| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/6/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38254 Activity:high |
6/23 Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts?page=1,50
\_ More like "SC upholds ED as is."
\_ Can we get a non freeper link about the same subject? I'll start:
http://tinyurl.com/bepw2 (forbes.com)
\_ Here is the opinion:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
\_ anyone find a url for the dissent?
\_ It's all here: link:csua.org/u/chm (pdf file)
\_ The cornell page has links to the dissents as well.
\_ what's so new about imminent domain?
\_ When eminent domain is used to acquire land for private
development, the potential for abuse is large. A politically
conected businessman can 'suggest' that the city use eminent
domain to help build a new retail or office development. The
city uses its power to acquire the land for a value which is
much less than if the developer had to sweet-talk homeowners to
sell. -dgies, !op
\_ Because this isn't eminent domain. This is a greatly expanded
and never seen before abuse of the power. Any developer can
now come into any area and tell the city council how much more
tax revenue they'll get from a new Walmart and it is now legal
to tear down any homes in the way. This is entirely new which
is why the SC had to rule on it. You're just trolling, right?
\- While I see the potential for abuse, I find it odd to see
STEVENS as a corporate tool and THOMAS and RHENQUIST as the
defender of the "little guy", so I think some closer reading
on this case may be in order.
\_ Ok, you tell us what you find that says this isn't a new
huge expansion of ED and isn't easily abused. We both
read the same article. Go see O'Connors quote in the text.
She has it right on the money. It's about the money. Mr.
Developer promises new tax renevue from flattening a bunch
of homes and it's legal. Period. Please link to the
further reading you find that says this isn't the case.
\_ 1981: Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit:
http://csua.org/u/chd (law.berkeley.edu). It's not
"new." It's re-establishing something old. key grafs:
MAJORITY: "The power of eminent domain is to be used
in this instance primarily to accomplish the essential
public purposes of alleviating unemployment and revi-
talizing the economic base of the community. The bene-
fit to a private interest is merely incidental. If the
public benefit was not so clear and significant, we
would hesitate to sanction approval of such a project."
DISSENT: "With regard to highways, railroads, canals,
and other instrumentalities of commerce, it takes little
imagination to recognize that without eminent domain
these essential improvements, all of which require
particular configurations of property - narrow and
generally straight ribbons of land -would be "otherwise
impracticable"; they would not exist at all... [I]t
could hardly be contended that the existence of the
automotive industry or the construction of a new [GM]
assembly plant requires the use of eminent domain." -!pp
\_ Ok, did you miss below where someone posted this was
over turned later? Maybe you have something else to
link to that shows this isn't a new and dangerous
ruling expanding ED to places it has never been?
\_ A PDF version of the Connecticut State Supreme Court's
decision on the appeal:
link:csua.org/u/che (300k)
This is LONG, and I'm not going to summarize. It bears
reading, as the appellants' challenge has a lot to do
with interpretation of the phrasing of state law.
A large number of documents were filed on this case:
http://csua.org/u/chf (Findlaw.com)
Hope that helps. --erikred
\_ very interesting (che link). Thanks. -nivra
\_ Precedent for this application of eminent domain was established
in 1981 in Poletown, MI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown
Detroit seized 1300 homes & 140 businesses to build a GM plant.
The 1981 decision was overturned in 2004: http://csua.org/u/chc.
What I don't understand is wtf was going on in the intervening
23 years? Didn't houses get razed for the GM plant? Was the
plant never built? The overturn happened in MI SC by 4 very
conservative judges. In this case, conservatives are arguing
for private property rights, and liberals are arguing for
"public good," including economic development. The public good
for economic development policy's glaring drawback is the
vulnerability to corruption: city planners can easily be bought
by greedy developers. Wiki link on eminent domain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
\_ The solution to government corruption is to stop the corruption
not try to stop government from functioning.
