eek, some bleak picture you described. If it has to go through in the end, I can only hope those affected get well compensated. Location is everything.
In the true sense yes I agree my point was that the interpretation was that there is a greater financial incentive for more people to allow the development and so the argument was that the property wasn't being under utilized to its market potential. My statement was meant to point out the irony of the situation.
So, will they be razing those people's houses in our homeland like the Israelis do? I am very, very depressed right now that such injustice would recieve a government stamp of approval. Corporatism is in full swing, ladies and gents!
I have never been a big fan of Justice Thomas, but his dissent is outstanding (better than O'Connor's) for those who care to read it.
Did not mean to offend liberals who place a high value on property rights. I am just used to having arguments over property rights with liberals (who do not highly value property rights) over things like smoking bans that limit the use of one's property.
Maximizing the utillity of an asset (in this case, land) was the goal of Marx as well as Adam Smith. They just had different views on how to achieve that maximum utility. Forcibly maximizing the uility of an asset (in this case - land), if anything, smells more of Karl than of Adam. The local treasurer is also looking at the greater tax stream that the New London developments would generate.
Somehow I feel this whole saga epitomizes the tyranny of a majority (the so called "public interests" or "utility") tramps the rights of a minority (the few property owners) - much resembling the current Democratic party struggling against the dominance of the Republican party on various votes in the Congress.
Fatty fat, This situation is different than the beach front and I believe these people are due just compensation, negotiated by them and the city or decided in the courts. I own a home on the front row on Galveston, it has been in our family for more than 40 years. I fully inderstand that it is at risk to the public ownership of the beach as the geologic conditions change so we don't improve it more than we can afford to lose. Many of my neighbors building million dollar homes next to the beach apparently do not realize the dynamic nature of the beach front. Erosion and accretion have long been recognized by the courts as acts of god and not an act of eminebt domain by the governmental body with jurisdiction over the public easement, in this case the Texas Bureau Of Land Management. In my experience they have never been very aggressive in their condemnations, only in the most egregious cases and allowing plenty of time for the natural vegitation line to restablish before making any designations. This isn't over. With the public sentiment running so strong I would think the home owner's lawyers will make the proposed project a lot less viable with the valuations they will propose.
agreed Suck em' dry! "Yeah! I'll take 2.5 million dollars for my house." I realise that the lawyer appraising the property would have a problem with that. But how do you appraise 80 years of living in the same home?
Government enforced transfer of property lies more within the Democrat philosophy. I would hazard a guess that some liberals on this very board hold the idea of private land ownership in utter contempt.
How tailor made is this court ruling for Houston in terms of flushing the poor and indigent out of the wards and slums? There has been serious talk for some time now about the Third Ward being a major hot spot for future development, if only the City could buy out the current residents. This ruling gives them severe levrage.. it will be interesting to see how Mayor White handles this.
If they all did that would be hilarious. I get your point about how the breakdown ought not to be surprising (and TheFreak's too). Any surprise here is due to the recent muddying of traditional conservative core values. In recent years (read: the recent admin, most especially), the conservative movement has favored corporate interests over small government, privacy, the right of the individual or any traditionally libertarian concern. I couldn't have guessed how basso might have responded -- his principles are hard to nail since he has to change them so often in order to defend Bush's changeable principles. But Jorge (and, I'm sure, by extension, texxx) has never been anything approaching a traditional conservative. He favors nothing so much as corporate interests except maybe for bashing liberals. He's defiant about his love of corporate power. It would surprise (and tickle the hell out of) me to see him opposing this decision. The Native American posts are good. I was thinking the same thing. I just came from a conference in Seattle. While there, I saw a t-shirt with a picture of several Native Americans on it. Above the photo it said "Homeland Security." Beneath it, it said, "Defending America's borders since 1492."
Our church building is affected by this ruling. The city is seizing part of a business on the waterfront to put in a new commercial development. They have been fighting in court for the past 18 months. The city manager told me (our church is located next to the development area) he was going to move us out by last March 1 (2004) Because of the court case we have been able to stay in our building. The city doesn't want a church near the development because of the sale of alcoholic bev. (of course we sure don't mind if they sell it). But anyways I was told that as soon as possible we are out... no matter what the city has to do to move us. Back to the ruling- Horrible. Private ownership of property is a cornerstone of freedom. One morning we will all wake up get out of bed and realize we live in Orwell's 1984.
