http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062301067.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?...id=google&dist=

 

Excerpt:

Local governments may seize individuals' businesses and homes to promote economic development, the Supreme Court ruled in a split decision Thursday.

 

In a closely watched case, petitioners from New London, Conn. challenged the government's use of eminent domain to take and pay for private property and use it for private economic development.

 

Home and business owners' contention that economic development doesn't qualify as public use "is supported by neither precedent nor logic," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

 

The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting.

 

 

I happen to not agree with this decision. If somebody has taken the effort to buy a place to live in and own a property, the gov't ought not to seize it unless it's for a public purpose. This is a bad decision. :thumbdown

This is similar to the marlins stadium issue, where people would lose their houses. Or would that stadium count as 'public use'?

Regardless, when the court tries to take away people's freedoms and expand the power of an already large govt it is a reason for concern. This is as bad as many of the provisions of the patriot act as far as stripping away our rights goes.

There are cases in which it's best for private property to be given up, but this is still a horrible, pro big government, ruling.

I can't believe the Supreme Court actually let this pass, now anyone can lose their home in favor of a condominium or a strip mall.

 

This is a major blow to individual rights.

This is a crock. I really think the whole eminent domain issue needs to be very carefully scrutinized. It's something that can really get out of hand.

 

People's homes can be seized against their will just because someone wants to build another freaking office park or hotel or shopping mall.

 

You can throw the term "economic development" at virtually anything and demand that people's homes and property be seized because the supposed economic development is "in the public's interest".

 

And note that I'm siding with Scalia, Thomas, and Renquist!

I might be the only person who actually defends this decision...but Im gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this opinion was actually exactly right. Nothing has really changed. This is consistent with how eminent domain has always been decided.

 

I dont know if everyone here read the actual decision, but its pretty much in line with history.

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

 

Id ask you guys to read it and see the limited degree to which this is private use and the basis for which the city was acting.

 

 

SCOTA has always had an deferential view of what constitutes public use. This goes all the way back to a case where the state of Hawaii basically took the land and apartments of old tribal lords who owned a massivley disproportianate share of land and tranfered title to lessees who had been living there forever anyway. It sounds bad, but in reality, the problem was destroying the state. Even though it was going from one private person to another..it was for public benefit, which the court long ago read public use to mean. Other cases have dealt with other kinds of stuff.

 

The dissenters here generally want to force the city to show a much higher burden for probable economic development.(something Tom Lee asked Miami Dade county to do...and we all didnt like that did we?) Basically what the majority is saying is that federal judges are obligated to defer to the findings of local municipalites who know more about this then themselves(something Scalia says all the time but just not for this).

 

Its not just a say it and be done standard. They have to provide evidence to show their plan. In addition, the other side can show evidence that "economic development" is just a pretext. Also, the city's plan here isnt benefiting a particular class of citizens.

 

The thing is..eminent domain has existed for a long time...it's in the Constitution. (and the framers intent seems to suggest they felt it should be in the governments discertion). This country was built on railroads that used eminent domain. The highway system and many roads come from eminent domain. And like I said earlier, the Marlins new stadium could end up coming from eminent domain.

 

 

And how exactly is this large government? Its a local municipality. Very easy for people to come together and remove those who are in power.

I might be the only person who actually defends this decision...but Im gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this opinion was actually exactly right. Nothing has really changed. This is consistent with how eminent domain has always been decided.

 

I dont know if everyone here read the actual decision, but its pretty much in line with history.

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

 

Id ask you guys to read it and see the limited degree to which this is private use and the basis for which the city was acting.

 

 

SCOTA has always had an deferential view of what constitutes public use. This goes all the way back to a case where the state of Hawaii basically took the land and apartments of old tribal lords who owned a massivley disproportianate share of land and tranfered title to lessees who had been living there forever anyway. It sounds bad, but in reality, the problem was destroying the state. Even though it was going from one private person to another..it was for public benefit, which the court long ago read public use to mean. Other cases have dealt with other kinds of stuff.

 

The dissenters here generally want to force the city to show a much higher burden for probable economic development.(something Tom Lee asked Miami Dade county to do...and we all didnt like that did we?) Basically what the majority is saying is that federal judges are obligated to defer to the findings of local municipalites who know more about this then themselves(something Scalia says all the time but just not for this).

 

Its not just a say it and be done standard. They have to provide evidence to show their plan. In addition, the other side can show evidence that "economic development" is just a pretext. Also, the city's plan here isnt benefiting a particular class of citizens.

 

The thing is..eminent domain has existed for a long time...it's in the Constitution. (and the framers intent seems to suggest they felt it should be in the governments discertion). This country was built on railroads that used eminent domain. The highway system and many roads come from eminent domain. And like I said earlier, the Marlins new stadium could end up coming from eminent domain.

 

 

And how exactly is this large government? Its a local municipality. Very easy for people to come together and remove those who are in power.

823264[/snapback]

 

Why don't you say what you really mean? You are a closet socialist who's very happy that the activists in the courts just opened the door to socialism and redistribution of income in the USA. What's gonna stop them now from saying that they can also use it for "diversity" or or "social developments" such as " I think this opressed family should live in this house or I think you own too many businesses so I'm taking this one off your hands. Today was a dark day in the history of this country. And by the way Rove should not apologize for anything he just told the truth about the extreme left of this country. :mad

I might be the only person who actually defends this decision...but Im gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this opinion was actually exactly right. Nothing has really changed. This is consistent with how eminent domain has always been decided.

 

I dont know if everyone here read the actual decision, but its pretty much in line with history.

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

 

Id ask you guys to read it and see the limited degree to which this is private use and the basis for which the city was acting.

 

 

SCOTA has always had an deferential view of what constitutes public use. This goes all the way back to a case where the state of Hawaii basically took the land and apartments of old tribal lords who owned a massivley disproportianate share of land and tranfered title to lessees who had been living there forever anyway. It sounds bad, but in reality, the problem was destroying the state. Even though it was going from one private person to another..it was for public benefit, which the court long ago read public use to mean. Other cases have dealt with other kinds of stuff.

 

The dissenters here generally want to force the city to show a much higher burden for probable economic development.(something Tom Lee asked Miami Dade county to do...and we all didnt like that did we?) Basically what the majority is saying is that federal judges are obligated to defer to the findings of local municipalites who know more about this then themselves(something Scalia says all the time but just not for this).

 

Its not just a say it and be done standard. They have to provide evidence to show their plan. In addition, the other side can show evidence that "economic development" is just a pretext. Also, the city's plan here isnt benefiting a particular class of citizens.

