|
I really have to wonder how many uses of eminent domain were occuring but not being so well documented before the Kelo case... The Kelo case did bring an issue to the public eye that was normally not a major political concern for most. |
| |
Written By:
Rosensteel
URL:
http://
|
You may be exactly right, Jamie.
It’s going to be interesting to see how the states are going to react to the ruling.
Here in GA the legislature is supposedly gearing up to ensure the rights of home owners, with the usual dollop of finger-pointing politics. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Here in GA the legislature is supposedly gearing up to ensure the rights of home owners, with the usual dollop of finger-pointing politics. Interesting. By what method are they attempting to limit the use of eminent domain in Georgia?
I like my idea of adding a check to the system by requiring the voters of the area in question to approve each project that will use eminent domain, and requiring that each property that would be taken by clearly identified... and I will continue to pimp my idea until I see a better one.
Of course I am sure there are other methods that ED could be limited to more responsible uses, so I am obviously interested in what approach the GA legislature is taking on this. |
| |
Written By:
Rosensteel
URL:
http://
|
Here’s Tom Delay saying things that hopefully you’ll like.
The same article has Nancy Pelosi saying things that, hopefully, you won’t. |
| |
Written By:
Gerry
URL:
http://dalythoughts.com
|
Hmm. This from the Boston Herald (http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=92151):
State Rep. Neal Kurk (R-Weare), whose wife is a town selectman, said he also disagrees with the court’s decision and sees Clements’ action as "poetic justice." "It’s a cute idea to drive the point home,"’ he said. But two wrongs don’t make a right, Kurk said, adding he’ll oppose any government seizure of Souter’s home. "Justice Souter’s property will be protected by the good sense of New Hampshire townspeople,"’ he said.
What is it that will be protecting everyone else’s property, I wonder. |
| |
Written By:
Curtis G.
URL:
http://www.hkactionfilms.com
|
Hmm. This from the Boston Herald (http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=92151):
State Rep. Neal Kurk (R-Weare), whose wife is a town selectman, said he also disagrees with the court’s decision and sees Clements’ action as "poetic justice." "It’s a cute idea to drive the point home,"’ he said. But two wrongs don’t make a right, Kurk said, adding he’ll oppose any government seizure of Souter’s home. "Justice Souter’s property will be protected by the good sense of New Hampshire townspeople,"’ he said.
What is it that will be protecting everyone else’s property, I wonder. |
| |
Written By:
Curtis G.
URL:
http://www.hkactionfilms.com
|
By what method are they attempting to limit the use of eminent domain in Georgia?
Right now its in the talking stages, but it does have both the Governor (Republican) and Lt. Governor (Democrat) behind some sort of resolution of the problem, so that’s good.
My guess is the biggest fight will be about which side gets the greatest political glory out of the passage of some sort of bill protecting property rights. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
In fact, it makes me sick to my stomach. Yep, me too. the biggest fight will be about which side gets the greatest political glory out of the passage of some sort of bill protecting property rights. Wow. I agreed with McQ twice in one thread... |
| |
Written By:
David in AK
URL:
http://
|
Wow. I agreed with McQ twice in one thread...
Better watch it David ... it’ll make you sick to your stomach. ;) |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
I think it is going to be quite a fight in GA to get meaningful protection, and I live in GA. The problem is that a lot of interests do make money off of this type of thing.
As for being sick to my stomach, I’m shocked at how many "liberals" feel comfortable about enshrining money as the highest good. When did healthy communities with a mix of small/ethnic businesses become less important than the buck we get today out of the body of property owners? This is a strange perversion of traditional democratic thinking. |
| |
Written By:
MaxedOutMama
URL:
http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com
|
I think the reason why so many "liberals" seem in favor of the ruling is because, traditionally, major urban areas are liberal strongholds. Since its city governments, not Podunk County Missisippi, that are most likely to weild the power of ED its understandable that they wish to see their power maintained.
That being said, it seems like many non-governmental liberals are just as upset with this ruling... probably over the tendency for ED to be abused in favor of corporate interest and used against the poor and minorities.. but none-the-less I dont think this is a simple partisan issue.. |
| |
Written By:
Jamie Rosensteel
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
Jamie,
I think your analysis is spot on. It is most definitely not a simple partisan issue. Many liberals are opposed because they see it as an assault on personal property by the state, similar to libertarians. Some see it as wrong because it favors wealthy interests. I find this dismaying, because while it is especially bad that it favors the powerful and wealthy, I see no reason the wealthy and powerful do not deserve protection of their property as well. To put it another way, if private property is seized from the wealthy many liberals have no problem with it if it serves the greater good. This is probably the largest goup, but I cannot be sure. The other group are those who note the inconsistency of the second groups position, the difficulty of actually crafting such a distinction, and therefore are fully supportive of the decision. To not have this power would curtail all the planning they feel is so important to our society. Not to mention that secure property rights are not part of their ideology.
The problem for the Democrats and rank and file liberals is that if this decision bothers them they are faced with a revolt against their intellectual elites, who are squarely behind this ruling, at least before the outrage. The legal, bureauratic and activist organizations depend on private property being insecure and have resisted any limits on this power. In addition, to rule differently the decision would have of necessity relied on some form of textualism or originalism as the dissenters did, and that is a non-starter for the judges who dissented in this case and any likely future liberal nominee. I can not imagine any likely supreme court nominee by a Democratic President not backing this decision. Maybe the backlash will change this, but I doubt it. |
| |
Written By:
Lance
URL:
http://
|
|
Utah’s eminent domain law has a list of acceptable uses for which property can be taken, so that anything not on the list (like retail development) can’t be used as an excuse. The list contains the usual stuff (roads, schools, etc.) and also a few surprises, such as mining operations and pipelines for beet sugar. These are probably leftovers from special interest groups. |
| |
Written By:
Wacky Hermit
URL:
http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
|
What amazes me is that a lot of the companies I’ve been defending for years as champions of the free market system have been quietly stealing people’s property via eminent domain.
I’ve started a wiki of them here, if anybody’s interested. |
| |
Written By:
John
URL:
http://www.arkanssouri.blogspot.com
|
|
Oh, and also if the state takes property through eminent domain and decides to sell it, it has to be offered first to the original owner and declined in writing before it can be sold to anyone else. |
| |
Written By:
Wacky Hermit
URL:
http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
|
|
What happens if your property is never used for the purpose it was taken? This happens now and the property just becomes a government asset that is sometimes leased back to the original owner making the government your landlord. |
| |
Written By:
Devin S.
URL:
http://
|
I don’t know about the other localities, but the Baltimore takings are probably legitimate under the old anti-blight doctrine, and may well be unrelated to Kelo. |
| |
Written By:
Fredrik Nyman
URL:
http://
|