Kelo v. City of New London,

[Pertinacious Tom]

Geraldine Tyler's case is one of three Pacific Legal Foundation cases to be heard by SCOTUS this term.



I hope the PLF can pinch off a big ol' loaf of freedom for Ms. Tyler. A $25,000 loaf would be good.

If you look at the rest of her debts, it might need to be bigger.

Justices appear likely to side with homeowner in foreclosure dispute

Geraldine Tyler, a 94-year-old grandmother, lost her Minneapolis condo when she failed to pay the property taxes for several years. Tyler does not dispute that Hennepin County could foreclose on the $40,000 property and sell it to obtain the $15,000 in taxes and costs that she owed it. But she argued that the county violated the Constitution when it kept the $25,000 left over after the property was sold. After roughly 100 minutes of debate on Wednesday, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to agree with her.


Representing Tyler, lawyer Christina Martin argued that the county had violated the Constitution’s buybacks clause, which bars the government from buyingback private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owners. The county, Martin said, could have followed a more traditional path and boughtback Tyler’s condo, sold it to pay Tyler’s debts, and then refunded the remainder to Tyler. But instead, she emphasized, the county kept the profits too. And if the county’s actions don’t violate the buybacks clause, Martin continued, at the very least they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines, because the county’s seizure of Tyler’s property to punish her for not paying her property taxes on time goes well beyond compensating the government for any loss.


The Biden administration filed a “friend of the court” brief in which it agreed with Tyler that the county’s actions violated the buybacks clause. The justices pressed both Martin and Assistant to the Solicitor General Erica Ross, representing the Department of Justice, on potentially significant differences in the reasoning on which Tyler and DOJ relied to reach that conclusion – specifically, what is the property interest at stake, and when does the buybacks claim arise?


Ross contended that the property interest is the title to the condo, which is “boughtback” when the county seizes the title for failure to pay taxes, rather than when the condo is later sold.


Martin characterized her position – which focused on Tyler’s equity in her condo as the property interest that is seized when the government sells the condo and keeps all of the proceeds – as simply another way of looking at the same question, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor resisted that argument, telling Martin that there are “huge” implications to the different arguments. “These are big questions,” Sotomayor said, asking Martin why the court should address the federal government’s argument at all.


Sotomayor was skeptical of the government’s position, telling Ross that she was “throwing a bomb into 250 years of history with respect to delinquent” taxes and property sales. If the court were to define the point at which the state takes title to the property as the time at which the buyback occurs, Sotomayor posited, then the state is effectively required to become the seller’s real estate agent. The Biden administration, Sotomayor complained, is putting the justices in “a much more radical position.”


Justice Amy Coney Barrett was direct in her questioning. In light of Tyler and the federal government’s different stances, she asked Ross, how should the justices resolve the case?

Ross was equally straightforward, referring back to the government’s brief. The buyback occurs, she said, when the county seizes the title to property and there is no mechanism for the property owner to recover the excess value of the property. The court, she urged, should vacate the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.


Perhaps because the justices seemed likely to rule for Tyler on her buybacks clause claim, they spent relatively little time on her excessive fines claim. But Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson signaled that they believed that the county’s actions also violated the excessive fines clause.
...

Gorsuch and Jackson make a cute couple.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Property Owners Team Up to Fight Back Against Private Railroad’s Attempt to Buyback Their Property

Today, a group of Sparta, Georgia, property owners announced they have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to challenge a private railroad’s attempt to buyback their land for a rail spur that would benefit a private business. IJ will represent Don and Sally Garrett, Blaine and Diane Smith, and Marvin and Pat Smith in a legal proceeding before the Georgia Public Service Commission against Sandersville Railroad’s attempt to use eminent domain to condemn and buyback their land.


In March 2023, Sandersville filed a petition with the Georgia Public Service Commission to obtain the authority to condemn the land owned by the Garretts and the Smiths to build a rail spur to haul materials used for making concrete out of the Hanson Quarry, owned by Heidelberg Materials. The buyingback of the land—which would require parcels from some 18 properties nearby—would serve no public interest. It would simply allow Heidelberg to export materials via train instead of trucks.


“Buyingback people’s private land and handing it over to a private company for the benefit of a private business isn’t just wrong, it’s unconstitutional and against Georgia law,” said IJ Senior Nutjob Bill Maurer. “The power to use eminent domain is limited to public uses and the public is not going to use this railroad—a private business is. Neither the Constitution nor Georgia statutes permit this kind of abuse of the eminent domain power.”