 

The thing is..eminent domain has existed for a long time...it's in the Constitution. (and the framers intent seems to suggest they felt it should be in the governments discertion). This country was built on railroads that used eminent domain. The highway system and many roads come from eminent domain. And like I said earlier, the Marlins new stadium could end up coming from eminent domain.

 

 

And how exactly is this large government? Its a local municipality. Very easy for people to come together and remove those who are in power.

823264[/snapback]

 

Why don't you say what you really mean? You are a closet socialist who's very happy that the activists in the courts just opened the door to socialism and redistribution of income in the USA. What's gonna stop them now from saying that they can also use it for "diversity" or or "social developments" such as " I think this opressed family should live in this house or I think you own too many businesses so I'm taking this one off your hands. Today was a dark day in the history of this country. And by the way Rove should not apologize for anything he just told the truth about the extreme left of this country. :mad

823456[/snapback]

 

You have nothing to back up any of the trash you just spewed.

 

But please tell me how this makes me a socialist you nimrod. This is taking housing away from POOR PEOPLE and destroying it and building office spaces for companies. This is HELPING COMPANIES like Pfizer.

 

You clearly have no understanding of eminent domain. You do realize that since day 1, via the Constitution, the govermnet could take your house away and open a public park where poor people can play right? That has never been an issue because thats clearly public use. So maybe in your idiotic rant, you meant to say the founding fathers were socialists.

I might be the only person who actually defends this decision...but Im gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this opinion was actually exactly right. Nothing has really changed. This is consistent with how eminent domain has always been decided.

 

I dont know if everyone here read the actual decision, but its pretty much in line with history.

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

 

Id ask you guys to read it and see the limited degree to which this is private use and the basis for which the city was acting.

 

 

SCOTA has always had an deferential view of what constitutes public use. This goes all the way back to a case where the state of Hawaii basically took the land and apartments of old tribal lords who owned a massivley disproportianate share of land and tranfered title to lessees who had been living there forever anyway. It sounds bad, but in reality, the problem was destroying the state. Even though it was going from one private person to another..it was for public benefit, which the court long ago read public use to mean. Other cases have dealt with other kinds of stuff.

 

The dissenters here generally want to force the city to show a much higher burden for probable economic development.(something Tom Lee asked Miami Dade county to do...and we all didnt like that did we?) Basically what the majority is saying is that federal judges are obligated to defer to the findings of local municipalites who know more about this then themselves(something Scalia says all the time but just not for this).

 

Its not just a say it and be done standard. They have to provide evidence to show their plan. In addition, the other side can show evidence that "economic development" is just a pretext. Also, the city's plan here isnt benefiting a particular class of citizens.

 

The thing is..eminent domain has existed for a long time...it's in the Constitution. (and the framers intent seems to suggest they felt it should be in the governments discertion). This country was built on railroads that used eminent domain. The highway system and many roads come from eminent domain. And like I said earlier, the Marlins new stadium could end up coming from eminent domain.

 

 

And how exactly is this large government? Its a local municipality. Very easy for people to come together and remove those who are in power.

823264[/snapback]

 

Why don't you say what you really mean? You are a closet socialist who's very happy that the activists in the courts just opened the door to socialism and redistribution of income in the USA. What's gonna stop them now from saying that they can also use it for "diversity" or or "social developments" such as " I think this opressed family should live in this house or I think you own too many businesses so I'm taking this one off your hands. Today was a dark day in the history of this country. And by the way Rove should not apologize for anything he just told the truth about the extreme left of this country. :mad

823456[/snapback]

 

You have nothing to back up any of the trash you just spewed.

 

But please tell me how this makes me a socialist you nimrod. This is taking housing away from POOR PEOPLE and destroying it and building office spaces for companies. This is HELPING COMPANIES like Pfizer.

 

You clearly have no understanding of eminent domain. You do realize that since day 1, via the Constitution, the govermnet could take your house away and open a public park where poor people can play right? That has never been an issue because thats clearly public use. So maybe in your idiotic rant, you meant to say the founding fathers were socialists.

823485[/snapback]

 

 

It does not matter who you are taking the property from. The only reason the five libs voted for this was because it meant the destruction of the right to private property which is the base for socialism. Don't play dumb with me, kid. You know what was really going on behind the scenes here. YOu actually think they voted this way to favor big business? You know damn well the saw an opening for their agenda and proceded to kick the door open.

If conservatives were forcing individuals to essentially give up their homes for Pfizer, liberals would be up in arms. It is terrible to establish such a vague reason as 'economic development' for such an incursion onto private property and individual freedom.

 

Flying Mollusk - if this decision and as non-controversial as you present it to be, why are four of the justices dissenting? as Justice O'Connor says, 'The specter of condemnation hangs over all property'.

 

The whole purpose of rights is that they are protected even when it goes against the 'public good'. With a decision like this, property rights are no longer 'rights' but instead exist only at the pleasure of legislatures and can be taken away on the basis of economic predictions. Terrible.

 

the Eminent Domain problem is that it changes it from public use - a park, like you said - for basically a transfer to another private entity with potential indirect benefits to the public as a whole. this greatly expands the constitutional definition from a specific and limited one to a vague and unlimited one.

I might be the only person who actually defends this decision...but Im gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this opinion was actually exactly right. Nothing has really changed. This is consistent with how eminent domain has always been decided.

 

I dont know if everyone here read the actual decision, but its pretty much in line with history.

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

 

Id ask you guys to read it and see the limited degree to which this is private use and the basis for which the city was acting.

 

 

SCOTA has always had an deferential view of what constitutes public use. This goes all the way back to a case where the state of Hawaii basically took the land and apartments of old tribal lords who owned a massivley disproportianate share of land and tranfered title to lessees who had been living there forever anyway. It sounds bad, but in reality, the problem was destroying the state. Even though it was going from one private person to another..it was for public benefit, which the court long ago read public use to mean. Other cases have dealt with other kinds of stuff.

 

The dissenters here generally want to force the city to show a much higher burden for probable economic development.(something Tom Lee asked Miami Dade county to do...and we all didnt like that did we?) Basically what the majority is saying is that federal judges are obligated to defer to the findings of local municipalites who know more about this then themselves(something Scalia says all the time but just not for this).

 

Its not just a say it and be done standard. They have to provide evidence to show their plan. In addition, the other side can show evidence that "economic development" is just a pretext. Also, the city's plan here isnt benefiting a particular class of citizens.

 

The thing is..eminent domain has existed for a long time...it's in the Constitution. (and the framers intent seems to suggest they felt it should be in the governments discertion). This country was built on railroads that used eminent domain. The highway system and many roads come from eminent domain. And like I said earlier, the Marlins new stadium could end up coming from eminent domain.

 

 

And how exactly is this large government? Its a local municipality. Very easy for people to come together and remove those who are in power.

