It did not overrule any state laws to the contrary. The USSC said that the fed takings clause did not prohibit the particular state authorized takings in Kelo. Thus, if Texas prohibited all private to private takings, Kelo would not render that state law unconcsitutional.
You are right, it does not overrule state or local laws. But some have made the claim that it does, and now there’s nothing to stop your property from being taken and given to a third private party for any reason, blah blah. Those arguments are what I am calling bullshit on, since there are plenty of lower laws that are still applicable, and there are usually certain test criteria that must be met that are set by the states before takings can be done. Kelo isn’t even worth getting upset over IMO because all that’s been lost is some mythical Federal protection that never really existed in the first place, seeing how these takings for private developments have been going on for decades!
Xetrov -
Mr. Sodd is confused in his arguement, and in his misunderstanding that the state supreme court is as high as this would go.
It won’t go to the US Supreme Court unless Mr. Sodd takes it there, (unless he manages to win at the state level). Even then, if it is similar enough to Kelo, The Supreme Court may decide to not even hear it.
You’re exactly what’s wrong with strict adherance to ideology. People are suffering, but they deserve it because of bad mistakes made by them or other’s made in the past, and they should have no hope of fixing the problems. Because it’s better for hundreds of people to live in terror of gangs, violence and drugs than it is for one person to have to go through the comparatively benign nuisance of being targetted with eminant domain. You get compensated for eminant domian. If your house value drops through floor because your neighborhood becomes overrun with gangs there’s no compensation for you. But hey, you deserve it because some idiot in city hall made a bad decision, possibly even before you were born!
To me that line of thinking is so fucked up I don’t even know where to begin.
You’re twisting again on the squatters issue. I told you to read what I wrote, you didn’t. You keep insisting I’m calling you all squatters. I used to think you were a more honest debater than this, guess I was wrong.
Looking at the dictionary, perhaps I should use the word ‘speculator’ rather than ‘squatter’. But it doesn’t change my arguement. Anyway to save everyone time, I will rehash the ‘squatter’ or ‘speculator’ argument I made in the last thread. It takes towns months and years to develop a redevelopment plan. This gives certain individuals a chance to rush in and buy up property that would be redevelopped, with the sole intent of squeezing as much money out of the town as possible, well above what the market value would otherwise be. ED is useful here to prevent that sort of extortion of the taxpayer.
I think we just tend to think that on average people are rational. Offer them enough money to move (re: actual fair market, not what the government says is ‘fair market’) and they’ll move. It might get expensive (for the builder) but land is property and an investment. Sometimes investments pay off windfall profits. :)
I think we just tend to think that on average people are rational. Offer them enough money to move (re: actual fair market, not what the government says is ‘fair market’) and they’ll move. It might get expensive (for the builder) but land is property and an investment. Sometimes investments pay off windfall profits. :)
I’ve been trying to find the figures on what the homeowners were paid in the Kelo case, but I have found that there were 115 properties involved, and 100 of them accepted the city’s offer for their property and moved. So it sounds like what you suggest did indeed happen. But of course some homeowners will holdout for a variety of reasons, sentimental value, greed, whatever. If one homeowner with no price is allowed to quash a huge development, then that’s an awful lot of tax dollars wasted buying the other properties. It’s reasons like this that I think it’s necessary to have the ED power in built-up communities, or nothing would get done. Of course it also needs to be kept in check.
I think we just tend to think that on average people are rational. Offer them enough money to move (re: actual fair market, not what the government says is ‘fair market’) and they’ll move. It might get expensive (for the builder) but land is property and an investment. Sometimes investments pay off windfall profits. :)
I’ve been trying to find the figures on what the homeowners were paid in the Kelo case, but I have found that there were 115 properties involved, and 100 of them accepted the city’s offer for their property and moved. So it sounds like what you suggest did indeed happen. But of course some homeowners will holdout for a variety of reasons, sentimental value, greed, whatever. If one homeowner with no price is allowed to quash a huge development, then that’s an awful lot of tax dollars wasted buying the other properties. It’s reasons like this that I think it’s necessary to have the ED power in built-up communities, or nothing would get done. Of course it also needs to be kept in check.
Well, your ‘greed’ is my free market. I want the most money I can get out of the developer who wants my property. If some idiot people at the city paid for all the other properties without getting commitments to sell from everyone first, shame on them.
