Article

2005-06-26 Home Front: Culture Wars

The Great SCOTUS Landgrab has come to Texas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-06-26 00:54|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You captured it perfectly in the headline, mmurray821. It is, as many said or implied the other day, the beginning of a huge battle.

Use of eminent domain for private interests.

When some say there's political recourse, that's a disingenuous canard - it's long over and done when the elected officials come before the voters, again... and that's assuming there isn't a political machine against which the lone voice cannot contend. Total asswipe bullshit.

The old Texas divorce court joke that, for a man to get custody of the children, his wife would've had to service the entire crew of the Enterprise aircraft carrier has been eclipsed.

Now, with this SCOTUS decision on the books, barring incredibly damning evidence against the commercial and political interests behind it, no court challenge of eminent domain will succeed. This story illustrates clearly the situation. The last recourse against unjust use of this power is now, as officially as it gets, denied.

This is Ft Sumter redux. The Second Civil War has begun.

Posted by .com 2005-06-26 01:42|| 2005-06-26 01:42|| Front Page Top

#2 This is probably the most outrageous thing ever coming out of SCOTUS.

The consequences are mind boggling. If a private company can seize private real estate for "the common good" (creating tax income, jobs, whatever) the idea of private property is a thing of the past.

And it would set a precedent for non real estate property.

Imagine a software engineer creating a great program. Microsoft wants to buy it. The engineer refuses (because Microsoft is evil, asking price is not enough, he has other plans... whatever).

That would be his perfect right, wouldn't it?

Now Microsoft just goes for expropriation,under the pretext that if they market the software they generate more taxes and create jobs (common good). The engineer loses his property and is "compensated" with "fair market value" (which certainly is below anything he wants and might get).

That's communism light, my friends (communism hard is without compensation).

I could quote a million examples. You own an inherited Rembrandt? Your local museum could seize it for the common good... claiming more taxes are generated for the community by putting the painting on public display.

You're on a very slipery slope there. And I would think twice now before buying property in the U.S.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-06-26 03:50|| 2005-06-26 03:50|| Front Page Top

#3 it's very frightening. I hope our lawmakers will quickly pass a law that will make this illegal until we can get less senile judges on SCOTUS.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-26 05:53|| 2005-06-26 05:53|| Front Page Top

#4 The "law makers" are the ones doing the land grabbing.

TGA, this is not new. This has been going on since the 1930's. This is just the first time somebody felt like carrying it to SCOTUS. How do you think Robert Moses did his wonderful urban landscapes?

What we now have is a citizenry that is seeing the underside of the New Deal and concluding it ain't pretty.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-06-26 08:25|| 2005-06-26 08:25|| Front Page Top

#5 TGA, I believe you outlined the premise behind "Atlas Shrugged". That the pioneering spirited owe their inventions and entreprenurial achievements to the masses because it helps the "so-called" public good while spitting in the face of personal freedoms. A book I highly recommend for those who've never read it.

Posted by Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-06-26 13:41|| 2005-06-26 13:41|| Front Page Top

#6 You can disagree with SCOTUS on this but there is no reason for fear or outrage.

First of all, the public use projects of the 50s and 60s, many of which (including some of Robert Moses's) were poorly conceived, poorly executed and turned into tax and social liabilities, were not in question in the Kelo case. Those urban renewal type projects were done for clearly 'public' purposes and if SCOTUS had ruled the other way, they would still be legal.

Second of all, we don't do those kind of urban renewal projects anymore.

The reason is that the public has learned that these projects don't work.

The projects being done these days are smaller and generally better targeted. Home owners are generally amply compensated - not just for the fair market value of their property but also for moving and for incidentals.

Yes, some of the projects being done are ill conceived. Some of them benefit wealthy developers. But, many of them have created a source of tax revenue for local government that goes for all the things that local govt does: schools, police, waste disposel, etc. It is certainly true that local govts are sometimes inefficient but that is a different matter and not solveable thru preventing takings.

The other thing to think about is that, had SCOTUS ruled the other way, it would have been the Federal govt. gaining power over local govts.

Posted by mhw 2005-06-26 13:47|| 2005-06-26 13:47|| Front Page Top

#7 The other thing to think about is that, had SCOTUS ruled the other way, it would have been the Federal govt. gaining power over local govts.