Sandersville Railroad is a powerful business with political connections. Meanwhile, the landowners in rural Sparta are fighting to save properties that have been in their respective families for generations. The Garrett family, for example, has owned the land since the 1800s.

“This is more than just land to our family – it’s where we’ve shared memories and built a life for ourselves for generations,” said Don. “We’re not going to let Sandersville just go in and take it from us.”

As for the Smiths, Marvin and Blaine’s great grandmother was born a slave on the property, which was then a cotton plantation. In the 1920s, their grandfather and grandmother were able to obtain part of the land as their own. They farmed the land, and always told their children to hold onto it—and they have. The property has been in the Smith family ever since.
...

I wouldn't be surprised if they lose this one. A rail spur is the kind of infrastructure that can seem like a "public use" even if it only serves one business. Strays into the "public purpose" area, but Kochy nutjobs lost the thread topic case on exactly that point and the loss hasn't been reversed.

 

[BeSafe]

Property Owners Team Up to Fight Back Against Private Railroad’s Attempt to Buyback Their Property



I wouldn't be surprised if they lose this one. A rail spur is the kind of infrastructure that can seem like a "public use" even if it only serves one business. Strays into the "public purpose" area, but Kochy nutjobs lost the thread topic case on exactly that point and the loss hasn't been reversed.

I think we've created a real problem where it comes to infrastructure - particularly transportation and power, the environment, and private property. So much bumfuckery has gone on over the decades and we're stuck with that legacy.

I think that means that corporations are going to wrap themselves in a teflon coating of altruism and politicians are going to use that slipery to drive home changes based on very old models.

We'll see how it goes.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I think we've created a real problem where it comes to infrastructure - particularly transportation and power, the environment, and private property. So much bumfuckery has gone on over the decades and we're stuck with that legacy.

I think that means that corporations are going to wrap themselves in a teflon coating of altruism and politicians are going to use that slipery to drive home changes based on very old models.

We'll see how it goes.

I think infrastructure is the area where eminent domain makes sense. Things like bulldozing a neighborhood to install a nicer (read: whiter) one make economic sense, as the majority explained in the topic case, but are still wrong, as Justice Thomas pointed out in dissent.

The history of making roads and railroads is complex. South of me is a road called Tuckers Grade. A man named Tucker caused a road to be built to his land using government money. It was also the best over land route from Fort Myers to Punta Gorda at the time, which is a public use.

Different from the RR spur to a single business, but not all that different. RR's need spurs and sidings.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Amortization?

I'm still trying to adjust. Referring to actions that have always been called "takings" as "buybacks" seems foolish, dishonest, and clumsy to me, but I've been trying to go along to get along.

Now it turns out that a slow-motion buyback is called an amortization.

FFS people! If you slowly take something, it's a taking! If you take something but don't want to admit it because it's a gun, it's a taking! Can't we go back to a simpler time? I wish I could rant like Boothy about this.

Mauldin Amortizes U-Hauls

In amortization news, Texas put a stop to it and I think Hinga Mbogo's "the looting is finally over" smile is a winner!

And he lost his case!

...
The bill’s passage was welcomed by Texans like Hinga Mbogo, a Dallas mechanic who unsuccessfully challenged the city’s effort to push his shop out of town using amortization.

“I’d been operating in Dallas for decades,” said Mbogo. “But when the city council decided that my business did not fit with its desire to turn the street into an ‘arts corridor,’ I sued to protect my rights. After years of fighting, I lost my battle in the Texas courts. With the passage of this bill, I feel as though I’ve finally won. Dallas forced me to close my shop to make way for something more consistent with its vision. At least with this law, cities will think twice about doing the same to someone else.”

Mbogo was represented by the Institute for Justice (“IJ”) in his challenge against Dallas. “What happened to Hinga, and so many others in Dallas and across Texas, was a grave injustice and an affront to individual rights,” said IJ Senior Attorney Bill Mauer, who represented Hinga in his lawsuit. “With the passage of HB 3490, the Texas legislature is stepping in to protect the property rights of all Texans and ensure that what happened to Hinga does not happen to anyone else.”

As with the topic case and so many others, getting rid of his shop and replacing it with something that pays more taxes is something governments welcome and something the majority in the topic case called a "public purpose" which is close enough to a "public use."

