Supreme Court Property Rights Decision

Brian Olewnick · June-23rd-2005, 12:22 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/sc....ap/index.html

Curious to see if Dems will defend this decision. Basically the Court, with the "conservatives" dissenting, ruled that cities have the right of eminent domain not just in cases like roads, schools, etc., but to pave the way for hotel developers at the expense of private homes. Amazing. So if you're a well-heeled real estate developer (with the accompanying influence on local government) and a home-owner declines your offer of a buy-out, you can simply force the person off his land to build a hotel/condo/what-have-you. And it's the "liberals" who voted in favor fo this policy!

moneyp · June-23rd-2005, 02:28 PM

That article doesn't summarize the opinion very well. I'm not sure I'm with the majority on this one as far as the result, but the majority relied on case law that supports their position, and unless they're willing to outright overturn those cases, it looks like they had little choice in their decision. I'll have to take a look at the opinions, the concurrence and both dissents later on tonight.

Brian Olewnick · June-23rd-2005, 02:46 PM

I was actually wonering if this is one of those cases where, technically and legally speaking, the Court might have firm ground on which to stand even though I personally think it's a horrendous stance to take. Even so, even if there's a certain amount of legal precedent, wouldn't the Supreme Court be able (even compelled) to go back to the Constitution and examine whether eminent domain applied to private projects? Dunno, but it would seem so to me.

June-23rd-2005, 05:46 PM

Well, that and whether or not the states will be compelled to tighten property laws. Which is doubtful because they would be cutting their throats financially by doing so.

But as far as I can see, the courts did at least leave the door open for that possibility.

walto · June-23rd-2005, 06:05 PM

I think this thread should be used as a place where people can take the opposite position from the one they take on the other one.

June-23rd-2005, 06:27 PM

I agree.

On the other thread I think Walto sucks.

But on this thread he really blowz.

walto · June-23rd-2005, 06:31 PM

You should see me suck and blow at the same time...(and I'm not talking about circular breathing, baby).

June-23rd-2005, 06:42 PM

Oh my!!!

Thanks asshole!!

I won't sleep for nights now!

RedJazz · June-23rd-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/sc....ap/index.html

Curious to see if Dems will defend this decision. Basically the Court, with the "conservatives" dissenting, ruled that cities have the right of eminent domain not just in cases like roads, schools, etc., but to pave the way for hotel developers at the expense of private homes. Amazing. So if you're a well-heeled real estate developer (with the accompanying influence on local government) and a home-owner declines your offer of a buy-out, you can simply force the person off his land to build a hotel/condo/what-have-you. And it's the "liberals" who voted in favor fo this policy!

All American laws are couched in the rhetoric of property and commerce rights. Part of the reason for this is that both major parties basically accept the notion of property rights as sacrosanct. The real discourse is between individual property rights and the notion of corporate personhood. Even the nation's most fundamental labor legislation is based, not on worker's rights, but on the commerce clause, a weakness which labor's leadership is learning all too gradually.

Chaz Longue · June-24th-2005, 05:28 PM

Heck -

It sure would simplify life for me...I could attend "takings" instead of "closings"!

Gordon B · June-26th-2005, 08:18 AM

The decision gives the green light for real-estate developers to look for profit making opportunities where they demolish poor people's home and replace them with shopping centers, higher class condos, etc. All they need to do is convince the local government. Donald Trump is good at that.

I think this is a terrible decision, like the medical marijuana one.

Another point- when a taking is upheld under "eminent domain", the takees should get above market value. A person who sells his house against his will should get a higher price than one who sells the equivalent house by preference.

Once again, Clarence Thomas is on the right side of the constitution.

GoodSpeak · June-26th-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

And it's the "liberals" who voted in favor fo this policy!

And just who are these "Liberals", Brian.....anybody who is a Democrat?

Pete C · June-26th-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

And just who are these "Liberals", Brian.....anybody who is a Democrat?

What exactly are you asking, Tim?

In this case it was the four justices considered the liberal wing (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg & Bryer) + Kennedy, who is a swing vote.

How do you feel about this decision, Tim?

GoodSpeak · June-26th-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete C

What exactly are you asking, Tim?

In this case it was the four justices considered the liberal wing (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg & Bryer) + Kennedy, who is a swing vote.

How do you feel about this decision, Tim?

First of all, this whole "Liberal" vote stuff has got to go the way of segregation. To blithly align people with a political and social philosophy without regard to the myriad of complexities of the human experience is no better than placing black kids and white kids in separate schools simply upon the basis of a misused and completely overbroad categorization of an entire group of people.

