FTFA: "The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation."

Sounds like all that's left is a giant hole.

Maybe it should be filled with politicians, bureaucrats, corporate robber barons and SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

On top of the pile they could erect a massive monument to warn future generations of the dangers of "Government Incorporated" run amok.

Loreweaver: KatjaMouse: I'm curious to know what compensation the citizens got for their property. Market value and then some? Did they get any or were they tossed out on their asses?

In most cases of Eminent Domain, the property owners are offered only pennies on the dollar for their properties. If you refuse the offer, you get nothing and *still* lose your property.

F*ck them all then. F*ck them all up their asses with sideways "Great American Challenge" dildos. Unless I committed felonies on my property no one will be taking it.

Red Shirt Blues: For:

Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer

Against:

O'Connor
Thomas
Scalia
Rehnquist


Sort of a bizarro decision

For some reason the second I saw Ginsburg, I thought:



Guttenberg

icy_one: subaudio: Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Bush v. Gore?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

Brown vs Board of Education?

/what?
//too soon?

University of California Regents v. Bakke

ne2d: Finders v. Keepers?

Hmm. It'd really be Losers v. Finders, though. (Or United States v. Finders if the object was big enough.)

/your joke, I have ruined it

howdyyall9999: icy_one: subaudio: Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Bush v. Gore?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

Brown vs Board of Education?

/what?
//too soon?

University of California Regents v. Bakke

So is this a greatest hits thread now?

To St. Louisians, this will sound a lot like the Sunset Hills fiasco.

Link (new window)

That article was one sentence too long. He should have left off the Murdoch-mandated right-wing douchebaggery.

nickerj1: Kyosuke: Make fun of Texas if you must, but

Texas is also one of two states the expressly permits allodial property titles, making it one of the most libertarian property rights states.

Texas is just that cool, where rights are actually rights.

/Not from Texas.

With limitations. Both Nevada and Texas grant a limited allodial title. There is no true allodial title in the United States.

KatjaMouse: howdyyall9999: icy_one: subaudio: Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Bush v. Gore?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

Brown vs Board of Education?

/what?
//too soon?

University of California Regents v. Bakke

So is this a greatest hits thread now?

Sure, why not?

Buck v. Bell (still good law--cited by Roe v. Wade)

Nightsweat: TheIndependent: So Kennedy and Stevens voted for this, who were the others?

Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg. It's a freaky weird pro-corporate welfare decision from the left. Usually those come from the other side.

I think it's more of a pro state/government power usurping the will of the people and the protections afforded the citizenry by the constitution. So, in that light, I think the decision fits just fine to the side of the court in favor.

eKonk: DrForrester: I love how the WSJ sees it as a 'big government' issue without any real mention of the corporate greed that started it.

Corporate greed is a given. We should expect it. One of the roles of government (or at least one of the roles it should serve) is to ensure that the corporations can't act on their greed without bounds. This case was a spectacular failure of the government in that respect. This is why many people and the WSJ get their blood angried up at the government more so than the corporate greed.

Corporations are legal fiction and therefore require a government for them to exist. They also need government as an enforcement arm. Ironically the more powerful the government the better it is for connected corporations and vice versa.

Corporations are useful tools for creating wealth and a tax base so unless we want to reverting back medieval times I don't recommend getting rid of them. But peoples property rights need to be maintained.

subaudio: Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Bush v. Gore?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

Lochner v. New York is widely considered by legal scholars to be one of the worst opinions ever written. Contract rights are not exactly as sexy as a slavery or presidential election case, of course.

On that note, I would like to submit Grutter v. Bollinger to the list, which through the legal fiction of analyzing a strict scrutiny standard race case by an intermediate scrutiny standard and simultaneously refusing to acknowledge as much, turned the equal protection clause into a nullity, set race relations in this country back 20 years, and continues to independently spawn resentment and divisiveness on both sides to this day.

Schmerber v. California was a bad one too, allowing the police to forcibly draw blood from DUI suspects against their will.

gilgigamesh: sboyle1020: Treygreen13: subaudio: Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Bush v. Gore?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

Seriously? Bush v. Gore goes over Korematsu v. United States?

What about Mega Shark v. Giant Octopus?