I think we just tend to think that on average people are rational. Offer them enough money to move (re: actual fair market, not what the government says is ‘fair market’) and they’ll move. It might get expensive (for the builder) but land is property and an investment. Sometimes investments pay off windfall profits. :)
I’ve been trying to find the figures on what the homeowners were paid in the Kelo case, but I have found that there were 115 properties involved, and 100 of them accepted the city’s offer for their property and moved. So it sounds like what you suggest did indeed happen. But of course some homeowners will holdout for a variety of reasons, sentimental value, greed, whatever. If one homeowner with no price is allowed to quash a huge development, then that’s an awful lot of tax dollars wasted buying the other properties. It’s reasons like this that I think it’s necessary to have the ED power in built-up communities, or nothing would get done. Of course it also needs to be kept in check.
Well, your ‘greed’ is my free market. I want the most money I can get out of the developer who wants my property. If some idiot people at the city paid for all the other properties without getting commitments to sell from everyone first, shame on them.
But what do you do about a holdout that refuses to sell for any price?
Also as a resident of the town, I’d be pretty pissed off if other home-owners in houses worth maybe $300G on the open market are legally holding out for millions, and I, as a tax payer, in my own $300G house that I could only get $300G for, am funding it. That hardly seems fair.
A good analogy is the stock market. If you own stock in a company being aquired by another. If the other company offers $40/share, and the majority of shareholders vote to approve it, you as an individual shareholder, can’t hold out and refuse to sell or demand a higher price. When the closing day comes, the stock disappears from your account, and $40/share appears.
But also it’s a good reason why this should remain a state/local issue. That way people can choose to live in states and communities where it is outlawed if that is their preference-- and it is illegal in several states. But it also doesn’t completely tie the hands of towns that need it. I don’t understand the desire to impose restrictions or bans on this at the Federal level, especially from libertarians.
But what do you do about a holdout that refuses to sell for any price?
Wait for them to die? They’re usually old.
Make a better offer? Or a more creative offer (re: move their whole house?)?
Also as a resident of the town, I’d be pretty pissed off if other home-owners in houses worth maybe $300G on the open market are legally holding out for millions, and I, as a tax payer, in my own $300G house that I could only get $300G for, am funding it. That hardly seems fair.
Bummer. The guys in your office probably feel the same way about the saleries they negotiated. You gonna step in, with state power, and equalise all that ‘unfairness’? You know better now (than everyone else involved in the process)? That’s why we call the market a ‘free market’. Your way undoes that. It’s not even a market when people tell you sell and what price, it’s what we call any offer you can’t refuse....
Bummer. The guys in your office probably feel the same way about the saleries they negotiated. You gonna step in, with state power, and equalise all that ‘unfairness’? You know better now (than everyone else involved in the process)? That’s why we call the market a ‘free market’. Your way undoes that. It’s not even a market when people tell you sell and what price, it’s what we call any offer you can’t refuse....
If my coworker negotiates a salary that’s 10 or 20% higher than mine because he is a better negotiater, that’s fine. If he ‘negotiates’ a salary that is say, 5X mine, and is way out of line of what he can earn at another company because he was able to use some kind of extortion, then yeah, I have a problem with that and the state should step in b/c that’s illegal. You know that I’m no socialist or statist. But on the other hand, we don’t have a completely free market. I can give many examples.
Bummer. The guys in your office probably feel the same way about the saleries they negotiated. You gonna step in, with state power, and equalise all that ‘unfairness’? You know better now (than everyone else involved in the process)? That’s why we call the market a ‘free market’. Your way undoes that. It’s not even a market when people tell you sell and what price, it’s what we call any offer you can’t refuse....
If my coworker negotiates a salary that’s 10 or 20% higher than mine because he is a better negotiater, that’s fine. If he ‘negotiates’ a salary that is say, 5X mine, and is way out of line of what he can earn at another company because he was able to use some kind of extortion, then yeah, I have a problem with that and the state should step in b/c that’s illegal. You know that I’m no socialist or statist. But on the other hand, we don’t have a completely free market. I can give many examples.
Because if someone makes 5x more you know your worth as much right? :)
A non statist would ask how the guy got 5x more and see if they could emulate it (buckle down and get that CCIE or something).
A statist or socialist just tries to use various populist arguments to rally force to take it… which has the net effect of vetoing private business decisions and imposing the resulting inefficiencies on the economy.
