible by insuring private mortgages.

The FHA was created to help middle-class earners buy their first homes. It did so by insuring mortgage loans that were 80 percent or more of a home's property value. But only loans with a low risk of default were eligible, and the FHA would do its own appraisals to determine eligibility under requirements that were explicitly racially discriminatory. As Richard Rothstein, a distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute, wrote in The Color of Law: The Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (Liveright), "The FHA judged that properties would probably be too risky for insurance if they were in racially mixed neighborhoods or even in white neighborhoods near black ones that might possibly integrate in the future."

In this way, too, government involvement in the private housing market can be said to have institutionalized racism. So it was that the hard bigotry of the FHA—a New Deal agency built on fears of white reaction to black neighbors and the racism of Southern Democrats—combined with the soft bigotry of housing reformers who believed in herding black residents into high-rise projects.

Absent the slum clearing and public housing, more positive counterfactuals would have been possible. As Detroit's black residents became wealthier at a time when the city's auto plants were booming, black institutions might have renovated and otherwise improved historically black neighborhoods. Without such deep government involvement in the mortgage market, competing banks might have sought out, rather than shut out, black homebuyers. Instead, both Black Bottom and Paradise Valley were cleared and the Douglass high-rises opened.

By 2014, the six high-rise towers that once housed 10,000 people, including a young Diana Ross of future Motown fame, had deteriorated to the point that they had to be demolished. Clearance had returned to Black Bottom. The nearby original site of Paradise Valley, cleared by 1956, lay fallow for years—a large empty lot where a thriving neighborhood once stood.

Detroit civic leaders, led by United Auto Workers President Walter Reuther, ultimately laid the groundwork for the construction of the Lafayette Park apartments—an upper-middle-class complex designed by the pioneer modernist architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe—on the former site of Black Bottom. The reform gaze had done its worst: Clearance had been replaced by the anti-urbanism of modernist architecture. The thriving world of what could appropriately be called immigrant African-American Detroit, judged problematic by both race-baiting local officials and progressive federal officials, had been swept away by their policy tides.

 

I agree with Mr. Jordan about the bolded bit above. Now I have to go deposit a check from a woman who WILL own her home one day. She was poor and desperate and had given up and was on a sure path to losing her home. My business partner, who speaks poor redneck fluently having grown up as one, gave her the one essential thing: hope. She thinks she can do it. Without that, nothing else was possible. She's been catching up for some time and has a ways to go, but I can't wait to sign her Satisfaction of Mortgage and I'm sure she'll make it. You can't turn herds of lives around. It happens one at a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

17 hours ago, gptyk said:
18 hours ago, jerseyguy said:

A reasonable person might suggest that despite their academic pedigrees; the likes of Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett do not even come close to meeting whatever the requirements are to be listed among “the finest constitutional legal minds in the country.”

Are you insinuating that "I vote whichever way Ginny tells me to" does not reflect a reasonable process that a constitutional legal mind would engage in?

I keep seeing stuff like this and keep wondering what Ginny has against Pfizer and how people know about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

We'll just take what you owe. And anything else you've got.
 

Quote

 

Whether or not Geraldine Tyler will live to see the resolution of her case remains unclear.

The 93-year-old left her Minneapolis condominium in 2010 after a nearby shooting and a disturbing encounter left her uneasy. But she was unable to finance both her new apartment and the property tax on her erstwhile condo, accruing $2,300 in debt.

Over the course of the next five years, the government raised that debt by over 550 percent, tacking on almost $13,000 in additional penalties, fines, and interest. And when Tyler couldn't pay that, it seized her property, sold it for $40,000—and kept the profit.

Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that was OK.

"Tyler does not argue that the county lacked lawful authority to foreclose on her condominium to satisfy her delinquent tax debt," wrote Judge Steven Colloton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. "Rather, Tyler argues that the county's retention of the surplus equity—the amount that exceeded her $15,000 tax debt—is an unconstitutional buyback."

...

 

The basic idea is that they took her $40k condo fair and square in settlement of her $15k debt, so she's not entitled to the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

  

6 hours ago, Remodel said:

Do you honestly think that crazy woman thought any of this out beyond trying to cover her ass? Go read what has been released so far. She's probably guilty of sedition. Clarence doesn't think for himself, and while she's the one wearing the pants in that family, her thought processes are clearly not very cogent. Clarence does what he's told whether it makes sense or not.

I keep seeing stuff like this but no one can explain exactly what Ginni has against Pfizer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is SpaceX really a public use?
 

Quote

 

A resident of a South Texas village told NBC News that SpaceX wanted to buy her house for $150,000 but that the company's offer was one-third of the price of similar properties nearby.

...

Johnson and Maria Pointer, another Boca Chica resident, told NBC News that a real-estate agent representing Elon Musk's company had told them their properties could be seized by the state under eminent domain.

