Eminent Domain
Eminent domain means that local authorities are allowed to take private property for public benefit; for example, if they are building a highway, they can take the houses that are in the way and pay the owners for them. This has been true for a long time but, of course, local officials are all elected and this is not too popular, so it doesn't happen very often. Usually they do their best to route things around the houses, but sometimes they do end up taking them. It is becoming more and more of an issue because private developers are becoming more and more powerful and politicians are becoming more dependent on them for money.
The Supreme Court recently voted, in Kelo v. City of New London, that the local authorities can also take houses for private development if it benefits the "public" -- for example, they can build a shopping mall that will bring more tax revenue to the area. This ruling was generally considered an expansion of the longstanding eminent domain principles, and a lot of people around the country have protested because it represents a dangerous shift of private property rights away from the people and toward the rich and powerful developer interests, which are buying many of our local politicians. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the court, which Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. There were some dissenting votes on the Supreme Court, but they were in the minority -- O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with the likes of the latter three, but there you have it. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Or any Justice's home with a hotel.
Some states have since passed laws forbidding this type of thing, or at least making it much harder. See "Public Power, Private Gain," which includes documentation on state-by-state cases and what's been happening over a period of years.
Meanwhile, Logan Darrow Clements of California started a campaign to take the house in Weare, New Hampshire, of Justice David Souter (one of the Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of the expansion of eminent domain) and replace it with a hotel. Very clever.
I don't dislike Justice Souter but I think this particular decision was an abomination and I support the effort to take his house because I think it sends an important message. Why not take his house and put a hotel there? It would benefit the local community by bringing in tourism, and I bet some people would come and stay at the hotel just because of the publicity. That would bring in more tax revenue, thus benefiting the public. If three out of the five local leaders vote to do so, they now have that right. There is a rally there this weekend (January 21-22) and they'll be voting in March 2006. I hope they do decide to take it and he has to lose his house. The only thing that might stop it is the fear factor - the fact that he is rich and powerful. I doubt the mansions in Potomac will ever be seized, for example, because they can afford the best lawyers in the country to fight it. It's always the little nobodies who have their houses seized. Rich and powerful people hardly ever have to suffer from the policies and laws they impose on others. I think they should be subject to the same systems they impose on the rest of us.
See the press release here. CNN just put out an article on the topic here. See more on the case that started it all here. The latter Web site includes links to the documents in the case and other interesting facts.
The Supreme Court recently voted, in Kelo v. City of New London, that the local authorities can also take houses for private development if it benefits the "public" -- for example, they can build a shopping mall that will bring more tax revenue to the area. This ruling was generally considered an expansion of the longstanding eminent domain principles, and a lot of people around the country have protested because it represents a dangerous shift of private property rights away from the people and toward the rich and powerful developer interests, which are buying many of our local politicians. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the court, which Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. There were some dissenting votes on the Supreme Court, but they were in the minority -- O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with the likes of the latter three, but there you have it. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Or any Justice's home with a hotel.
Some states have since passed laws forbidding this type of thing, or at least making it much harder. See "Public Power, Private Gain," which includes documentation on state-by-state cases and what's been happening over a period of years.
Meanwhile, Logan Darrow Clements of California started a campaign to take the house in Weare, New Hampshire, of Justice David Souter (one of the Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of the expansion of eminent domain) and replace it with a hotel. Very clever.
I don't dislike Justice Souter but I think this particular decision was an abomination and I support the effort to take his house because I think it sends an important message. Why not take his house and put a hotel there? It would benefit the local community by bringing in tourism, and I bet some people would come and stay at the hotel just because of the publicity. That would bring in more tax revenue, thus benefiting the public. If three out of the five local leaders vote to do so, they now have that right. There is a rally there this weekend (January 21-22) and they'll be voting in March 2006. I hope they do decide to take it and he has to lose his house. The only thing that might stop it is the fear factor - the fact that he is rich and powerful. I doubt the mansions in Potomac will ever be seized, for example, because they can afford the best lawyers in the country to fight it. It's always the little nobodies who have their houses seized. Rich and powerful people hardly ever have to suffer from the policies and laws they impose on others. I think they should be subject to the same systems they impose on the rest of us.
See the press release here. CNN just put out an article on the topic here. See more on the case that started it all here. The latter Web site includes links to the documents in the case and other interesting facts.
posted by Christine M. Hanson | 9:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home