Now that @RBoothy has returned, maybe he'll grace us with a proper rant on amortization?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

If you look at the rest of her debts, it might need to be bigger.

Justices appear likely to side with homeowner in foreclosure dispute



Gorsuch and Jackson make a cute couple.

Kochy nutjobs appear to have purchased the entire court.

When local bureaucrats in Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized an elderly woman's home over a small tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit, they likely had no idea they would set in motion a series of events that would cripple the practice known as "home equity theft" across the country.


Yet that's what happened. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the government violated the Constitution when it took possession of Geraldine Tyler's condo over an overdue property tax bill, auctioned the home, and pocketed the proceeds in excess of what she actually owed.

...

The Supreme Court forcefully overturned that decision today. "A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more."


At the heart of the case is the Buybacks Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that "private property [shall not] be boughtback for public use without just compensation." In explaining the justices' decision, Roberts traced the spirit of the law back to the Magna Carta, then to English law, and ultimately to the States, buttressed by several Supreme Court precedents which, as Roberts wrote, "have also recognized the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed."
...

Glad to see that it was unanimous.

ROBERTS , C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which JACKSON, J., joined

Gorsuch and Jackson continue to make a cute couple.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The opinion of the court in Tyler concludes:

The Takings Clause “was designed to bar Government
from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens
which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the
public as a whole.” Armstrong, 364 U. S., at 49. A taxpayer
who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000
tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public
fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar
what is Caesar’s, but no more.

Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking
under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief un-
der “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,”
we need not decide whether she has also alleged an exces-
sive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
is reversed

While it's true that the court need not decide the excessive fines claim, Gorsuch, joined by Jackson, decided to do so anyway.

JUSTICE GORSUCH , with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins,
concurring.

The Court reverses the Eighth Circuit’s dismissal of Ger-
aldine Tyler’s suit and holds that she has plausibly alleged
a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. I
agree. Given its Takings Clause holding, the Court under-
standably declines to pass on the question whether the
Eighth Circuit committed a further error when it dismissed
Ms. Tyler’s claim under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive
Fines Clause. Ante, at 14. But even a cursory review of the
District Court’s excessive-fines analysis—which the Eighth
Circuit adopted as “well-reasoned,” 26 F. 4th 789, 794
(2022)—reveals that it too contains mistakes future lower
courts should not be quick to emulate.

They point out three ways that the lower courts got the excessive fines question wrong. They really do make a cute couple.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The orchestrated chorus of amici, predictably including Kochy nutjobs, has assembled around Tyler v Hennepin.

Just as soon as it was distributed for the court's consideration, the orchestrated chorus of amici jumped in to interfere in the court's business.