Alien vs. Predator?

HHH vs. the Hulkster?

Borg vs. Cylons?

Spy v. Spy?

People will remember this when the revolution comes.

garandman1a: DrForrester: I love how the WSJ sees it as a 'big government' issue without any real mention of the corporate greed that started it.

But without big government crushing these people, the 'corporate greed' would have either (a) made Kelo and her neighbors rich via capitalist market means or (b) simply gone away to the harm of no one. The lesson here is to truly do evil requires government, since companies just aren't big and free enough. The few that may be able to still can't compare to government evil when goverment sets its mind to something.

Anyone who trusts government (and I don't care whose in charge) which is completely unregulated, without competition and outside of any responsibilities for its actions, more than a company (all companies are regulated in some form or another) in competition with other companies who are all simply seeking a profit is someone I will never understand.

..and THIS is what scares the heck out of me about Obama Care

dittybopper: yakmans_dad: So, there shouldn't be a law because sometimes things go awry?

OK.

You NRA-types, turn in your guns.

OK. Here, let me give you the bullets first...

Don't get mad at me.

/Eminent Domain is in the farking constitution.
//Take it up with the whackballs.

theinsultabot9000: Debeo Summa Credo: KatjaMouse: I'm curious to know what compensation the citizens got for their property. Market value and then some? Did they get any or were they tossed out on their asses?

Great question. The answer determines how much 'outrage' I will feel over this.

/yes, I'm too lazy to research it myself.

i could be wrong, but i think a tax appraiser came to the house, assessed it, (without taking to account any modifications which could cause it to sell for higher then appraised value, like granite counter tops or something, the county wrote a check for that amount, and they were given 60 days to get out

Typically, I believe the rule is that they are offered the appraised value of a home being taken over. Most of the time, (Especially in 2005) this is FAR less than actual market value of the house.

On another note, I wonder if all the residents in the surrounding area now have grounds to sue both Pfizer and the town for the devaluation of their homes.

Stanfan114: [cool story bro]
Last time I was in New London I was in a drunken brawl in the street until my friends pulled up and threw me into the back of their car and took me back to Conn College.

Dave if you're out there sorry for making you sleep in a bush.
[/cool story bro]

/New London is a hole


Looks like Ricky and Julian are off to Conn College

crazytrpr: Corporations are useful tools for creating wealth and a tax base so unless we want to reverting back medieval times I don't recommend getting rid of them. But peoples property rights need to be maintained.

That is very debatable, and although I recognize the hyperbole, saying that getting rid of corporations would set us back to "medieval times" is just nonsense.

All corporations are is limited liability for some people at the expense of others. Whether this is a net plus or a net minus for society in terms of wealth creation is difficult to prove, but philosophically it's reprehensible for government to pick economic winners and losers and forcibly redistribute wealth when no wrong has occurred.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Lochner v. New York is widely considered by legal scholars to be one of the worst opinions ever written. Contract rights are not exactly as sexy as a slavery or presidential election case, of course.

On that note, I would like to submit Grutter v. Bollinger to the list, which through the legal fiction of analyzing a strict scrutiny standard race case by an intermediate scrutiny standard and simultaneously refusing to acknowledge as much, turned the equal protection clause into a nullity, set race relations in this country back 20 years, and continues to independently spawn resentment and divisiveness on both sides to this day.

Schmerber v. California was a bad one too, allowing the police to forcibly draw blood from DUI suspects against their will.

Also, from what I understand, the first SC application of the 14th Amendment was used to protect a corporation arguing it to be a person. In fact, after the addition of the 14th, more cases were argued in favor of corporate interest than human interest when citing it. I wish I had a handy link or court case to cite. I learned this in Copy Right when I was in college.

/I went to art school and this was a requirement
//obvious reasons for you all I hope

Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford ring a bell? Or ex parte Endo? How about Plessy v. Ferguson?

Perspective. You lack it.

emt92339: garandman1a: DrForrester: I love how the WSJ sees it as a 'big government' issue without any real mention of the corporate greed that started it.

