Eminent domain, middle class style

Since the Supreme Court delegated this to the states, citizens need to take action and talk to their reps about preserving their ownership, because local government can be easily enticed into selling out lower and middle class districts to developers.

A few months later [following Kelo vs. New London], the Ohio Supreme Court was the first state high court to decide an eminent-domain case in this altered legal environment, in City of Norwood vs. Horney. In Norwood, an island within Cincinnati, a few homeowners declined to sell to make way for the development of condos and retail space. The workingclass neighborhood was far from what any reasonable person would consider blighted.

So the city made up a category, deteriorating, for a neighborhood that one day might fall into disrepair. Among the reasons for seizing the property were that the roads were too heavily traveled and poorly designed and that the neighborhood had too much “diversity of ownership,” meaning too many people owned their own homes and businesses.

Ohio’s justices decided that rationale didn’t fly.

Thankfully, the justices were right, this time. All this talk about small business driving the economy, you’d figure “diversity of ownership” would be a good thing. Thanks a lot to the local government Norwood, your sad sack obvious attempt to undermine individual property rights has spurred a movement to write new state laws.

Katrina and Kelo

The Opinion Journal has a good discussion of the facts and people involved. Wonder what Souter thinks?

Posted at 08:36 am by Johnny B

	Posted by BP @ 06/15/2006 10:49 PM PDT
	An excellent illustration of how the political left is no real friend to the common man… Funny though, how in the end the author points out the main subject of the article is “no defender of capitalist principles”, even though he is fighting eminent domain. Maybe one day he’ll realize the connection between those two things, for they are inexorably linked. Kelo was the absolute worst decision to come down from the supreme court in decades.

Eminent Domain

Eminent domain : it’s not just for the poor and middle class anymore. A quote:

The mayor even went on television twice recently to brag about his plan. He told WNBC reporter Greg Cergol that turning Deepdale [me: a currently private golf club] into “a village golf course exclusively for the village residents” would be a nice “amenity” for them. According to the reporter, the mayor explained that “his goal” is “to turn Deepdale into a private club for his village’s 5,000 residents.” And he told Channel 12’s Bill Mooney that his plan would “increase property values”–private property values–in North Hills.

Posted at 09:57 pm by Johnny B

	Posted by BP @ 03/29/2006 05:20 PM PST
	This is absolutely scary stuff…how “eminent domain” has ever made it past the SCOTUS, I’ll never know.

An interesting dissent

From the Thomas dissent of Kelo vs. New London:

“The consequences of today¡¦s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called ¡§urban renewal¡¨ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities.”

It’s an interesting case and it highlights Thomas’ take on private property rights. As much as black talking heads claim that “Uncle” Thomas doesn’t represent them, this case demonstrates he does. Were he in the mold of Ginsberg and Stevens, obviously this would not be the case.

Posted at 10:40 pm by Johnny B

	Posted by Name @ 09/19/2005 04:00 PM PDT
	Didn’t think about the impact of poorer communities and the people that live there. Thank you for bringing that to light.

	Posted by Mark Adams, The Lib @ 09/20/2005 06:24 AM PDT
	I do get where Thomas is coming from, but (as usual) his opinion is heavy on ideology, or if you prefer, philosophy, but rather stark on legal precedent applicable to today’s modern society. His most persuasive arguments derive from 17th century treatises and cases over one hundred years old, backed up with rulings from the 20’s. Anything he’s cited from the last fifty years, besides two law review articles, deal more with criminal law than property law. Certainly persuasive in debate club, but hardly the stuff from which legal arguments are made. Unfortunately this is typical for him, especially when he’s ranting in the minority. I seldom agree with Thomas or Scalia, but at least Scalia displays scholarship and legal reasoning with deadly persuasive effect. Read some cases (they are legion) where Thomas and Scalia are both writing dissenting opinions. Scalia will make sound, reasonable, thoughtful and well documented arguments while Thomas’ often sound like sour grapes (which actually hurts rather than supports their combined views). I’m actually on Thomas’ side on this case, but I am not compelled that there is some grave miscarriage of justice after merely reading his opinion. Unless you make the case that the New Deal and sixty years of of unbroken Commerce Clause interpretations must be rolled back, and why, without sounding like a wingnut, and without legislating from the bench and being accused of being “activist,” you don’t really sound sincere taking his side in this case. And if you take that stand, you’ll only be singing to the conservative choir and not the public at large. This is the kind of case which illuminates the scism between rural/bible belt conservatists whose interests are directly at odds with the big-business, empire builders at AEI. You simply can’t be compelling when your agrument is primarily philosophical, without rejecting and attacking the pro-business ideology from which this case sprang. Thomas can’t and won’t do that. Here, the government at the behest of a huge private business entity has simply taken advantage of a more liberal mindset which paved the way for increased federal encroachment into local affairs. The chickens of the New Deal and Great Society have come home to roost and the neocons have been hatched. Now watch how the conservative/pro-business folks will now hypocritically use their hegemony granted to them in this case in rebuilding the Gulf Coast. How does the government declare an area an enterprise zone for private business and not violate Thomas’ views on the Public Use Clause? Bottom line is whether it promotes the general welfare or merely lines the pockets of the fat cats. That’s where integrity and competence versus corruption and cronyism in administration oversight becomes essential. I’ve yet to read anyone, liberal or conservative. who likes this ruling and makes a good *legal* argument on why it’s dead wrong. But like Thomas’ opinion, there are plenty of rants — much like the one you just read by me.