Back to ED… so you want to drag me down on negotiating selling my property because you sold too cheap. :)
Bummer. The guys in your office probably feel the same way about the saleries they negotiated. You gonna step in, with state power, and equalise all that ‘unfairness’? You know better now (than everyone else involved in the process)? That’s why we call the market a ‘free market’. Your way undoes that. It’s not even a market when people tell you sell and what price, it’s what we call any offer you can’t refuse....
If my coworker negotiates a salary that’s 10 or 20% higher than mine because he is a better negotiater, that’s fine. If he ‘negotiates’ a salary that is say, 5X mine, and is way out of line of what he can earn at another company because he was able to use some kind of extortion, then yeah, I have a problem with that and the state should step in b/c that’s illegal. You know that I’m no socialist or statist. But on the other hand, we don’t have a completely free market. I can give many examples.
Because if someone makes 5x more you know your worth as much right? :)
A non statist would ask how the guy got 5x more and see if they could emulate it (buckle down and get that CCIE or something).
In my example I specifically stated that his 5X was NOT a market wage, maybe he overheard a conversation that was supposed to be ‘private’ and was using the information against his superiors to force a grossly higher wage. Not sure that’s the kind of behavior that I’m supposed to be emulating :)
Now in the typical real estate negotiation, when you make offers, you don’t know how much the other guy is bluffing, or how much he’ll take before he walks and looks for something else. For instance, we made an offer on a house, that was 15K lower than the asking price because of work that was needed. The seller came back with a counter-offer that we thought was insulting, so we said ‘screw this, we’ll find something else’. I happen to know that house eventually sold for less than our original offer, but that’s a risk you take.
In the case of public redevelopment plans- the process is fairly transparent, so you know the town really needs YOUR house, not the cookie-cutter copy of it down the street that’s outside of the redeveloped area. This really forces the towns hand in the negotiation and puts them at a huge disadvantage, and this is why the seller knows they won’t get insulted and walk. It’s sorta like insider trading in the stock market were you gain an unfair advantage due to information you have. We have ways to deal with and discourage insider trading that may seem anti-free market, but they help level the playing field and boost investor confidence. ED is a tool we have in redevelopment situations to help level the playing field there.
Again in the stock market, only a simple majority of shareholders need to agree to a buyout offer, and then all shareholders are forced to sell for that price whether they want to or not. For comparison, almost 90% of the homeowners affected by the Kelo development agreed to sell. Obviously stocks are not houses, but I’m just pointing out that we don’t have completely free, unregulated markets. There is quite alot of regulation in fact.
Back to ED… so you want to drag me down on negotiating selling my property because you sold too cheap. :)
Again, I’m only arguing for the status quo that’s been going on well before the Kelo case, and it’s astounding that I’m being treated as the radical in this discussion. :smirk:
I also want to know why all the libertarians here want to abandon the principle of Federalism on this issue and have the Federal government regulate and override state laws regarding the practice?
I also want to know why all the libertarians here want to abandon the principle of Federalism on this issue and have the Federal government regulate and override state laws regarding the practice?
I don’t, I just think increased tax revenue is not a legitimate reason to invoke imminent domain so the court should have found it a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments (which also applies to state and local governments)....
Otherwise, your being treated like a radical because you keep talking like one. :)
I also want to know why all the libertarians here want to abandon the principle of Federalism on this issue and have the Federal government regulate and override state laws regarding the practice?
I don’t, I just think increased tax revenue is not a legitimate reason to invoke imminent domain so the court should have found it a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments (which also applies to state and local governments)....
‘increased tax revenue’ is spin presenting only a single dimension of the situation, sorta like saying we only went into Iraq so Haliburton could profit. The fourth ammendment doesn’t apply because this isn’t the type of seizure that it pertains to, and even if it was, there is that weasel-word qualification of ‘reasonable’ in the ammendment text. The fifth ammendment doesn’t say that taking private property for ultimately private use is prohibited, so that means it isn’t (unless you want to go down a dangerous path of claiming that something not mentioned by the Constitution are prohibited by default). Some argue that the 5th ammendment would only limit Federal powers anyway.
Blackmail… ha.. maybe the guy is just better. :)
Don’t hijack my hypotheticals! :coolsmirk: Have you never met anybody who got a job or raised based on other factors besides merit?
I don’t know what to think about these issues.... in general, I don’t like eminent domain (even for public use), but because of personal reasons I can’t get involved in the argument objectively.