823264[/snapback]

 

Why don't you say what you really mean? You are a closet socialist who's very happy that the activists in the courts just opened the door to socialism and redistribution of income in the USA. What's gonna stop them now from saying that they can also use it for "diversity" or or "social developments" such as " I think this opressed family should live in this house or I think you own too many businesses so I'm taking this one off your hands. Today was a dark day in the history of this country. And by the way Rove should not apologize for anything he just told the truth about the extreme left of this country. :mad

823456[/snapback]

 

You have nothing to back up any of the trash you just spewed.

 

But please tell me how this makes me a socialist you nimrod. This is taking housing away from POOR PEOPLE and destroying it and building office spaces for companies. This is HELPING COMPANIES like Pfizer.

 

You clearly have no understanding of eminent domain. You do realize that since day 1, via the Constitution, the govermnet could take your house away and open a public park where poor people can play right? That has never been an issue because thats clearly public use. So maybe in your idiotic rant, you meant to say the founding fathers were socialists.

823485[/snapback]

 

 

It does not matter who you are taking the property from. The only reason the five libs voted for this was because it meant the destruction of the right to private property which is the base for socialism. Don't play dumb with me, kid. You know what was really going on behind the scenes here. YOu actually think they voted this way to favor big business? You know damn well the saw an opening for their agenda and proceded to kick the door open.

823510[/snapback]

 

Good God you are not too bright. Government has always has the ability to take away people's property for public use. Since they drafted the damn Constitution! I guess you actually think the founding fathers were socialists. Wow..

 

Yeah..behind the scenes. Justice Kennedy and Breyer, the well respected moderates, conspired with the liberals to invoke an agenda of socialism. Heck, they even screwed over a bunch of poor people living in slums in Washington, D.C. when they allowed eminent domain to take their property too in the other recent case! Wow...how sly of them!! Damn those wiley judges.

If conservatives were forcing individuals to essentially give up their homes for Pfizer, liberals would be up in arms. It is terrible to establish such a vague reason as 'economic development' for such an incursion onto private property and individual freedom.

 

 

Berman v Parker, DC inner city neighborhood loses its battle against eminent domain where property is sold to private realtors.

 

Marlins stadium, Little Havana renters will lose their homes to the totally vague reason of stadium helps community.

 

 

Nobody is up in arms.

 

Eminent domain constantly is taking property from poor people.

 

 

Now answer me this question, why is it that on every other issue, conservatives want the judges to defer to legislatures...but not on this issue?

 

 

 

he whole purpose of rights is that they are protected even when it goes against the 'public good'. With a decision like this, property rights are no longer 'rights' but instead exist only at the pleasure of legislatures and can be taken away on the basis of economic predictions.

 

And how exactly does that change with any other policy that is simply for the public good and not economic public good? If they take your house and want to build a park on it, you agree that they can right...even if they are speculating on the actual benefit or the number of people who will go.

 

 

the Eminent Domain problem is that it changes it from public use - a park, like you said - for basically a transfer to another private entity with potential indirect benefits to the public as a whole. this greatly expands the constitutional definition from a specific and limited one to a vague and unlimited one.

 

 

But its always been vague. Thats the whole point. This is not a new issue. This is not fresh at all. This has been debated for a while but not changed for nearly half a century.

I might be the only person who actually defends this decision...but Im gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this opinion was actually exactly right. Nothing has really changed. This is consistent with how eminent domain has always been decided.

 

I dont know if everyone here read the actual decision, but its pretty much in line with history.

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

 

Id ask you guys to read it and see the limited degree to which this is private use and the basis for which the city was acting.

 

 

SCOTA has always had an deferential view of what constitutes public use. This goes all the way back to a case where the state of Hawaii basically took the land and apartments of old tribal lords who owned a massivley disproportianate share of land and tranfered title to lessees who had been living there forever anyway. It sounds bad, but in reality, the problem was destroying the state. Even though it was going from one private person to another..it was for public benefit, which the court long ago read public use to mean. Other cases have dealt with other kinds of stuff.

 

The dissenters here generally want to force the city to show a much higher burden for probable economic development.(something Tom Lee asked Miami Dade county to do...and we all didnt like that did we?) Basically what the majority is saying is that federal judges are obligated to defer to the findings of local municipalites who know more about this then themselves(something Scalia says all the time but just not for this).

 

Its not just a say it and be done standard. They have to provide evidence to show their plan. In addition, the other side can show evidence that "economic development" is just a pretext. Also, the city's plan here isnt benefiting a particular class of citizens.

 

The thing is..eminent domain has existed for a long time...it's in the Constitution. (and the framers intent seems to suggest they felt it should be in the governments discertion). This country was built on railroads that used eminent domain. The highway system and many roads come from eminent domain. And like I said earlier, the Marlins new stadium could end up coming from eminent domain.

 

 

And how exactly is this large government? Its a local municipality. Very easy for people to come together and remove those who are in power.

823264[/snapback]

 

Why don't you say what you really mean? You are a closet socialist who's very happy that the activists in the courts just opened the door to socialism and redistribution of income in the USA. What's gonna stop them now from saying that they can also use it for "diversity" or or "social developments" such as " I think this opressed family should live in this house or I think you own too many businesses so I'm taking this one off your hands. Today was a dark day in the history of this country. And by the way Rove should not apologize for anything he just told the truth about the extreme left of this country. :mad

823456[/snapback]

 

You have nothing to back up any of the trash you just spewed.

 

But please tell me how this makes me a socialist you nimrod. This is taking housing away from POOR PEOPLE and destroying it and building office spaces for companies. This is HELPING COMPANIES like Pfizer.

 

You clearly have no understanding of eminent domain. You do realize that since day 1, via the Constitution, the govermnet could take your house away and open a public park where poor people can play right? That has never been an issue because thats clearly public use. So maybe in your idiotic rant, you meant to say the founding fathers were socialists.

823485[/snapback]

 

 

It does not matter who you are taking the property from. The only reason the five libs voted for this was because it meant the destruction of the right to private property which is the base for socialism. Don't play dumb with me, kid. You know what was really going on behind the scenes here. YOu actually think they voted this way to favor big business? You know damn well the saw an opening for their agenda and proceded to kick the door open.

823510[/snapback]

 

Good God you are not too bright. Government has always has the ability to take away people's property for public use. Since they drafted the damn Constitution! I guess you actually think the founding fathers were socialists. Wow..

 

Yeah..behind the scenes. Justice Kennedy and Breyer, the well respected moderates, conspired with the liberals to invoke an agenda of socialism. Heck, they even screwed over a bunch of poor people living in slums in Washington, D.C. when they allowed eminent domain to take their property too in the other recent case! Wow...how sly of them!! Damn those wiley judges.