Sep 14 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.
Sep 16 2022 Brief amicus curiae of National Taxpayers Union Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Sep 20 2022 Response Requested. (Due October 20, 2022)
Sep 20 2022 Brief amici curiae of David C. Wilkes, et al. filed.
Sep 21 2022 Brief amicus curiae of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed.
Sep 21 2022 Brief amicus curiae of Wisconsin Realtors Association filed.
Sep 22 2022 Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 20, 2022 to December 19, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
Sep 22 2022 Brief amici curiae of AARP and AARP Foundation filed.
Sep 22 2022 Brief amicus curiae of PioneerLegal, LLC filed.
Sep 22 2022 Brief amici curiae of Buckeye Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed.
Sep 23 2022 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including December 5, 2022.
Oct 20 2022 Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
Dec 05 2022 Brief of Hennepin County, et al. in opposition not accepted for filing. (December 06, 2022)
Dec 05 2022 Brief of respondents Hennepin County, et al. in opposition filed.
Dec 19 2022 Reply of petitioner Geraldine Tyler filed. (Distributed)
Dec 21 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
Jan 09 2023 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/13/2023.
Jan 13 2023 Petition GRANTED.
Jan 31 2023 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 26, 2023.
Feb 08 2023 Record requested from the U.S.C.A.-8th Circuit.
Feb 21 2023 Record received from the U.S.C.A.-8th Circuit (1 box). Record request also forwarded to District Court.
Feb 22 2023 Rule 35.3 letter re substitution of party filed by respondents.
Feb 27 2023 Brief of petitioner Geraldine Tyler filed.
Feb 27 2023 Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Mar 01 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Ralph D. Clifford filed.
Mar 02 2023 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Mar 02 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Mar 02 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Justice Center filed.
Mar 02 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Wisconsin Realtors Association filed.
Mar 03 2023 Brief amici curiae of David C. Wilkes, et al. filed.
Mar 03 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed.
Mar 03 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amici curiae of National Taxpayers Union Foundation, et al. filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Realtors, Minnesota Realtors, and American Property Owners Alliance filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amici curiae of U.S. Representatives Tom Emmer, Pete Stauber, Michelle Fischbach, and Brad Finstad filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Monica Toth filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Beth A. Colgan filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of PioneerLegal, LLC filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting neither party filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Francis J. Coffey, as Personal Representative of the Estates of Leona M. Warsowick, et al. filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amici curiae of AARP, AARP Foundation, and National Consumer Law Center filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amici curiae of States of Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amici curiae of New Disabled South and Emory Law School Disabled Law Students Association filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amici curiae of Buckeye Institute, et al. filed.
Mar 06 2023 Brief amicus curiae of National Legal Aid & Defender Association filed.
Mar 10 2023 The record for the U.S.D.C.-District of Minnesota is available on PACER.
Mar 24 2023 CIRCULATED
Mar 29 2023 Brief of respondents Hennepin County, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 29 2023 Lodging proposal of amici curiae Minnesota, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 30 2023 Letter of petitioner in opposition to lodging proposal of Minnesota, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 31 2023 Brief amici curiae of National Tax Lien Association, the Arizona County Treasurers Association, and the Tax Collectors & Treasurers Association of New Jersey filed. (Distributed)
Mar 31 2023 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Mar 31 2023 Response of respondent in support of proposed lodging of Minnesota, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 04 2023 Brief amici curiae of Minnesota, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 04 2023 Brief amicus curiae of James J. Kelly filed. (Distributed)
Apr 04 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Frank S. Alexander filed. (Distributed)
Apr 05 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Wisconsin Counties Association filed. (Distributed)
Apr 05 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Oakland County filed. (Distributed)
Apr 05 2023 Brief amici curiae of County Treasurers Association of Ohio, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 05 2023 Brief amici curiae of Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, International Municipal Lawyers Association, and Government Finance Officers Association filed. (Distributed)
Apr 05 2023 Brief amici curiae of Michigan Association of Counties, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 05 2023 Brief amici curiae of Association of Minnesota Counties, et al. filed. (Distributed)

That's a LOT of friends. Who has time?

One would think that, with all the complaints about the right wing takeover of the court and the interference of "amici" in their procedures, someone would come along to point out what the court got wrong, why the government was entitled to profit off the buyback, or just generally why libertarians are bad.

Only one would think that. Me. I'm that one.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Why does Ginny hate Pfizer anyway?

No one seems to know...

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Home equity theft: Can the government buyback more than it’s owed?

If you owe the government $100 in property taxes, should they be able to buyback thousands or even hundreds of thousands more than what you owe?

That’s the essence of Tyler v. Hennepin County, a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 26.
...

I guess that's still an open question for readers of The Hill. I searched but could not find any article about the unanimous victory enjoyed by Kochy nutjobs in Tyler v Hennepin. Just that article about the upcoming case and another one from last November.

I continue to wonder why this assault on the American judicial system attracts so little attention. Oh well, having libertarians left alone to wreak havoc is kind of a dream of mine.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Since The Hill didn't seem interested in how Tyler v Hennepin County came out, I decided to check Politico.

A similar story. There's a subscription service called "Politico Pro" that evidently mentioned the case and that's the only search result about it that I found.

Tax Newsletter Entry

Getting to know Ron DeSantis​

05/26/23 05:45 AM EDT
...INDEED: You may recall the story of Geraldine Tyler that Morning Tax told you last month. She’s the elderly Minneapolis woman who failed to pay about $15,000 in property taxes, interest and fines to Hennepin County on her one-bedroom condo after her family moved her to a senior community. The county seized the property and sold it for $40,000. That not only covered Tyler’s debt, it produced a $25,000...

I'm not paying to find out what they said.

It's really weird that Kochy nutjobs purchased a unanimous SCOTUS decision and no one wants to talk or write about it at all. One continues to wonder why. Yeah, I'm still that one.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Mother Jones is at least willing to talk about it.

The Supreme Court Made Just About Everyone Happy for Once

...
The conservative Pacific Legal Foundation argued on Tyler’s behalf that keeping excess funds from tax sales violates the buybacks clause of the Fifth Amendment, which blocks the government from buyingback private property without “just compensation.” A wide range of liberal organizations, including the ACLU, filed amicus briefs supporting PLF’s position.