It's like the "Liberal" is the new nigger and I strenuously object to that kind of pandering to the pundits of the radical right. It is hate mongering and I will fight it at every turn.

Secondly, I am not at all convinced that eminent domain is necessarily always a bad thing. I firmly believe in the precepts of altruism and further believe when the greater good comes in conflict with individualism, the majority must be served. The only problem I have is there had better be some very compelling reason(s) to operate on a level in which land may be annexed. Otherwise, abuses will happen. But this is why we have courts and lawyers to decide such things.

Lastly, the land owner is, in fact, compensated for the property. The myth is that government will just take without paying. In California, this is just not done. You get a fair market value for your property in the event all sides have been satisfied that there is a clear and compelling need to annex the land.

Pete C · June-26th-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

First of all, this whole "Liberal" vote stuff has got to go the way of segregation. To blithly align people with a political and social philosophy without regard to the myriad of complexities of the human experience is no better than placing black kids and white kids in separate schools simply upon the basis of a misused and completely overbroad categorization of an entire group of people.

It's like the "Liberal" is the new nigger and I strenuously object to that kind of pandering to the pundits of the radical right. It is hate mongering and I will fight it at every turn.

Oh.

GoodSpeak · June-26th-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete C

Oh.

Were you only interested in the "Liberal" stuff? Seems to me there was a second part to your question.

Hm.

Brian Olewnick · June-26th-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Lastly, the land owner is, in fact, compensated for the property. The myth is that government will just take without paying. In California, this is just not done. You get a fair market value for your property in the event all sides have been satisfied that there is a clear and compelling need to annex the land.

Why does the government get to decide what "fair market value" is? My understanding of the term is an agreed upon price between two parties. If you, the landowner, don't agree with what the developer is offering, where's the "fairness"?

What's "fair market value" to the 87-year old lady who would like to live out her remaining life in her house and who has no desire to move whatever the price? Why are the (possible) tax benefits to the community of greater importance than her happiness? What if a largely white community wants to replace a small black one with a new business district that will, on the whole, benefit the town? This is OK? After all, the "community" is benefiting and they've made the decision "democratically".

Captain Hate · June-26th-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Why does the government get to decide what "fair market value" is? My understanding of the term is an agreed upon price between two parties. If you, the landowner, don't agree with what the developer is offering, where's the "fairness"?

With the threat of eminent domain in their hip pocket, the chance of developers paying the price that the seller might want is nonexistent. There is no reason for the developer to pay anything greater than what he or she is willing to offer.

GoodSpeak · June-26th-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Why does the government get to decide what "fair market value" is? My understanding of the term is an agreed upon price between two parties. If you, the landowner, don't agree with what the developer is offering, where's the "fairness"?

I see.

And you think the "invisible hand of the market place" is?

C'mon, Brian. The government isn't the big bad wolf. Besides, if you have anything at all to worry about is as of now it is controlled by the radical right which is largely controlled by big business who would stop at nothing to do to people exactly what you posted.

I fail to see the concern about "Liberals" in this one. I'd be more worried about what the Bushies will do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

What's "fair market value" to the 87-year old lady who would like to live out her remaining life in her house and who has no desire to move whatever the price? Why are the (possible) tax benefits to the community of greater importance than her happiness? What if a largely white community wants to replace a small black one with a new business district that will, on the whole, benefit the town? This is OK? After all, the "community" is benefiting and they've made the decision "democratically".

And I would like to make a million dollars a year teaching, but that's not going to happen either.

Brian, there are some things in life which are not always fair to all people. I will suggest to you that tax dollars, badly needed tax dollars, will do more to give that old lady comfort in her remaining years through that SSI check and medical benefits than a house can ever provide.

Sure it's sad, but you know what? I think it is sadder still when American kids go hungry because of the stoppage of lunch programs due to the lack of funding.

The greater good, Brian, is far more vast than I think you are willing to consider relative to your example.

Brian Olewnick · June-26th-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

The greater good, Brian.

According to who? You?

You act like this is an absolute value. It's not.

You also misunderstand insofar as "the radical right" being in control. That's the whole point, Tim! And it's the ostensibly liberal judges who played right into their hands. (I don't think there's anything surprising about that as I think they're two sides of the same coin, but I would think it might cause you a little concern)

GoodSpeak · June-26th-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

With the threat of eminent domain in their hip pocket, the chance of developers paying the price that the seller might want is nonexistent. There is no reason for the developer to pay anything greater than what he or she is willing to offer.

I disagree.

How bad would businesses look if they continually, and on a wholesale basis, screwed people out a fair market value as a matter of course?

The community isn't going to stand for that and the eventual backlash would be far reaching and severe. Politicians won't allow it either unless they don't plan on re-election.