823528[/snapback]

 

 

Since you refuse to see the issue of the expansion of eminent domain that just happened today and you keep switching the argument to stupid comments about the founding fathers and insults I'm ending the conversation right here. And by the way, I doubt the founding fathers considered condos, shopping malls and labs "public use".

I might be the only person who actually defends this decision...but Im gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this opinion was actually exactly right. Nothing has really changed. This is consistent with how eminent domain has always been decided.

 

I dont know if everyone here read the actual decision, but its pretty much in line with history.

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

 

Id ask you guys to read it and see the limited degree to which this is private use and the basis for which the city was acting.

 

 

SCOTA has always had an deferential view of what constitutes public use. This goes all the way back to a case where the state of Hawaii basically took the land and apartments of old tribal lords who owned a massivley disproportianate share of land and tranfered title to lessees who had been living there forever anyway. It sounds bad, but in reality, the problem was destroying the state. Even though it was going from one private person to another..it was for public benefit, which the court long ago read public use to mean. Other cases have dealt with other kinds of stuff.

 

The dissenters here generally want to force the city to show a much higher burden for probable economic development.(something Tom Lee asked Miami Dade county to do...and we all didnt like that did we?) Basically what the majority is saying is that federal judges are obligated to defer to the findings of local municipalites who know more about this then themselves(something Scalia says all the time but just not for this).

 

Its not just a say it and be done standard. They have to provide evidence to show their plan. In addition, the other side can show evidence that "economic development" is just a pretext. Also, the city's plan here isnt benefiting a particular class of citizens.

 

The thing is..eminent domain has existed for a long time...it's in the Constitution. (and the framers intent seems to suggest they felt it should be in the governments discertion). This country was built on railroads that used eminent domain. The highway system and many roads come from eminent domain. And like I said earlier, the Marlins new stadium could end up coming from eminent domain.

 

 

And how exactly is this large government? Its a local municipality. Very easy for people to come together and remove those who are in power.

823264[/snapback]

 

Why don't you say what you really mean? You are a closet socialist who's very happy that the activists in the courts just opened the door to socialism and redistribution of income in the USA. What's gonna stop them now from saying that they can also use it for "diversity" or or "social developments" such as " I think this opressed family should live in this house or I think you own too many businesses so I'm taking this one off your hands. Today was a dark day in the history of this country. And by the way Rove should not apologize for anything he just told the truth about the extreme left of this country. :mad

823456[/snapback]

 

You have nothing to back up any of the trash you just spewed.

 

But please tell me how this makes me a socialist you nimrod. This is taking housing away from POOR PEOPLE and destroying it and building office spaces for companies. This is HELPING COMPANIES like Pfizer.

 

You clearly have no understanding of eminent domain. You do realize that since day 1, via the Constitution, the govermnet could take your house away and open a public park where poor people can play right? That has never been an issue because thats clearly public use. So maybe in your idiotic rant, you meant to say the founding fathers were socialists.

823485[/snapback]

 

 

It does not matter who you are taking the property from. The only reason the five libs voted for this was because it meant the destruction of the right to private property which is the base for socialism. Don't play dumb with me, kid. You know what was really going on behind the scenes here. YOu actually think they voted this way to favor big business? You know damn well the saw an opening for their agenda and proceded to kick the door open.

823510[/snapback]

 

Good God you are not too bright. Government has always has the ability to take away people's property for public use. Since they drafted the damn Constitution! I guess you actually think the founding fathers were socialists. Wow..

 

Yeah..behind the scenes. Justice Kennedy and Breyer, the well respected moderates, conspired with the liberals to invoke an agenda of socialism. Heck, they even screwed over a bunch of poor people living in slums in Washington, D.C. when they allowed eminent domain to take their property too in the other recent case! Wow...how sly of them!! Damn those wiley judges.

823528[/snapback]

 

 

Since you refuse to see the issue of the expansion of eminent domain that just happened today and you keep switching the argument to stupid comments about the founding fathers and insults I'm ending the conversation right here. And by the way, I doubt the founding fathers considered condos, shopping malls and labs "public use".

823561[/snapback]

 

You havent actually addressed the issue that the case deals with. Maybe its just too complicated for you.

 

And please note, youre the one that insulted me first by calling me a socialist. Sounds like you can dish it out, but not take it.

I think the point is, before this ruling, the only way the government could take away your home would have been to build a park or public work of some kind.

 

Now, they can also take away your home just so some contractor can build a mall or condo. I don't think that's right.

If conservatives were forcing individuals to essentially give up their homes for Pfizer, liberals would be up in arms. It is terrible to establish such a vague reason as 'economic development' for such an incursion onto private property and individual freedom.

 

 

Berman v Parker, DC inner city neighborhood loses its battle against eminent domain where property is sold to private realtors.

 

Marlins stadium, Little Havana renters will lose their homes to the totally vague reason of stadium helps community.

 

 

Nobody is up in arms.

 

Eminent domain constantly is taking property from poor people.

 

 

Now answer me this question, why is it that on every other issue, conservatives want the judges to defer to legislatures...but not on this issue?

 

 

 

he whole purpose of rights is that they are protected even when it goes against the 'public good'. With a decision like this, property rights are no longer 'rights' but instead exist only at the pleasure of legislatures and can be taken away on the basis of economic predictions.

 

And how exactly does that change with any other policy that is simply for the public good and not economic public good? If they take your house and want to build a park on it, you agree that they can right...even if they are speculating on the actual benefit or the number of people who will go.

 

 

the Eminent Domain problem is that it changes it from public use - a park, like you said - for basically a transfer to another private entity with potential indirect benefits to the public as a whole. this greatly expands the constitutional definition from a specific and limited one to a vague and unlimited one.

 

 

But its always been vague. Thats the whole point. This is not a new issue. This is not fresh at all. This has been debated for a while but not changed for nearly half a century.

823560[/snapback]

 

1. there is indeed plenty of protest, not least from liberals, on such kind of property-transfer plans. i myself was mass-emailed about them on the proposed new manhattan stadium, and many people have protested the planned washington nationals stadium as well.

 

2. the difference isn't between 'public good' and 'economic public good', it's between what directly helps the community, and what has a potential and indirect effect. it makes the government the partisan of one private entity against another, even though both are operating within the law.

 

3. if it hasnt changed, the close margin on the courts shows that this was if nothing else an opportunity to reverse it, which was not taken.

 

3. conservatives generally favor a strict interpretation of the constitution. expanding eminent domain to include private developments that have the potential to incidentally benefit the local economy is not a strict interpretation. it would be more pertinent to ask why liberals usually side with individuals against corporations but have done the opposite here.