But without big government crushing these people, the 'corporate greed' would have either (a) made Kelo and her neighbors rich via capitalist market means or (b) simply gone away to the harm of no one. The lesson here is to truly do evil requires government, since companies just aren't big and free enough. The few that may be able to still can't compare to government evil when goverment sets its mind to something.

Anyone who trusts government (and I don't care whose in charge) which is completely unregulated, without competition and outside of any responsibilities for its actions, more than a company (all companies are regulated in some form or another) in competition with other companies who are all simply seeking a profit is someone I will never understand.

..and THIS is what scares the heck out of me about Obama Care

Really?

/I don't believe you.

how about giving that woman her land back.

jerks.

Thread sentiments -- Sort of a bizarro decision

I think I can 'splain why the Court's lefties voted for this. If you look at this as a "Big Government's rights v. citizen's rights" it makes perfect sense. Under this decision the government gets to do what it wants to do for whatever reason it can dream up and the right of the individual means fark all.

How ANYONE on the Supreme Court came to this decision, including the lefties, is beyond my ability to rationalize.

belowner: People will remember this when the revolution comes.

Is this you?

howdyyall9999: University of California Regents v. Bakke

Loving v. Virginia.

palelizard: Nabb1: This dispute is res judicata as to these parties, so barring a new cause of action, no, this cannot be revisited. You'll have to wait for this to happen somewhere else and have parties file suit.

Can they sue the city for failing to live up to the plan cited in the case? And can the city sue Pfizer for failing to live up their end of the bargain?

SC has had a couple of big companies come in over the last decade, promising X number of jobs and whatnot in exchange for $Y in tax breaks. Then, some years later, the jobs haven't happened but they've got the breaks, they pack up and head to another state. I was always curious as to why the state let them get away with it, and didn't sue to get back that money in taxes.

Because somewhere in this whole mess are more than a few politicians getting under-the-table kickbacks from Pfizer; do you really think they are going to let that come to light...?

gilgigamesh: sboyle1020: Mega Shark v. Giant Octopus

God damn. That's actually really a movie. And... *AND*.... it's starring Debbie Gibson.

That could well be the best movie ever made, or to be made.

I must see this, and determine whether it is necessary for Hollywood to continue making movies.

What you thought I was lying? It is without a doubt one of the most awesomely awful movies you will ever see. They're actually coming out with a sequel.

theinsultabot9000: Debeo Summa Credo: KatjaMouse: I'm curious to know what compensation the citizens got for their property. Market value and then some? Did they get any or were they tossed out on their asses?

Great question. The answer determines how much 'outrage' I will feel over this.

/yes, I'm too lazy to research it myself.

i could be wrong, but i think a tax appraiser came to the house, assessed it, (without taking to account any modifications which could cause it to sell for higher then appraised value, like granite counter tops or something, the county wrote a check for that amount, and they were given 60 days to get out

I would be so pissed if I spent 30K on renovations and wouldn't get any of it back.

theinsultabot9000: Debeo Summa Credo: KatjaMouse: I'm curious to know what compensation the citizens got for their property. Market value and then some? Did they get any or were they tossed out on their asses?

Great question. The answer determines how much 'outrage' I will feel over this.

/yes, I'm too lazy to research it myself.

i could be wrong, but i think a tax appraiser came to the house, assessed it, (without taking to account any modifications which could cause it to sell for higher then appraised value, like granite counter tops or something, the county wrote a check for that amount, and they were given 60 days to get out

Loreweaver: KatjaMouse: I'm curious to know what compensation the citizens got for their property. Market value and then some? Did they get any or were they tossed out on their asses?

In most cases of Eminent Domain, the property owners are offered only pennies on the dollar for their properties. If you refuse the offer, you get nothing and *still* lose your property.

howdyyall9999:

"The case was finally resolved when the City agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location. The controversy was eventually settled when the city paid substantial additional compensation to the homeowners"

Still don't know how outraged I should feel about this. Eminent domain is absolutely necessary in at least some circumstances, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

It is unjust, IMO, if those who are dispossessed of their property receive less than market value, particularly when eminent domain isn't necessary (widening/creating a highway, for instance), and is done solely for developmental purposes to increase tax rolls.