I was going to post this on the other board, but I can’t remember if I ever did.
A couple of years ago, my grandmother’s city decided they wanted her house so they could build a school. Her neighborhood was one of those that used to be nice enough (50yrs ago), but had fallen completely into the gutter (prostitutes out on the street, my grandfather reporting the house he thought was a crackhouse, violence, etc) The house had belonged to my great grandparents, and when they died, my grandmother got it. She had lived in the house since she was like 5yrs old, somewhere in the vacinity of 70yrs.
Over the course of the 10yrs or so before they started talking seriously about the school, most of the houses on the block were condemned and torn down. In the end, her house was there with one empty lot on it’s left and two on it’s right. The thing is, my grandfather, all my uncles and a couple of my cousins work in construction type work, so although it was old and the neighborhood was run down, my grandparent’s house was beautiful and well taken care of (but only looked so nice from the outside because I don’t think they wanted the neighbors to know ;))
So, anyway, they managed to put it off for a couple of years, but then as the other houses ended up condemned and bulldozed, it became harder and harder for them to fight. Then, one Christmas my grandfather died. I don’t know if it’s just coincidence or if it has to do with not as much of a fight being put up without him there, but about 8mos later they took the house.
In less than a year, my grandmother lost her husband of more than 50 yrs and the home she had lived in since she was a little girl.
It basically killed her. Oh, she’s not dead yet.... she’s just one of those old women who has lost everything and is sitting around waiting to die. It’s sad, really, she’s like 5 or 6 yrs younger than my other grandmother, who lives on her own and still works.
So, what is the city supposed to do? I don’t know… do they adjust what they are doing for one old lady? I suppose not… but boy, when that one old lady is your old lady it’s not as easy to just say “Oh well, it’s not like they didn’t pay her for it!” I know her case doesn’t really fit in, since the land was taken for public use and not private, but it makes me wonder… what if they just wanted to build condos there? I mean, her neighborhood wasn’t very nice and maybe putting new homes there would help the city clean it up, but at what personal, human cost?
Like I said, I don’t know, I suppose that sometimes it’s what they have to do and you can’t sacrifice everyone else for one person. I also know that sometimes when they take the land the houses were newer and maybe people didn’t have as much stake, that has been happening in my area, they built a bunch of houses in the path of a proposed highway, I suppose the developer didn’t care, they got full price for the land/houses, but the people who bought houses that are 4 or 5 yrs old may end up having the city take their land. So, they may put up a fight, but they’ll end up selling and buy new houses, most likely with a minimal amount of stress.
But my god, sometimes by taking away someone’s house/property you are completely gutting that person. It seems so pointless, especially in the case of an old woman who may be dead in a couple of years anyway. Like I said, I can’t look at this issue in an objective way… and I’m rambling..... so I’ll shutup....
So, what is the city supposed to do? I don’t know… do they adjust what they are doing for one old lady? I suppose not… but boy, when that one old lady is your old lady it’s not as easy to just say “Oh well, it’s not like they didn’t pay her for it!” I know her case doesn’t really fit in, since the land was taken for public use and not private, but it makes me wonder… what if they just wanted to build condos there? I mean, her neighborhood wasn’t very nice and maybe putting new homes there would help the city clean it up, but at what personal, human cost?
That’s why I say these cases should be handled on a case by case basis, rather than just trying to completely ban the process without looking at the details. If the city wants to put up something completely frivolous, it may cause more neighborhood opposition than a plan to build something that the community actually wants would.
‘increased tax revenue’ is spin presenting only a single dimension of the situation, sorta like saying we only went into Iraq so Haliburton could profit. The fourth ammendment doesn’t apply because this isn’t the type of seizure that it pertains to, and even if it was, there is that weasel-word qualification of ‘reasonable’ in the ammendment text. The fifth ammendment doesn’t say that taking private property for ultimately private use is prohibited, so that means it isn’t (unless you want to go down a dangerous path of claiming that something not mentioned by the Constitution are prohibited by default). Some argue that the 5th ammendment would only limit Federal powers anyway.
I just don’t agree. In constitutional law and federal vs. state law you’re given the protection of whichever statute or law gives you the most protection. The fed min wage vs. state vs. local, you get whichever is highest. Legal protections, federal vs. state anti discrimination, whichever is wider. Bill of rights vs. local more restrictive, bill of rights.