1. Well clearly Im the only one here who leans left that approves of this so its not like liberals as a whole are in unity on this. This IMO, really is a legal issue and not a political issue. You can argue that the scope of government power has increased but its hard to justify saying that while saying liberals are ok with this happening even though they know companies can manipulate municipalities into screwing over low income areas. Clearly the latter is the ultimate end that liberals want to prevent whereas the former is what they are accused of overusing as a means. Contrary to what some conservatives think, liberals arent in favor of bigger government just to have it(as evidenced by opposition to the military industrial complex). Thats precisley why a lot of liberals dont like this. So really, its not an issue of liberals screwing over good old land owners.

 

2. Actually, the court notes this isnt benefitting any particular class of economic citizens. The city was planning on doing this before Pfizer came along. And in general, a lot of eminent domain incedents can never be direct benefits. How many times have public use projects been wasted and critisized as such? Clearly you acknowledge the idea that buildings filled with companies create jobs since they do have to hire people right? And they do derive tax benefits from companies and from the income of the citizens who now have jobs right? So isnt the public economic benefit clear?

 

 

Im guess everyone here that doesnt like this at all has to be totally opposed to the Marlins getting their stadium through any form on eminent domain. Am I right on this? For the life of me, I just cant figure out how this is different.

 

3. But therein lies my point. I dont know why people are up in arms over the court staying with general precedent. Its not like they invented a whole new concept out of the blue. It would be like the court reaffirming Roe v Wade and then pro lifers claiming the court has gone too far this time.

btw, here is the Hawaii case. I was wrong in that it happend 20 years ago and not 50. But I still think the case is in line with the broad view of eminent domain.

 

JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

 

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." These cases present the question whether the Public Use Clause of that Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the State of Hawaii from taking, with just compensation, title in real property from [467 U.S. 229, 232] lessors and transferring it to lessees in order to reduce the concentration of ownership of fees simple in the State. We conclude that it does not.

 

I

 

A

 

The Hawaiian Islands were originally settled by Polynesian immigrants from the western Pacific. These settlers developed an economy around a feudal land tenure system in which one island high chief, the ali'i nui, controlled the land and assigned it for development to certain subchiefs. The subchiefs would then reassign the land to other lower ranking chiefs, who would administer the land and govern the farmers and other tenants working it. All land was held at the will of the ali'i nui and eventually had to be returned to his trust. There was no private ownership of land. See generally Brief for Office of Hawaiian Affairs as Amicus Curiae 3-5.

 

Beginning in the early 1800's, Hawaiian leaders and American settlers repeatedly attempted to divide the lands of the kingdom among the crown, the chiefs, and the common people. These efforts proved largely unsuccessful, however, and the land remained in the hands of a few. In the mid-1960's, after extensive hearings, the Hawaii Legislature discovered that, while the State and Federal Governments owned almost 49% of the State's land, another 47% was in the hands of only 72 private landowners. See Brief for the Hou Hawaiians and Maui Loa, Chief of the Hou Hawaiians, as Amici Curiae 32. The legislature further found that 18 landholders, with tracts of 21,000 acres or more, owned more than 40% of this land and that on Oahu, the most urbanized of the islands, 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee simple titles. Id., at 32-33. The legislature concluded that concentrated land ownership was responsible for skewing the State's residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare. [467 U.S. 229, 233]

 

To redress these problems, the legislature decided to compel the large landowners to break up their estates. The legislature considered requiring large landowners to sell lands which they were leasing to homeowners. However, the landowners strongly resisted this scheme, pointing out the significant federal tax liabilities they would incur. Indeed, the landowners claimed that the federal tax laws were the primary reason they previously had chosen to lease, and not sell, their lands. Therefore, to accommodate the needs of both lessors and lessees, the Hawaii Legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967 (Act), Haw. Rev. Stat., ch. 516, which created a mechanism for condemning residential tracts and for transferring ownership of the condemned fees simple to existing lessees. By condemning the land in question, the Hawaii Legislature intended to make the land sales involuntary, thereby making the federal tax consequences less severe while still facilitating the redistribution of fees simple. See Brief for Appellants in Nos. 83-141 and 83-283, pp. 3-4, and nn. 6-8.

 

Under the Act's condemnation scheme, tenants living on single-family residential lots within developmental tracts at least five acres in size are entitled to ask the Hawaii Housing Authority (HHA) to condemn the property on which they live. Haw. Rev. Stat. 516-1(2), (11), 516-22 (1977). When 25 eligible tenants, 1 or tenants on half the lots in the tract, whichever is less, file appropriate applications, the Act authorizes HHA to hold a public hearing to determine whether acquisition by the State of all or part of the tract will "effectuate the public purposes" of the Act. 516-22. If HHA finds that these public purposes will be served, it is authorized [467 U.S. 229, 234] to designate some or all of the lots in the tract for acquisition. It then acquires, at prices set either by condemnation trial or by negotiation between lessors and lessees, 2 the former fee owners' full "right, title, and interest" in the land. 516-25.

 

After compensation has been set, HHA may sell the land titles to tenants who have applied for fee simple ownership. HHA is authorized to lend these tenants up to 90% of the purchase price, and it may condition final transfer on a right of first refusal for the first 10 years following sale. 516-30, 516-34, 516-35. If HHA does not sell the lot to the tenant residing there, it may lease the lot or sell it to someone else, provided that public notice has been given. 516-28. However, HHA may not sell to any one purchaser, or lease to any one tenant, more than one lot, and it may not operate for profit. 516-28, 516-32. In practice, funds to satisfy the condemnation awards have been supplied entirely by lessees. See App. 164. While the Act authorizes HHA to issue bonds and appropriate funds for acquisition, no bonds have issued and HHA has not supplied any funds for condemned lots. See ibid.

 

B

 

In April 1977, HHA held a public hearing concerning the proposed acquisition of some of appellees' lands. HHA made the statutorily required finding that acquisition of appellees' lands would effectuate the public purposes of the Act. Then, in October 1978, it directed appellees to negotiate with certain lessees concerning the sale of the designated properties. Those negotiations failed, and HHA subsequently ordered appellees to submit to compulsory arbitration.

 

Rather than comply with the compulsory arbitration order, appellees filed suit, in February 1979, in United States District [467 U.S. 229, 235] Court, asking that the Act be declared unconstitutional and that its enforcement be enjoined. The District Court temporarily restrained the State from proceeding against appellees' estates. Three months later, while declaring the compulsory arbitration and compensation formulae provisions of the Act unconstitutional, 3 the District Court refused preliminarily to enjoin appellants from conducting the statutory designation and condemnation proceedings. Finally, in December 1979, it granted partial summary judgment to appellants, holding the remaining portion of the Act constitutional under the Public Use Clause. See 483 F. Supp. 62 (Haw. 1979). The District Court found that the Act's goals were within the bounds of the State's police powers and that the means the legislature had chosen to serve those goals were not arbitrary, capricious, or selected in bad faith.