Maybe we need to trust the system a little bit more...?

GoodSpeak · June-26th-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

According to who? You?

No, by committee.

We vote for the politicians who make these kinds of decisions. If they abuse their power we vote them out. Right?

If businesses jerk us around, we don't support them.

It's the "invisible hand of the marketplace."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

You act like this is an absolute value. It's not.

No, but it is this:

al·tru·ism n.

Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

I have faith in the American people to do the right thing most of the time.

You?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

You also misunderstand insofar as "the radical right" being in control. That's the whole point, Tim! And it's the ostensibly liberal judges who played right into their hands. (I don't think there's anything surprising about that as I think they're two sides of the same coin, but I would think it might cause you a little concern)

I think it was a vote that could pose some problems,yes, but I also have witnessed it's benefits as well.

However, if you are going to continue to refer to people who aren't republican as Liberals, then we have nothing to talk about.

Captain Hate · June-26th-2005, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I disagree.

How bad would businesses look if they continually, and on a wholesale basis, screwed people out a fair market value as a matter of course?

As Brian attempted to explain to you, fair market value is not an absolute pre-set number. It is an agreed upon number that is reached through negotiations in which neither side has an unjust advantage. By having the ability to invoke eminent domain, all leverage is on the buyers side.

Regarding the image of businesses, the one that gained the most in the case just decided is Pfizer. I'll be interested to see what, if any, repercussions occur to them as a result of this.

GoodSpeak · June-26th-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

As Brian attempted to explain to you, fair market value is not an absolute pre-set number. It is an agreed upon number that is reached through negotiations in which neither side has an unjust advantage. By having the ability to invoke eminent domain, all leverage is on the buyers side.

I never said it was a pre-set number. I'm arguing that a fair market value isn't a guarantee through a realtor either.

Ever hear of a "buyer's market?" Who benefits most in that case?

I stand for the decision which benefits the greater good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

Regarding the image of businesses, the one that gained the most in the case just decided is Pfizer. I'll be interested to see what, if any, repercussions occur to them as a result of this.

OK.

And I could overname several companies who, until recently, thought they could screw with people and they found out differently.

For example, WorldCom, Tyco, ENRON....the system does work. Maybe not as quickly as we would like it to, but the alternative would be....?

Captain Hate · June-26th-2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I'm arguing that a fair market value isn't a guarantee through a realtor either.
Ever hear of a "buyer's market?" Who benefits most in that case?

Why isn't it? If the seller wants too much the buyer can walk away. If the buyer is willing to pay too little the seller can tell him to pound salt. Either side might subsequently complain but they have only themselves to blame.

A "buyer's market" is a reference to the market conditions at the time, usually fewer houses available than people that want to buy them. It generally gives a bit more leverage to the seller but it isn't an absolute guarantee that an individual buyer can't find a good bargain or that regional variations don't exist.

Brian Olewnick · June-26th-2005, 09:04 PM

[slap self in face for once again getting into an argument with Goody...]

GoodSpeak · June-26th-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

Why isn't it? If the seller wants too much the buyer can walk away. If the buyer is willing to pay too little the seller can tell him to pound salt. Either side might subsequently complain but they have only themselves to blame.

A "buyer's market" is a reference to the market conditions at the time, usually fewer houses available than people that want to buy them. It generally gives a bit more leverage to the seller but it isn't an absolute guarantee that an individual buyer can't find a good bargain or that regional variations don't exist.

Your point?

If I am having to move because my job has transferred me to another part of the state or country, I don't have that luxury in a buyer's market to tell a buyer to "pound salt."

In my area, as an example, the housing market was so flat that for over a decade a third grader could strike any kind of deal with a seller and walk away with some very nice property. It would happen because it was a [ahem] buyer's market. The seller takes what he is offered or stay home. It's that simple.

[Ask me how I know this, front and back....g'head....I dare you.]

No guaranteed fair value, none at all.

Tell me, how fair [value] is that?

Honestly, and I mean no disrespect, I think you and Brian are at cross purposes here.

[See, Brian? We Democrats ain't as predictable (or stupid) as you figured, huh.]

June-27th-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

[slap self in face for once again getting into an argument with Goody...]

And the more right you are, the worse it gets.

Kinda like getting stuck in barbed wire, the harder you struggle to get free the more entangled you become.

Monte Smith · June-27th-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

...the harder you struggle to get free the more entangled you become.

June-27th-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

See, Brian? We Democrats ain't as predictable (or stupid) as you figured, huh

That's right.

Only us conservatives are as predictable and stupid as you figured.

Huh?