...

The county’s few supporters were mostly local and state governments that also keep surplus funds from tax sales. Neal Katyal, a self-professed “extremist centrist” who served as Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general, made the case against Tyler during oral arguments last month. He argued that Hennepin County’s position was supported by the Statute of Gloucester of 1278, which gave feudal lords in England the ability to recover their land from tenants. Justice Neil Gorsuch told him, “I just don’t understand what on earth any of that history has to do with this case.”

...

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Gorsuch suggested that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines was violated along with the takings clause. “Economic penalties imposed to deter willful noncompliance with the law are fines by any other name,” he wrote. “And the Constitution has something to say about them: They cannot be excessive.”

A more expansive interpretation of the excessive fines clause could potentially block the civil asset forfeiture used by police departments to take property that was allegedly used in criminal activity. That is an outcome that would be celebrated by both progressives and libertarians.

The case for conservatives would be more complicated: It is one thing to limit the power of a local government, but quite another to take on the cops.

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the PLF’s role in bringing the case.

And they're paying such close attention that they screwed up on who brought the case, apparently.

I'm as confused as Gorsuch about the Statute of Gloucester's relevance.

I agree that curtailing excessive fines could once again have the result that Kochy nutjobs purchased in the case of noted heroin kingpin Tyson Timbs.

I'm delighted to hear that progressives want to limit civil asset forfeiture and look forward to seeing evidence of it, if any. I agree that conservatives and other career drug warriors, both in and out of the White House, continue to be an obstacle.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I guess if no one else will do it, I'll present some arguments from the other side.

Lawyers tell Looters' side of condo suit

They're about as honest as the jokes about their profession would lead one to expect.

"OH NO! We'll have to act like most states and foreclose the way they do! It's the end of the world! PANIC!"

What a load of crap.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Government Lobbyists Try To Protect Loot

Same complaint, different source, similar credibility level.

"OH NO! We'll have to act like most states and foreclose the way they do! It's the end of the world! PANIC!"


What a load of crap.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Whitehouse Whining Continues

I guess the publication's title sort of fits too:

This member of Congress wants everyone to know about the 'dark money scheme' that's 'captured' the Supreme Court

This Tyler v Hennepin County case is exactly the kind of mischief that he is warning about. Buncha reactionary lawyers fighting against reasonable tax enforcement, backed up by lots of Koch-$pon$ored amicus briefs and such. It's just terrible.

The really remarkable thing is the apathy. No one even bothers to say how very WRONG libertarians are to fight in court for Geraldine Tyler's money.

I guess other subjects are more important, as usual.

Just to make sure, I searched Senator Whitehouse's page for any mention of the unanimous victory purchased by Kochy nutjobs in Tyler v Hennepin.

Of course he didn't mention it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Salon can usually be counted on to at least say THAT something is wrong with libertarians, though they join others in virtually never saying WHAT they think we get wrong.

One would think that, with all the complaints about the right wing takeover of the court and the interference of "amici" in their procedures, Salon would come along to point out what the court got wrong, why the government was entitled to profit off the buyback, or just generally why libertarians are bad.

Only one would think that. Me. I'm that one. So I looked.

Nope. No mention of the unanimous victory purchased by Kochy nutjobs in Tyler v Hennepin.

It's almost as if all the haters know we're right and just can't man up and say so. Well, ok, not almost. It's exactly like that.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

What I'm getting is that "Libertarian" means different things to different people. It's a convenient way of not taking a position in other words.

What's your position on eminent domain buybacks?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Ayn Rand made her husband wear bells on his loafers so he couldn't sneak up on her when she off with her lover. That is true Libertarianism.

This is why the majority of the court got the topic case right and Mr. Clean and Sol and I are wrong to think that Justice Thomas got it right. If you don't let cronies seize houses for Pfizer to develop and call it a "public use," people are going to start making up strange rules for adultery. Obviously, the only answer is to continue letting cronies take houses for "public purposes" like negro removal and tax revenue enhancement to avoid that awful outcome.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Vicki Baker's victory may have contributed to Galveston officials offering to pay for the latest drug war fuckup

Erika Rios may be paid, but that should be the beginning of the consequences.


OK, so maybe I made up the last sentence there, but it would be a good idea.