 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 702 F.2d 788 (1983). First, the Court of Appeals decided that the District Court had permissibly chosen not to abstain from the exercise of its jurisdiction. Then, the Court of Appeals determined that the Act could not pass the requisite judicial scrutiny of the Public Use Clause. It found that the transfers contemplated by the Act were unlike those of takings previously held to constitute "public uses" by this Court. The court further determined that the public purposes offered by the Hawaii Legislature were not deserving of judicial deference. The court concluded that the Act was simply "a naked attempt on the part of the state of Hawaii to take the private property of A and transfer it to B solely for B's private use and benefit." Id., at 798. One judge dissented. [467 U.S. 229, 236]

 

On applications of HHA and certain private appellants who had intervened below, this Court noted probable jurisdiction. 464 U.S. 932 (1983). We now reverse.

 

II

 

We begin with the question whether the District Court abused its discretion in not abstaining from the exercise of its jurisdiction. The appellants have suggested as one alternative that perhaps abstention was required under the standards announced in Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We do not believe that abstention was required.

 

A

 

In Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., supra, this Court held that federal courts should abstain from decision when difficult and unsettled questions of state law must be resolved before a substantial federal constitutional question can be decided. By abstaining in such cases, federal courts will avoid both unnecessary adjudication of federal questions and "needless friction with state policies . . . ." Id., at 500. However, federal courts need not abstain on Pullman grounds when a state statute is not "fairly subject to an interpretation which will render unnecessary" adjudication of the federal constitutional question. See Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 535 (1965). Pullman abstention is limited to uncertain questions of state law because "[a]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule." Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976).

 

In these cases, there is no uncertain question of state law. The Act unambiguously provides that "[t]he use of the power . . . to condemn . . . is for a public use and purpose." Haw. Rev. Stat. 516-83(a)(12) (1977); see also 516-83(a)(10), (11), (13). There is no other provision of the Act - or, for that matter, of Hawaii law - which would suggest that [467 U.S. 229, 237] 516-83(a)(12) does not mean exactly what it says. Since "the naked question, uncomplicated by [ambiguous language], is whether the Act on its face is unconstitutional," Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 439 (1971), abstention from federal jurisdiction is not required.

 

The dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals suggested that, perhaps, the state courts could make resolution of the federal constitutional questions unnecessary by their construction of the Act. See 702 F.2d, at 811-812. In the abstract, of course, such possibilities always exist. But the relevant inquiry is not whether there is a bare, though unlikely, possibility that state courts might render adjudication of the federal question unnecessary. Rather, "[w]e have frequently emphasized that abstention is not to be ordered unless the statute is of an uncertain nature, and is obviously susceptible of a limiting construction." Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 251 , and n. 14 (1967). These statutes are not of an uncertain nature and have no reasonable limiting construction. Therefore, Pullman abstention is unnecessary. 4

 

B

 

The dissenting judge also suggested that abstention was required under the standards articulated in Younger v. Harris, supra. Under Younger-abstention doctrine, interests of comity and federalism counsel federal courts to abstain from jurisdiction whenever federal claims have been or could be presented in ongoing state judicial proceedings that concern [467 U.S. 229, 238] important state interests. See Middlesex Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 432 -437 (1982). Younger abstention is required, however, only when state court proceedings are initiated "before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court." Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349 (1975). In other cases, federal courts must normally fulfill their duty to adjudicate federal questions properly brought before them.

 

In these cases, state judicial proceedings had not been initiated at the time proceedings of substance took place in federal court. Appellees filed their federal court complaint in February 1979, asking for temporary and permanent relief. The District Court temporarily restrained HHA from proceeding against appellees' estates. At that time, no state judicial proceedings were in process. Indeed, in June 1979, when the District Court granted, in part, appellees' motion for a preliminary injunction, state court proceedings still had not been initiated. Rather, HHA filed its first eminent domain lawsuit after the parties had begun filing motions for summary judgment in the District Court - in September 1979. Whether issuance of the February temporary restraining order was a substantial federal court action or not, issuance of the June preliminary injunction certainly was. See Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 929 -931 (1975). A federal court action in which a preliminary injunction is granted has proceeded well beyond the "embryonic stage," id., at 929, and considerations of economy, equity, and federalism counsel against Younger abstention at that point.

 

The only extant proceedings at the state level prior to the September 1979 eminent domain lawsuit in state court were HHA's administrative hearings. But the Act clearly states that these administrative proceedings are not part of, and are not themselves, a judicial proceeding, for "mandatory arbitration shall be in advance of and shall not constitute any part of any action in condemnation or eminent domain." Haw. Rev. Stat. 516-51(b) (1976). Since Younger is not a [467 U.S. 229, 239] bar to federal court action when state judicial proceedings have not themselves commenced, see Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Assn., supra, at 433; Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 112 -113 (1981), abstention for HHA's administrative proceedings was not required.

 

III

 

The majority of the Court of Appeals next determined that the Act violates the "public use" requirement of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. On this argument, however, we find ourselves in agreement with the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals.

 

A

 

The starting point for our analysis of the Act's constitutionality is the Court's decision in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). In Berman, the Court held constitutional the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945. That Act provided both for the comprehensive use of the eminent domain power to redevelop slum areas and for the possible sale or lease of the condemned lands to private interests. In discussing whether the takings authorized by that Act were for a "public use," id., at 31, the Court stated:

 

"We deal, in other words, with what traditionally has been known as the police power. An attempt to define its reach or trace its outer limits is fruitless, for each case must turn on its own facts. The definition is essentially the product of legislative determinations addressed to the purposes of government, purposes neither abstractly nor historically capable of complete definition. Subject to specific constitutional limitations, when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive. In such cases the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation, whether it [467 U.S. 229, 240] be Congress legislating concerning the District of Columbia . . . or the States legislating concerning local affairs. . . . This principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved. . . ." Id., at 32 (citations omitted).

 

The Court explicitly recognized the breadth of the principle it was announcing, noting:

 

"Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end. . . . Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the means by which it will be attained is also for Congress to determine. Here one of the means chosen is the use of private enterprise for redevelopment of the area. Appellants argue that this makes the project a taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman. But the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine, once the public purpose has been established." Id., at 33.

 

The "public use" requirement is thus coterminous with the scope of a sovereign's police powers.