	Posted by John Broussard @ 09/20/2005 08:31 AM PDT
	Rebuilding from a hurricane and knocking down a perfectly fine neighborhood for development are two different things. (You have a point about too much federal involvement in this) You have some good points, Mark, but what about Lucas v South Carolina Council? I think you are only looking at Thomas’ references, and since there aren’t enough precedents about property law, you find his argument uncompelling. Can you cite what is so compelling about the Stevens ruling then?

	Posted by John Broussard @ 09/20/2005 09:15 AM PDT
	Mark, One more thing: Your “60 years of unbroken commerce clauses” is really only two cases mentioned in the Stevens ruling. Berman v Parker is a 51 year old case, and Stevens sounds sympathetic to the individual but defers to the precedent. Thomas stands by the individual and defers to the fifth amendment, essentially. I’m sure that a ruling by FDR appointed judges is always more compelling than the constitution to liberals, however, and is always considered “progress”. Really I don’t see anything “wingnutty” about overturning bad precedent and bad law, especially when relying on the constitution and examples from other fields (such as criminal law). Thomas points out that criminals have inviolable rights in the eyes of the court, and law-abiding homeowners should have some inviolable rights too. That’s not wingnutty, that’s logical.

Government power reduces social mobility

Item # 6,517,042:

Sowells monthly rant on California’s interference with the housing market.

Posted at 06:01 pm by Johnny B

	Posted by BP @ 06/03/2005 12:16 AM PDT
	Sowell makes a good point at the obvious disconnect between strict zoning laws and “affordable” housing; however, the “anti-growth” view has its merits. In the Northern VA (DC Metro) area, prices are skyrocketing as well, and one of the fastest growing counties in the nation (the county in which I just bought a home) is poised to double in population within the next twenty years or so. The challenge …is that the people just moving in can have the tendency to think “anti-growth” because more development takes away from the reasons that they moved into the area in the first place. Their logic (and part of me tends to agree) is, “If I am already paying an exhorbitant amount of money for a property, I’ll be damned if I let myself be surrounded by 100,000 ‘affordable’ condos.” Just a thought.

	Posted by JohnnyB @ 06/03/2005 12:25 AM PDT
	I just want the bubble to burst in California so I can get a house cheap. The good news about all these skyrocketing home prices is that all the eventual foreclosings ought to come up fairly soon. How’s that for optimism?

A blind squirrel telling time twice a day

Is that right?

Anyway, a few weeks ago I was looking at Mother Jones (they’ve got neat cartoons, here’s one http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2005/03/never.html), and I read an article http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/12/12_406.html about eminent domain. Save for some of the rhetoric, I found myself nodding “yes, yes, yes” to mother jones instead of the customary “no. no. no.” Later, I was listening to some Clear Channel Radio guy (subbing for Rush) talk about the evils of eminent domain. I love these issues where the left and right join forces…it’s kind of like when Magneto helps out the X-men for a couple of issues.

Kind of like gay pro-lifers (http://www.plagal.org/)

Anyway, what do you guys think? I mean, what if Microsoft or Pfizer or Ben and Jerry’s wants to open up a factory/ shopping mall / theme park / big new thing that is a surefire winner guaranteed to bring in jobs and tax revenue to your dumpy blighted neighborhood. What if the neighborhood is filled with streetwalkers and hustlers, and the only tenant holding out on the big offer is the renovated unitarian church that gives out clean needles on Friday afternoons? If anybody knows about eminent domain out there, I’d love to hear about ‘cuz all I know is what I read here.

(p.s. I’m not saying I know of any neighborhoods like that in Columbus, I’m just saying hypothetically)

Posted at 10:54 pm by Johnny B