Seems some in the Texas Congress think this ruling sucks too. Either that or they saw the polls and are milking it. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3239023 THE SUPREME COURT Home seizure ruling doesn't play in Texas After decision, an amendment is quickly proposed to limit powers of eminent domain By MIKE SNYDER and MATT STILES Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Texas' cultural commitment to private property rights surfaced quickly Thursday as a state legislator moved to blunt the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments may seize land for private development. Hours after the court's 5-4 ruling came down, Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, said he would seek "to defend the rights of property owners in Texas" by proposing a state constitutional amendment limiting local powers of eminent domain, or condemnation. Houston Mayor Bill White and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels offered assurances that the city and county do not intend to condemn land for private development projects. But officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, south of Houston, said they would move aggressively to condemn property owned by two seafood companies to clear the way for an $8 million private marina. The Supreme Court ruled against a group of property owners in New London, Conn., who challenged a city plan to demolish their riverfront homes to make way for offices, a hotel and other commercial buildings. Justice John Paul Stevens, in the majority opinion, said such projects are within the scope of a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that authorizes condemning property for "public use." Stevens wrote that promoting economic development, the stated goal of the New London project, "is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized," such as taking land for roads, parks or libraries. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority's interpretation of "public use" was so broad that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Dissenting with O'Connor were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The opinion said states concerned about excessive use of condemnation were free to pass laws restricting it, and Corte said he intended to do just that. Corte said he would ask Gov. Rick Perry to add the condemnation issue to the agenda of the special legislative session now under way so that the proposed constitutional amendment could appear on the November ballot. Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said the governor would consider requests to add items to the agenda, but probably not until legislators resolve the school finance issue. She said Perry supports property rights and was concerned about the Supreme Court ruling. Corte said in a news release that his proposed amendment would "limit a local governmental entity's power of eminent domain, preventing them from bulldozing residences in favor of private developers." White and Eckels said such concerns were unfounded in Houston and Harris County. "The city of Houston has not, and likely never will, use eminent domain powers as aggressively as some cities simply for the purposes of economic development," White said in a statement. "We do respect property rights, and believe that eminent domain should not be used in a way that might simply benefit one economic interest versus another." The mayor said, however, that he is pleased the court upheld the use of eminent domain to reduce blight. Eckels said Commissioners Court has shown no inclination to condemn land for private development, and he would not support any move to do so. The Metropolitan Transit Authority, empowered by the law that created it to condemn property within 1,500 feet of transit stations, is not "currently planning" to use that authority for projects along the Main Street light rail line or elsewhere, spokesman Ken Connaughton said. Asked if the agency might exercise the authority in the future, Connaughton said, "Who knows what happens tomorrow? But there are no plans to do it." Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights Association, said he considers Metro's condemnation authority excessive. He said quasi-governmental agencies such as management districts and tax increment reinvestment zones might also try to take advantage of the court ruling. "I'm sure there are some self-servingly creative people in the leadership of these organizations who will try to find a way to do this," Klein said. Developer Ed Wulfe of Houston-based Wulfe & Co. said Houston's public entities have long resisted acquiring property through eminent domain unless it was for road improvements or other public uses. Wulfe said, however, that governments and developers can use the type of condemnation cited in the New London case as a tool to redevelop inner-city neighborhoods that stand to benefit economically. "I think on a very, very careful and selective basis it could be used to improve neighborhoods," said Wulfe. "Whether it's creating affordable housing or jobs, it could be an interesting way to remove blight." Matthew Deal of Lewis Realty Advisors, a property appraisal and consulting firm that deals in condemnation, said Houston's new downtown sports arenas offer a good example of the benefits of local governments taking full advantage of their eminent domain powers. The sports arenas energized parts of downtown that were "ridden with crime, boarded-up buildings and dangerous to be in," said Deal, calling the Supreme Court ruling "a score for governments and their development partners." The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
OK, out of the checks and balances system who checks the judicial branch? The legislative or executive? Whoever it is needs to check the judicial and tell them they are wrong.
How do you figure? What ideas has the conservative movement supported that support corporate interests over small government? Besides, this ruling supports the government more than corporate interests, it is government seizing the property. I disagree with this decision, as most conservatives do, but I think there is a lot of overreaction. The decision is really an extension of existing law (as I read on some blog). If it really is that bad then Congress can just pass some new law or amendment. We need to get into the meat of the decision and see it isn't so cut and dry. The constitution states: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" The people whose homes were taken were given just compensation (fair market value). People act like this ruling is so momentous, but we have been living under it already. It has happened many times before, finally a case reached the Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote: "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." This seems way overwrought to me. If the city government had made such a huge injustice, then the voters would kick the bums out. I would wager that most citizens of the city don't have a problem removing a few homes for the betterment of the city as a whole, otherwise the city government wouldn't have done this. Again, I disagree with the decision, as I think they interpreted the "public use" phrase in the constitution too broadly, but the decision doesn't really change much in our lives. Congress should do something if they really are so outraged.
"Public use" is distinct (and intentionally so) from "Public good". This decision amounts to changing the wording to: "Nor shall private property be taken for public or private use, without just compensation" And that is just perverse.
Actually it is the government that seized this property to improve the city as a whole, so how does this decision amount to what you are saying?