 

There is, of course, a role for courts to play in reviewing a legislature's judgment of what constitutes a public use, even when the eminent domain power is equated with the police power. But the Court in Berman made clear that it is "an extremely narrow" one. Id., at 32. The Court in Berman cited with approval the Court's decision in Old Dominion Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55, 66 (1925), which held that deference to the legislature's "public use" determination is required "until it is shown to involve an impossibility." The Berman Court also cited to United States ex rel. TVA v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 552 (1946), which emphasized that "[a]ny departure from this judicial restraint would result in courts deciding on what is and is not a governmental function and in their invalidating legislation on the basis of their view [467 U.S. 229, 241] on that question at the moment of decision, a practice which has proved impracticable in other fields." In short, the Court has made clear that it will not substitute its judgment for a legislature's judgment as to what constitutes a public use "unless the use be palpably without reasonable foundation." United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co., 160 U.S. 668, 680 (1896).

 

To be sure, the Court's cases have repeatedly stated that "one person's property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid." Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Corp., 300 U.S. 55, 80 (1937). See, e. g., Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 447 (1930); Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 251 -252 (1905); Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 159 (1896). Thus, in Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403 (1896), where the "order in question was not, and was not claimed to be, . . . a taking of private property for a public use under the right of eminent domain," id., at 416 (emphasis added), the Court invalidated a compensated taking of property for lack of a justifying public purpose. But where the exercise of the eminent domain power is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the Court has never held a compensated taking to be proscribed by the Public Use Clause. See Berman v. Parker, supra; Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923); Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921); cf. Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Corp., supra (invalidating an uncompensated taking).

 

On this basis, we have no trouble concluding that the Hawaii Act is constitutional. The people of Hawaii have attempted, much as the settlers of the original 13 Colonies did, 5 to reduce the perceived social and economic evils of a [467 U.S. 229, 242] land oligopoly traceable to their monarchs. The land oligopoly has, according to the Hawaii Legislature, created artificial deterrents to the normal functioning of the State's residential land market and forced thousands of individual homeowners to lease, rather than buy, the land underneath their homes. Regulating oligopoly and the evils associated with it is a classic exercise of a State's police powers. See Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 (1978); Block v. Hirsh, supra; see also People of Puerto Rico v. Eastern Sugar Associates, 156 F.2d 316 (CA1), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 772 (1946). We cannot disapprove of Hawaii's exercise of this power.

 

Nor can we condemn as irrational the Act's approach to correcting the land oligopoly problem. The Act presumes that when a sufficiently large number of persons declare that they are willing but unable to buy lots at fair prices the land market is malfunctioning. When such a malfunction is signalled, the Act authorizes HHA to condemn lots in the relevant tract. The Act limits the number of lots any one tenant can purchase and authorizes HHA to use public funds to ensure that the market dilution goals will be achieved. This is a comprehensive and rational approach to identifying and correcting market failure.

 

Of course, this Act, like any other, may not be successful in achieving its intended goals. But "whether in fact the provision will accomplish its objectives is not the question: the [constitutional requirement] is satisfied if . . . the . . . [state] Legislature rationally could have believed that the [Act] would promote its objective." Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648, 671 -672 (1981); see also Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 466 (1981); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 112 (1979). When the legislature's purpose is legitimate and its [467 U.S. 229, 243] means are not irrational, our cases make clear that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings - no less than debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation - are not to be carried out in the federal courts. Redistribution of fees simple to correct deficiencies in the market determined by the state legislature to be attributable to land oligopoly is a rational exercise of the eminent domain power. Therefore, the Hawaii statute must pass the scrutiny of the Public Use Clause. 6

 

B

 

The Court of Appeals read our cases to stand for a much narrower proposition. First, it read our "public use" cases, especially Berman, as requiring that government possess and use property at some point during a taking. Since Hawaiian lessees retain possession of the property for private use throughout the condemnation process, the court found that the Act exacted takings for private use. 702 F.2d, at 796-797. Second, it determined that these cases involved only "the review of . . . congressional determination that there was a public use, not the review of . . . state legislative determination." Id., at 798 (emphasis in original). Because state legislative determinations are involved in the instant cases, the Court of Appeals decided that more rigorous judicial scrutiny of the public use determinations was appropriate. The court concluded that the Hawaii Legislature's professed purposes were mere "statutory rationalizations." Ibid. We disagree with the Court of Appeals' analysis.

 

The mere fact that property taken outright by eminent domain is transferred in the first instance to private beneficiaries does not condemn that taking as having only a private [467 U.S. 229, 244] purpose. The Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public. "It is not essential that the entire community, nor even any considerable portion, . . . directly enjoy or participate in any improvement in order [for it] to constitute a public use." Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S., at 707 . "[W]hat in its immediate aspect [is] only a private transaction may . . . be raised by its class or character to a public affair." Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S., at 155 . As the unique way titles were held in Hawaii skewed the land market, exercise of the power of eminent domain was justified. The Act advances its purposes without the State's taking actual possession of the land. In such cases, government does not itself have to use property to legitimate the taking; it is only the taking's purpose, and not its mechanics, that must pass scrutiny under the Public Use Clause.

 

Similarly, the fact that a state legislature, and not the Congress, made the public use determination does not mean that judicial deference is less appropriate. 7 Judicial deference is required because, in our system of government, legislatures are better able to assess what public purposes should be advanced by an exercise of the taking power. State legislatures are as capable as Congress of making such determinations within their respective spheres of authority. See Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S., at 32 . Thus, if a legislature, state or federal, determines there are substantial reasons for an exercise of the taking power, courts must defer to its determination that the taking will serve a public use. [467 U.S. 229, 245]

 

IV

 

The State of Hawaii has never denied that the Constitution forbids even a compensated taking of property when executed for no reason other than to confer a private benefit on a particular private party. A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void. But no purely private taking is involved in these cases. The Hawaii Legislature enacted its Land Reform Act not to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals but to attack certain perceived evils of concentrated property ownership in Hawaii - a legitimate public purpose. Use of the condemnation power to achieve this purpose is not irrational. Since we assume for purposes of these appeals that the weighty demand of just compensation has been met, the requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have been satisfied. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand these cases for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

 

It is so ordered.

 

JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

I might be the only person who actually defends this decision...but Im gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this opinion was actually exactly right. Nothing has really changed. This is consistent with how eminent domain has always been decided.

 

I dont know if everyone here read the actual decision, but its pretty much in line with history.

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf

 

Id ask you guys to read it and see the limited degree to which this is private use and the basis for which the city was acting.

