Kelo v. City of New London,

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
A trading ban is not a buyback, but,

He was very upset that ammo would permanently be significantly more expensive and harder to find. 
That's mostly going to affect poor people, and as the topic case showed, they are not as important as those who fulfill a public purpose by paying more in taxes.

OK, it's a reach, but I was struggling to find a shred of relevance.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
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


 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
Two days ago was the 12 year anniversary of an important victory over bogus blight buybacks in Long Branch, NJ.

Looking back.

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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
The State of California has confirmed that Justice Thomas was right when he said this about the topic case:

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; “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
 

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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
Save Burnet Road Coalition
 

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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
Vicki Baker won an early round
 

...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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
read here.


...

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...
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
If our home isn’t safe from eminent domain, your home isn’t safe

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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
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?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
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?

 

dfw_sailor

Super Anarchist
1,433
568
DFW
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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
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.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

dfw_sailor

Super Anarchist
1,433
568
DFW
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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
Eminent Domain Taking for Affordable Housing
 

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.

 

dfw_sailor

Super Anarchist
1,433
568
DFW
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.

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
9,863
3,127
Tasmania, Australia
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

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,579
1,737
Punta Gorda FL
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.

 
Top