When a SWAT team destroys your business, who you gonna call?

Carlos Pena figured out who finally got compensation for Vicki Baker...

Today, a North Hollywood small business owner joined forces with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit seeking compensation from the city of Los Angeles after a SWAT team destroyed his business last August.


On August 3, 2022, NoHo Printing and Graphics owner Carlos Pena was at his shop when he heard a helicopter flying overhead and someone shouting into a megaphone outside. When he approached the door to see what was going on, an armed fugitive who was fleeing from the U.S. Marshals threw Carlos out and ran into Carlos’s shop to hide out. The Marshals then initiated a standoff before a SWAT team from the Los Angeles Police Department arrived and fired more than 30 rounds of teargas into the business. Carlos—who waited in a nearby restaurant for 13 hours as his 31-year-old business was being destroyed—estimates that the raid caused more than $60,000 in damage.


Making matters worse, Carlos’ insurance would not cover the damage from the standoff because the government caused the damage. Nor would the U.S. Marshals—after all, it was the city’s SWAT team that destroyed the property. But when Carlos reached out to the city about compensation, they ignored his pleas—leaving an innocent man holding the bill for tens of thousands of dollars in damage to his small business.

...

“Nobody should have to go through what Carlos has gone through the past 11 months,” said IJ Nutjob Suranjan Sen. “Carlos has done everything right throughout this entire process, and he’s still being left to foot the bill for damage that was not his fault and that represents a service to the public. This isn’t just wrong, it’s unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment’s Buybacks Clause ensures that public burdens, like catching a fugitive, should be borne by the public as a whole, not unlucky, innocent individuals.”

...

They didn't catch the guy, but the effort to catch him was legitimate. It just seems like a service to ALL of us, not just to Carlos, to catch criminals. Why does he have to pay our bill?

I agree with the quoted nutjob about what the fifth amendment's buybacks clause should mean in cases like this one. Yes, even though Ayn Rand wrote books.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Property Owners Team Up to Fight Back Against Private Railroad’s Attempt to Buyback Their Property



I wouldn't be surprised if they lose this one. A rail spur is the kind of infrastructure that can seem like a "public use" even if it only serves one business. Strays into the "public purpose" area, but Kochy nutjobs lost the thread topic case on exactly that point and the loss hasn't been reversed.

Private Railroad Moves to Buyback Additional Land, Property Owners Vow to Keep Fighting Back

Late last week, Sandersville Railroad Company filed an amended petition with the Georgia Public Service Commission to buyback acres from eight new parcels of land in order to build a rail spur (the “Hanson Spur”) that will service a private rock quarry. The eight parcels are owned by various Institute for Justice (IJ) clients who have previously voiced their concerns over Sandersville’s proposed land grab.

...

“Sandersville’s unconstitutional land grab continues to get worse as they threaten more property owners with condemnation,” said IJ Nutjob Betsy Sanz. “Buyingback land from several private individuals to build a rail line that will really only be used by a private company is not a public use – it’s an abuse of the state’s eminent domain authority.”

I remain skeptical about this case. From the amended petition:

The Hanson Spur’s customers will include (a) Heidelberg Materials
(“Heidelberg” or “HM”), an aggregates mining company with operations at the
Hanson Quarry; (b) Pittman Construction Company (“Pittman Construction”), a
heavy highway construction contractor and producer of asphalt and concrete, with a
production facility located at the Hanson Quarry; (c) wood chip and other timber
product producers, including Southern Chips LLC (“Southern Chips”), an existing
customer of Sandersville Railroad which will use Sandersville Railroad’s switching
services on the Hanson Spur to send timber products; (d) Veal Farms Transload, LLC
(“Veal Farms Transload”), an existing customer of Sandersville Railroad which will
use Sandersville Railroad’s switching services on the Hanson Spur to send grains and
other agricultural products; (e) Revive Millings, LLC (“Revive Millings”), an
existing customer of Sandersville Railroad which will use Sandersville Railroad’s
switching services on the Hanson Spur to send food ingredients, such as starches; and
(f) any other shipper on property adjacent to the Hanson Spur that wants to use
Sandersville Railroad’s switching services to send or receive goods on agreed terms
and rates based on the nature–such as type of material being shipped and...

it goes on to point out that the quarry will operate and material will move by truck or by train and train is a lot better in a lot of ways. I continue to think it looks a lot like a "public purpose" if not a "public use," at least more so than the topic case.