 

 

SCOTA has always had an deferential view of what constitutes public use. This goes all the way back to a case where the state of Hawaii basically took the land and apartments of old tribal lords who owned a massivley disproportianate share of land and tranfered title to lessees who had been living there forever anyway. It sounds bad, but in reality, the problem was destroying the state. Even though it was going from one private person to another..it was for public benefit, which the court long ago read public use to mean. Other cases have dealt with other kinds of stuff.

 

The dissenters here generally want to force the city to show a much higher burden for probable economic development.(something Tom Lee asked Miami Dade county to do...and we all didnt like that did we?) Basically what the majority is saying is that federal judges are obligated to defer to the findings of local municipalites who know more about this then themselves(something Scalia says all the time but just not for this).

 

Its not just a say it and be done standard. They have to provide evidence to show their plan. In addition, the other side can show evidence that "economic development" is just a pretext. Also, the city's plan here isnt benefiting a particular class of citizens.

 

The thing is..eminent domain has existed for a long time...it's in the Constitution. (and the framers intent seems to suggest they felt it should be in the governments discertion). This country was built on railroads that used eminent domain. The highway system and many roads come from eminent domain.? And like I said earlier, the Marlins new stadium could end up coming from eminent domain.

 

 

And how exactly is this large government? Its a local municipality. Very easy for people to come together and remove those who are in power.

823264[/snapback]

 

Why don't you say what you really mean? You are a closet socialist who's very happy that the activists in the courts just opened the door to socialism and redistribution of income in the USA. What's gonna stop them now from saying that they can also use it for "diversity" or or "social developments" such as " I think this opressed family should live in this house or I think you own too many businesses so I'm taking this one off your hands. Today was a dark day in the history of this country. And by the way Rove should not apologize for anything he just told the truth about the extreme left of this country. :mad

823456[/snapback]

 

You have nothing to back up any of the trash you just spewed.

 

But please tell me how this makes me a socialist you nimrod. This is taking housing away from POOR PEOPLE and destroying it and building office spaces for companies. This is HELPING COMPANIES like Pfizer.

 

You clearly have no understanding of eminent domain. You do realize that since day 1, via the Constitution, the govermnet could take your house away and open a public park where poor people can play right? That has never been an issue because thats clearly public use. So maybe in your idiotic rant, you meant to say the founding fathers were socialists.

823485[/snapback]

 

 

It does not matter who you are taking the property from. The only reason the five libs voted for this was because it meant the destruction of the right to private property which is the base for socialism. Don't play dumb with me, kid. You know what was really going on behind the scenes here. YOu actually think they voted this way to favor big business? You know damn well the saw an opening for their agenda and proceded to kick the door open.

823510[/snapback]

 

Good God you are not too bright. Government has always has the ability to take away people's property for public use. Since they drafted the damn Constitution! I guess you actually think the founding fathers were socialists. Wow..

 

Yeah..behind the scenes. Justice Kennedy and Breyer, the well respected moderates, conspired with the liberals to invoke an agenda of socialism. Heck, they even screwed over a bunch of poor people living in slums in Washington, D.C. when they allowed eminent domain to take their property too in the other recent case! Wow...how sly of them!! Damn those wiley judges.

823528[/snapback]

 

 

Since you refuse to see the issue of the expansion of eminent domain that just happened today and you keep switching the argument to stupid comments about the founding fathers and insults I'm ending the conversation right here. And by the way, I doubt the founding fathers considered condos, shopping malls and labs "public use".

823561[/snapback]

 

You havent actually addressed the issue that the case deals with. Maybe its just too complicated for you.

 

And please note, youre the one that insulted me first by calling me a socialist. Sounds like you can dish it out, but not take it.

823575[/snapback]

 

I called you a socialist not a dumb, not bright, etc. Besides Socialist should be a compliment for you.

I think the problem people have with the decision is that its giving govt too much discretion, which has always been a problem with eminent domain, but now the problem has been written down so to speak. The const is vague im many matters, which is why the courts were created, and in this particular case ( as much as i want a marlins stadium) the court erred, b/c by widening their discretion it takes away from the rights to property and privacy.

Did any of you guys ACTUALLY READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT? Or did most of you gobble up the pablum that the press is writing?

 

This ruling by the Supreme Court actually changes nothing. A more revolutionary holding would have been if they ruled in favor of the property owners in New London, CT. I know the eminent domain proceedings first hand as one of my clients is currently in a pitted condemnation battle with the City of Boynton Beach (See this article in the Sun-Sentinel regarding the case). Marwan and Radi Ghali, mentioned in the article, are my clients and I've been dealing with this for over a year. The ONLY thing that the Court upheld was the eminent domain proceedings when done pursuant to an approved development plan are a valid "public use." The Court SPECIFICALLY did not decide the issue of a single property being condemned in order to be sold to a third party developer. This case was the culmination of a long process of rulings that led to this.

 

Read the opinion of the Court. Don't read the press reports about it because most of them are dead wrong!

Did any of you guys ACTUALLY READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT? Or did most of you gobble up the pablum that the press is writing?

 

This ruling by the Supreme Court actually changes nothing. A more revolutionary holding would have been if they ruled in favor of the property owners in New London, CT. I know the eminent domain proceedings first hand as one of my clients is currently in a pitted condemnation battle with the City of Boynton Beach (See this article in the Sun-Sentinel regarding the case). Marwan and Radi Ghali, mentioned in the article, are my clients and I've been dealing with this for over a year. The ONLY thing that the Court upheld was the eminent domain proceedings when done pursuant to an approved development plan are a valid "public use." The Court SPECIFICALLY did not decide the issue of a single property being condemned in order to be sold to a third party developer. This case was the culmination of a long process of rulings that led to this.

 

Read the opinion of the Court. Don't read the press reports about it because most of them are dead wrong!

824258[/snapback]

 

Hit the nail on the head. :notworthy

Did any of you guys ACTUALLY READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT? Or did most of you gobble up the pablum that the press is writing?

 

This ruling by the Supreme Court actually changes nothing. A more revolutionary holding would have been if they ruled in favor of the property owners in New London, CT. I know the eminent domain proceedings first hand as one of my clients is currently in a pitted condemnation battle with the City of Boynton Beach (See this article in the Sun-Sentinel regarding the case). Marwan and Radi Ghali, mentioned in the article, are my clients and I've been dealing with this for over a year. The ONLY thing that the Court upheld was the eminent domain proceedings when done pursuant to an approved development plan are a valid "public use." The Court SPECIFICALLY did not decide the issue of a single property being condemned in order to be sold to a third party developer. This case was the culmination of a long process of rulings that led to this.

 

Read the opinion of the Court. Don't read the press reports about it because most of them are dead wrong!

824258[/snapback]

 

Hit the nail on the head. :notworthy

824295[/snapback]

 

 

That it doesnt change anything doesnt make it a good ruling.