February 22, 2005
JUST READ THE TEXT:
Cases Lift Hopes for Property Rights: Two disputes coming to the high court, dealing with rent control and eminent domain, could revive the fortunes of a conservative movement. (David G. Savage, February 22, 2005, LA Times)
Since the early 1990s, however, the property rights movement's progress in the courts has stalled.Today, in what is likely to be the last term of the Rehnquist Court, the justices take up two disputes that could change that.
One will decide whether cities can condemn homes and small businesses to clear the way for business development. The other tests the government's power to regulate economic transactions, such as imposing rent controls. [...]
Though 1954 is best remembered in legal circles as the year of a landmark school desegregation case, the Supreme Court issued another far-reaching ruling that year. While government has long had the power to seize private land for such public uses as highways, the justices declared that cities could also condemn entire blocks as "blighted" and clear the land for redevelopment — even if it meant knocking down small businesses that were thriving.
After the ruling, "all hell broke loose," says Gideon Kanner, professor emeritus at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a longtime advocate of property rights.
The 1960s became an era of urban renewal as redevelopment agencies cleared many downtown areas, hoping to spur a revival in the nation's cities. Sometimes, critics say, they succeeded only in emptying the life from cities.
More recently, redevelopment agencies have used eminent domain to clear away small businesses to make way for big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart or Costco.
In response, some conservative theorists began urging the federal courts to aggressively limit the government's power to regulate property.
The Fifth Amendment seems straightforward enough: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Eminent domain requires just compensation and that the property be taken only for public use. Enforce those provisions of the Constitution and you'll nip this kind of thing in the bud. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 22, 2005 9:03 AM
oj-
You approve of the constitution today? What about democracy?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 22, 2005 10:44 AMNo, as written.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2005 11:54 AMYou don't approve? Or you'd like to refer to it selectively? Give legal standing only to those sections you like?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 22, 2005 12:21 PMYou don't have to approve of bthe changes in order to enforce them. That's where your troubles arise, in denying the last several centuries
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2005 12:26 PMMr. Judd;
The problem is that increasing tax revenues is now considered "public use" because the tax money goes to a government.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 22, 2005 12:41 PMYes, so consider that increased value in just compensation and the problem ends.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2005 12:46 PMAOG-
Thus tax cuts are a cost to government.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 22, 2005 12:48 PMAOG: The problem with this case is that the property was condemned before the government even knew what it might be used for, so the increased tax argument is bogus.
Posted by: jd watson at February 22, 2005 2:21 PMOne would think that 'just compensation' means what it says. Value of property and the inconvenience/cost of relocation. What do potential tax revenues have to do with it?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 22, 2005 3:32 PMYou can't argue on the one hand that you need to take a property bec ause it is worth so much to you and on the other that it isn't worth much. Let cities pay the original owners what they think it's going to be worth and the takings will stop.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2005 3:56 PMIf the cost of taking property reflected a real cost benefit analysis as well as 'just'compensation the takings would be minimal and the law would serve its real purpose which is to protect the ife, liberty and property of the citizen along with the 'general welfare'. The EPA takes property through amorphous regulation all the time, generally for no purpose other than the exercise of power and placating the paranoid. Who cares about the rights of a solitary landowner if a politician thinks he can get votes?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at February 22, 2005 5:18 PMRegulation of what your property does to others differs from taking.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2005 5:21 PMoj-
Not really. The common law is sufficient in those few instances.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at February 22, 2005 5:52 PMI think y'all are missing Orrin's point: The explicit intent of many of these takings is that a private developer wants the land, but doesn't want to pay for them based on their value to himself. He then dangles the prospect of taxes in front of the local government authorities, who exercise their power of ED to transfer the propery from one private individual to another, solely on the basis that one is richer than the other. THIS is the quintessence of the Nightmares Liberals say that they have of Corporations, AND IN THIS RESPECT, THEY ARE CORRECT. The conversion of private to TRULY public property represented by ED is an attempt to limit the power that the minority would have over the majority, since public property is for the benefit of the many over the few. THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE, where it is clear that the transfer is to benefit the powerful rich over the politically weak poor. The increase in taxes is merely an incentive and an excuse: The next logical step, to further tax income, would be for the government, after having allowed the rich to build the Wal-Mart, would be to invoke ED, take over the property, and siphon all the profits into the public treasury.
Forget the fact that this is clearly a case where "compassionate" conservatism MUST and SHOULD step in: Simple justice should suffice.
Posted by: Ptah at February 23, 2005 8:58 AM