But that's what the Fifth (and other amendments in the Bill of Rights) are supposed to mean:

IF THE LOCAL COURTS TRY TO BREAK THEM, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO STEP IN AND OVERRULE THEM.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-26 13:59|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-26 13:59|| Front Page Top

#8 Phil F

Yes, that's obviously one thing the SCOTUS does. However, it also is to stop the Federal govt when they issue laws or regs that are egregiously inconsistent with the constitution.

We do hope and expect that egregious violations by local govt are addressed in State courts without going to SCOTUS and so the 'violations by local govt' cases are expected to be fewer than the 'violations by the feds'.

Posted by mhw 2005-06-26 15:46|| 2005-06-26 15:46|| Front Page Top

#9 ...Without wanting to minimize the implications of this, to a very great extent all this decision did was confirm what was already policy in many many places. The Federal Government really went off the rails more than four decades ago when they declared 'eminent domain' for national security reasons to build the Minuteman ICBM complexes. Hundreds of thousands of acres (and possibly more) of farmland were basically taken for next to nothing - and I remember being told that in a disturbing number of cases the owners got nothing. (Remember that the original plan for Minuteman called for 10,000 missiles vice the 1200 we actually got, and a lot of land taken was never used.)
Not heard of this before? Quite likely not. Those displaced have, for the most part, long since gone to their rewards. The Government, for their part, doesn't talk about it much at all..because at the end of the day, Conservative or Liberal, it's a nice power to have...

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2005-06-26 15:54|| 2005-06-26 15:54|| Front Page Top

#10 Uh, excuse me Mike, but did the government let Northrop, G.E. or Rockwell come in and take over the land from those farmers in order to make more money off of those silos than the farmers could from their crops? Not the same thing at all. I would suggest that national security is a much more important issue than local politicians increasing tax revenue at existing owners' expense.

Posted by Elmaish Omating7721 2005-06-26 20:00|| 2005-06-26 20:00|| Front Page Top

#11 Agreed, EO7721.

Folks - eye on the ball here: This is about politicians using eminent domain to benefit themselves and private commercial entities without recourse to legal landowners. It is not about the original intent of the law - to give government the legal leverage it needs to do public works.

Some have said this use, for private enrichment, is common. Funny, but I've lived all over the Southwest, the Mountain States, and, toward the end, the Left Coast. I have NEVER seen this condoned or common in any of those places. People making these statements MUST come from machine politics centers - which is synonymous with Blue State Big Cities. Maybe in ChiTown or Philly or Boston, but not anywhere in Texas, and I've lived all over the state.

Summary:
There is no recourse left to correct abuses of this law.

a) The deed is long done and over before you can hold the politicians to account.

b) The courts will not hear these cases - as was clearly shown in the article.

Thus there is no actual timely redress for abuse left.

Point out where I'm mistaken, please. Show me how this is not different - and dramatically so - most places in the US are NOT under the corrupt thumb of some villianous political machine, you know. Flyover America is going to go apeshit over this - bank it.

Posted by .com 2005-06-26 20:26|| 2005-06-26 20:26|| Front Page Top

#12 There are plenty of State Laws that make this illegal kind of taking in lots of states but not all. The Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with that. In matters of property Sate law not federal law is supreme 99.9% of the time. Don't like this ruling like me? Then make sure your state passes a law making this impossible. You can bet your bottom dollar lots of greed head breaucrats will be happy to screw folks via this ruling.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-06-26 20:38|| 2005-06-26 20:38|| Front Page Top

#13 What? States that do not have and use eminent domain? Or some special law(s) against the abuse of eminent domain? I do not believe it. And, may I point out, it would now be irrelevant.

Read this story. What is clear is that:

1) The City is using eminent domain to take the legal private property from one entity and force the "sale" to another private entity. Eminent domain was never intended for this.

2) The courts system put the original owner's appeal on hold to await the SCOTUS decision. They will now summarily deny the appeal. Clear as glass.

Texas has some of the strongest legal protections of property rights you can imagine. I lived there for over 20 years. I could defend my property with deadly force without fear of injustice. The books were packed chock-full of laws designed to prevent the carpetbaggers, who would take over the Govt, from looting the state after the Civil War. It worked, too. The State Govt (and Counties, as "arms" of the State) is as weak as a kitten. I had the legal right to defend my property with deadly force - without fear of injustice afterwards. There will be a major uproar as Joe Citizen begins to "get it".