If these folks got market value plus some extra, then it's not as bad as if they just got what their property was listed on the tax rolls for.

hsg: garandman1a: Anyone who trusts government (and I don't care whose in charge) which is completely unregulated, without competition and outside of any responsibilities for its actions, more than a company (all companies are regulated in some form or another) in competition with other companies who are all simply seeking a profit is someone I will never understand.

Anyone who trusts a corporation, a paper fiction masquerading as a "person", legally required to do anything to shortsightedly squeeze as much profit out of its customers and employees as possible, over a government that on a regular basis is subject to reelection, is someone I'll never understand.

point; counter-point... exceptionally well done... but perhaps it is neither can really be trusted?

gilgigamesh: sboyle1020: Treygreen13: subaudio: Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Bush v. Gore?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

Seriously? Bush v. Gore goes over Korematsu v. United States?

What about Mega Shark v. Giant Octopus?

Alien vs. Predator?

HHH vs. the Hulkster?

Borg vs. Cylons?

Kramer v. Kramer?

Kyosuke: Make fun of Texas if you must, but we did add this nice little amendment to our laws last election:
HJR 14 would amend the constitution to provide that the taking of private property for public use ("eminent domain") is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.


That shiat ain't goin' down here.

Except that the amendment in its final form isn't actually all that strong of a protection. Don't be fooled, Texas has been and will continue to be one of the worst abusers of ED powers.

http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2738
http://volokh.com/2009/11/10/texas-amendment-11-another-post-kelo-eminent-domai n -reform-that-falls-short/

sboyle1020: Pretty sight, yes. But given our current economic status, the fact that someone is willing to and CAN build those houses and there is a demand for it, is a good sign. Unless of course they run out of money or go bankrupt halfway through...

Oh wow, I bet you are tons of fun to hang out with. fark the foxes and deer! Lets get to building some condos. We don't have enough already.

It all started going down hill with Miller vs. US

KatjaMouse: I'm curious to know what compensation the citizens got for their property. Market value and then some? Did they get any or were they tossed out on their asses?

They get "fair market value". The catch is, that is decided by a jury of taxpayers out of whose wallets the money will come.

Hence the Colts rushing out of town while Baltimore attempted to declare eminent domain over the team. Strangely, Irsay didn't trust the locals to pay him the full value of his team.

Dog Welder: Thread sentiments -- Sort of a bizarro decision

I think I can 'splain why the Court's lefties voted for this. If you look at this as a "Big Government's rights v. citizen's rights" it makes perfect sense. Under this decision the government gets to do what it wants to do for whatever reason it can dream up and the right of the individual means fark all.

How ANYONE on the Supreme Court came to this decision, including the lefties, is beyond my ability to rationalize.

It's in the Constitution.

It's right there. Property. Compensation. Local authority. Federalism. Etc.

/I think the righties on the court based their vote by voting against whatever the others did.
//Nobody made Connecticut do what it did.
///No righties objected to FARKING GEORGE BUSH getting the land for the Texas FARKING Rangers.
///NOT ONE PEEP.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: sboyle1020: Pretty sight, yes. But given our current economic status, the fact that someone is willing to and CAN build those houses and there is a demand for it, is a good sign. Unless of course they run out of money or go bankrupt halfway through...

Oh wow, I bet you are tons of fun to hang out with. fark the foxes and deer! Lets get to building some condos. We don't have enough already.

Way to miss my point asshat.

TFA: If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.

Your subtle dig, I see it.

Debeo Summa Credo: Eminent domain is absolutely necessary in at least some circumstances, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

I disagree with that. Theft is wrong, whether it is done through government or private actors.

Guess I'm not a reasonable person.

How long before people tire of the abuses of government? Oh, that's right! I take my SOMA and everything seems just dandy. The sitcoms on the Television show me just how wonderful life is and then sell me all sorts of remedies for that which ails me.

A short time ago there was a thread arguing about some guy showing up at a rally with a gun and a sign, and every one was shouting that this guy was treasonous. Was he really? Or was he making a point?

I wonder if soldiers remember stories like this as they're trying to figure out why they're laying in some god-forsaken desert shiathole bleeding to death. Freedom, my ass.

/Happy Veterans Day
//Veteran