...

 

I wonder if the agent was just trying to scare them into taking the low offer or if there's really eminent domain action in the works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

On 2/8/2022 at 12:34 PM, gptyk said:

Are you insinuating that "I vote whichever way Ginny tells me to" does not reflect a reasonable process that a constitutional legal mind would engage in?

 

Doesn't anyone know why Ginny hates Pfizer so much?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
23 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:
23 hours ago, Jules said:
23 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

This leaves unexplained why Ginni Thomas hates Pfizer so much. Also a bit weird that all the liberal justices love them.

Follow the money. 

Sorry, I've lost the trail. Can you explain it one step at a time?

Sure.  You repeatedly take comments from a thread where they are pertinent and post them in a thread where they are not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jules said:

Sure.  You repeatedly take comments from a thread where they are pertinent and post them in a thread where they are not. 

That's one of Pernicious Tom's trademarks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Pittsburgh Housing Rules Are Unconstitutional Buyback
 

Quote

 

Laws forcing developers to include affordable units in their projects are common in the U.S. A new lawsuit argues that they're also unconstitutional.

On Wednesday, builders in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against the city over its requirement that some of the new units they construct in mid- and larger-sized housing developments must be rented or sold at substantial discounts.

Last month, the Pittsburgh City Council approved an ordinance requiring that at least 10 percent of units in housing projects of at least 20 units be offered at below-market rates to lower-income homebuyers and tenants in Pittsburgh's Polish Hill and Bloomfield neighborhoods. Since 2019, the city has imposed identical requirements on development in the city's Lawrenceville neighborhood.

The complaint—filed by the Builders Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh (BAMP) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania—says that mandate is an uncompensated buyback that violates the U.S. Constitution's Buybacks Clause.

...

 

Demanding that your operate your business at a loss seems like a buyback to me. We'll see if any courts agree.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2022 at 5:28 AM, Jules said:

Sure.  You repeatedly take comments from a thread where they are pertinent and post them in a thread where they are not. 

I took that comment back to the unrelated thread and you still haven't traced the money trail.

Possibly because that was just a stupid applause-line and devoid of meaning or factual basis.

 

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

I took that comment back to the unrelated thread and you still haven't traced the money trail.

Possibly because that was just a stupid applause-line and devoid of meaning or factual basis.

Are you upset your attempt at manipulating people failed?

Do you think by making wild, baseless assumptions you can get people to jump at your beck and call?

Better go find someone else.

Now go back to your pathetic habit of trying to keep alive threads no one else cares about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

Pittsburgh Housing Rules Are Unconstitutional Buyback
 

Demanding that your operate your business at a loss seems like a buyback to me. We'll see if any courts agree.

 

Loss leading isn't the same as operating a business at a loss.  I always looked at 'buyback' as being forced to sell something you don't want to sell.  This case looks more like a 10% tithe or - probably more accurately - a back door tax.

I think the builders are going to lose that case and have to come up with some other argument.  More likely, they'll just build somewhere else.  That's usually what happens - the project just gets scrapped and the builders just fan out farther into the burbs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BeSafe said:

Loss leading isn't the same as operating a business at a loss.  I always looked at 'buyback' as being forced to sell something you don't want to sell.  This case looks more like a 10% tithe or - probably more accurately - a back door tax.

I think of loss leading as a voluntary marketing strategy.

I doubt the builders want to sell below cost. They're told to do it or not build. It's akin to a tax but is more a regulatory buyback.

As with the topic case, I agree with Justice Thomas about those. From upthread:

  

On 2/23/2021 at 5:31 AM, Pertinacious Tom said:

In the most recent Order List from SCOTUS, Justice Thomas dissented from the denial. I have slightly updated his archaic use of language in this quote.
 

Quote

 

Our current regulatory buybacks jurisprudence leaves much to be desired. A regulation effects a buyback, we have said, whenever it “goes too far.”

...

After an 8-day trial and with the benefit of jury instructions endorsed by both parties, the jury found a buyback. The District Court, in turn, concluded that there was an adequate factual basis for this verdict. But the Ninth Circuit on appeal reweighed and reevaluated the same facts under the same legal tests to conclude that no reasonable jury could have found a buyback.These starkly different outcomes based on the application of the same law indicate that we have still not provided courts with a “workable standard.”

...

A know-it-when-you-see-it test is no good if one court sees it and another does not.

...

If there is no such thing as a regulatory buyback, we should say so. And if there is, we should make clear when one occurs.

I respectfully dissent

 

Expand  

Troublesome Thomas is right again. And that would make a pretty good screen name.

Maybe after Jules traces the paths of Pfizer's and Kelo's money, I'll change my mind about Thomas' opinions. Not holding my breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...