In a nutshell, here's the new reality:
If your city decided to seize your house tomorrow and "sell" it to another private entity because they felt they could get better tax revenue, what would you do?

Wait for the politicians to come up for election and campaign against them? -- That would be too damned late. Bulldozed and paved.

File suit to stop the city from forcing the sale? Your charge? Misuse of eminent domain, perhaps? -- What court would even hear your case, much less grant your appeal when they have the SCOTUS decision as the new universal Law of the Land in hand? None would is the correct answer. Q.E.D.

Your faith is misplaced.

Posted by .com 2005-06-26 21:16|| 2005-06-26 21:16|| Front Page Top

#14 Many states have laws that make a public taking for a private purpose illegal, New Jersey for one. I put no faith in government to behave. If a local or state government tries to take your land for sale to a non government entity and it's against state law the matter will be decided in state court. What the SCOTUS ruled has no bearing on those states and states which pass those laws. The state that this happened in has no such law.

The SCOTUS is very wrong on this. Their view is that the the government can take your property if it can get more taxes from the party that it forces a sale to. Sucks ass and is totally beyond what the court should be ruling on. I never put much faith in Lawyers, Judges, Courts or the government so I am not disappointed. All the listed are wannabe kings wishing to tell you what you can do with the "king's" land that you just rent according to them.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-06-26 21:38|| 2005-06-26 21:38|| Front Page Top

#15 Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

I decided to re-read this to see if there was any inkling that points to your assertion - regards New Jersey, for example. I can find nothing to support your statement.

Her opening paragraph says it all:
"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent."
-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

As she pointed out no exceptions, and I believe her to be somewhat well tutored in law, I believe I have it right. Three other Justices agree with us, me 'n Sandy.

The five who disagree are traitors to the Constitution - and I do not offer them anything respectfully. May they be impeached and rot in hell.

Posted by .com 2005-06-26 22:25|| 2005-06-26 22:25|| Front Page Top

#16 The commenters I have seen on the Boob Tube seem to think that states such as New Jersey protect their citizens from this kind of theft. What the hell do I know. I watch FOX.

I don't mean to say in any way that this isn't scarry, it is. But most property cases are decided in state courts and state courts don't depend on federal rulings all that often. They go by and set their own course. The state this poor SOB lives in doesn't provide protection from public takings for private benifit.

In the long run this isn't anything different from actual practice. If some greedy public employee with the power wants your land they will find a way to steal it. It's just now they can do it with impunity in places where state law allows for it.

The SCOTUS quit protecting me about 1969. So I am not shocked at any course they might take. What part of shall not be infringed don't they understand? Well as far as I can tell all of it.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-06-26 23:29|| 2005-06-26 23:29|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm not a certified lawyer but my readings > the SCOTUS only reaffirmed the power of eminent/public domain that the latter already have, and have had for eons now. Private landowners will still have to be compensated for FMV at time of taking, plus developers will still have to compete with each other vv public bidding processes/protocols. The State cannot just hand it over to any singular developer regardless of the merits. For me the real battle will occur post-development, between County vs State vs Federal as to whom gets the taxes - why should one pay local taxes to the other(s) for lands which the latter did not condemn nor was subject or needed as per the Other's requirements. The SCOTUS mmay have unwillingly RE-OPENED up a can for worms for the various levels of Amer public governance i.e whom controls and gets the benefit of the Taxes and other Fees/Charges. About the only other pertinent issues is HOW LONG PRIVATE LANDOWNERS WHOSE LANDS WERE FORMALLY CONDEMNED WILL HAVE TO WAIT TO RECEIVE THEIR COMPENSATION, AND HOW MUCH IS FMV!?

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-06-27 00:00|| 2005-06-27 00:00|| Front Page Top

00:03 Jan
00:00 JosephMendiola
23:31 Frank G
23:29 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:26 Frank G
23:25 Omise Sholuting9208
22:58 CrazyFool
22:37 Bomb-a-rama
22:25 .com
21:56 xbalanke
21:49 Classical_Liberal
21:39 SpembelsKaffir
21:38 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
21:37 xbalanke
21:32 Omavitch Cravitch1380
21:31 eLarson
21:22 .com
21:16 .com
21:16 Red Dog
21:12 john
20:52 anonymous2u
20:47 AJackson
20:38 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
20:26 .com