As to the fourth, I’d have to dig through precedent. If I can find one about extra judicial penalties then I could use it (re: your essentially paying a penalty without committing a crime or being given a trial)…
Don’t hijack my hypotheticals! :coolsmirk: Have you never met anybody who got a job or raised based on other factors besides merit?
Well, every marxiod spin-off group has a lot of opinions about how their pet group is oppressed and a lot of augments to back that up. Heck, when I was 20 I was a better technician that our lead techs and supervisors. I could do the work of 2-3 people. :) But they made more. Conspiracy!!! Where is the social justice!
I just don’t agree. In constitutional law and federal vs. state law you’re given the protection of whichever statute or law gives you the most protection. The fed min wage vs. state vs. local, you get whichever is highest. Legal protections, federal vs. state anti discrimination, whichever is wider. Bill of rights vs. local more restrictive, bill of rights.
The prohibition against takings for private use just isn’t in the 5th amendment. I know alot of people have tried to use fuzzy logic to imagine it being there.
As to the fourth, I’d have to dig through precedent. If I can find one about extra judicial penalties then I could use it (re: your essentially paying a penalty without committing a crime or being given a trial)…
But if you start arguing based on precident, then you’ll have to accept the Kelo ruling since it’s now precident
I just don’t agree. In constitutional law and federal vs. state law you’re given the protection of whichever statute or law gives you the most protection. The fed min wage vs. state vs. local, you get whichever is highest. Legal protections, federal vs. state anti discrimination, whichever is wider. Bill of rights vs. local more restrictive, bill of rights.
The prohibition against takings for private use just isn’t in the 5th amendment. I know alot of people have tried to use fuzzy logic to imagine it being there.
As to the fourth, I’d have to dig through precedent. If I can find one about extra judicial penalties then I could use it (re: your essentially paying a penalty without committing a crime or being given a trial)…
But if you start arguing based on precident, then you’ll have to accept the Kelo ruling since it’s now precident
I just don’t agree. In constitutional law and federal vs. state law you’re given the protection of whichever statute or law gives you the most protection. The fed min wage vs. state vs. local, you get whichever is highest. Legal protections, federal vs. state anti discrimination, whichever is wider. Bill of rights vs. local more restrictive, bill of rights.
The prohibition against takings for private use just isn’t in the 5th amendment. I know alot of people have tried to use fuzzy logic to imagine it being there.
As to the fourth, I’d have to dig through precedent. If I can find one about extra judicial penalties then I could use it (re: your essentially paying a penalty without committing a crime or being given a trial)…
But if you start arguing based on precident, then you’ll have to accept the Kelo ruling since it’s now precident
Thats not really how it works.
What do you mean? How can you just pick and choose precidents that suit you and ignore the ones that don’t?
“ ... a policy of comparable worth would require a radical reordering of the economic system inasmuch as courts and the government would be given greater power in setting wages. Such a policy would lead inevitably to governmental control of wages, as occurs in the Soviet Union, and a disruption of the free market.” Christopher Osakwe, Equal Protection of Law in Soviet Constitutional Law and Theory—A Comparative Analysis, 59 Tul. L. Rev. 974, 987 (1985)
“...comparable worth constitutes the cutting edge of an ideal of distributive justice. It betokens a radical reworking of our fundamental social and political principles. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Women’s Rights, Affirmative Action, and the Myth of Individualism, 54 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 338, 369 (1986)
“… the idea of equal pay for work done by women that is decreed to be of comparable worth to that done by men is a debatable social and economic policy to redistribute income—a concept foreign to the meaning of civil rights as developed in the American tradition.” Morris B. Abram, Affirmative Action: Fair Shakers and Social Engineers, 99 HARV. L. REV. 1312 n.53 (1986)
“The reduction in GNP associated with comparable worth is fairly small as compared with its redistributive impact. For s = 1, for example, GNP falls by 0.3%—about $ 12 billion in 1985 terms. The real incomes of holders of men’s jobs and of all holders of women’s jobs also fall by 0.3%. The important effect of comparable worth is a redistribution of income from workers in the women’s job 2 to those who are lucky enough to obtain a covered women’s job.” George E. Johnson and Gary R. Solon, The Attainment of Pay Equity Between the Sexes by Legal Means: An Economic Analysis, 20 U Mich JL Ref 183, 203 (1986).