\_ I'm pretty liberal, why oh why does the Supreme court keep making
rulings that make me agree with the rightwing of the court?
\_ Yup, all the liberal justices are fighting for the little guy!
\_ yah... I think my principles also steer me towards preferring
the conservative side of this one. If the corporations want to
the dissent on this one. If the corporations want to
develop the land, make the tenants 2x or 3x fair market price
for the land. -nivra
for the land. -nivra [edit: I misused cons/lib labels]
[Note: On 2nd reading, I agree with majority, see below]
\_ See, this shouln't be a conservative/liberal issue. It's
about private property. This ruling basically says there's no
such thing as private property. A free society shouldn't
accept this. -emarkp
\_ This is a conservative/liberal issue. It is an issue
of who decides what is best - the state or the people?
Liberals generally want to take things out of the hands
of the people and stick them in the hands of the state.
Look at the opinion - it basically says the state said
this was a good idea, who are we to second guess the
state.
Conservatives (real ones) would prefer to leave things
in the hands of the people - Let the developer PAY Ms.
Kelo the amt of money she wants in order for her to
willingly sell.
\_ This is simplistic and ridiculous. I'm a liberal who
believes in private property, individual responsibility,
freedom of religion, and government non-interference
in reproductive rights. Liberal and conservative are
labels that do not accurately reflect the level of
complexity needed here. --erikred
\_ Eh, it doesn't say there's no such thing as private
property. The City still had to pay compensation, so
it still falls under Eminent domain. I don't agree
with the ruling (as i currently see it), but I
wouldn't go so far as the above. -jrleek
\_ If I can't determing the selling price for my property
(whether anyone wants to buy at that price or not), how
is it that it's mine? -emarkp
\_ Uh.. You can determine an asking price. A selling
price, no. Now, if you lose bargaining rights, that
sucks.
\_ By that reasoning the constitution never
protected your property rights at all.
"nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation." Doesn't say you
get to decide what is just compensation. -jrleek
\_ And if you think it's not just, you petition for
redress.
\_ The fact that the onus is on you in the first
place is evil and fucked up. -John
\_ Compensation doesn't take into account things like
subjective value in the property. In this particular
case Ms. Kelo family has lived in the same house for
many years, the house has a very nice view of the
Thames river, &c. The assessed value of the house
isn't that high and no where near enough for her to
afford to buy another river front home.
What give some rich ass yuppie who works for Pfizer
more rights to that river view than Ms. Kelo? If he
wants Ms. Kelo's home he should be prepared to pay
what SHE feels is a proper price for the property,
not what the assessor thinks.
Under the Kelo regime it seems that the only way
to have private property is to be willing to lay
down your life to defend it. (At least they won't
be able to take your home while you are alive).
\_ this is a totally different issue: ie.
how to determine "fair market value" or "fair
compensation." The issue at hand is one of
viable use of eminent domain clause and what
constitutes "public use." -nivra
\_ I was just pointing out that compensation
in this case will likely not be adequate.
BUT, if anything can qualify as a public
use (and anything the city says is a pub
use seems to qualify under the Kelo view)
compensation becomes VERY important. If
the city can just walk up to a perfectly
good home and say that it is taking it
b/c some yuppie is willing to pay more
for it and just pay some pittance where
is the justice?
\_ Re: the ad-absurdia claim that "there is no private
property." The Conn. SC said: "This claim, while
somewhat incalescent, affords us the opportunity to
reiterate that an exercise of the eminent domain
power is unreasonable, in violation of the public
use clause, if the facts and circumstances of the
particular case reveal that the taking specifically
is intended to benefit a private party. Thus, we
emphasize that our decision is not a license for
the unchecked use of the eminent domain power as a
tax revenue raising measure; rather, our holding is
that rationally considered municipal economic
development projects such as the development plan
in the present case pass constitutional muster."
-nivra
\- again it does sound like there have been some iffy
uses of eminent domain recently, but i havent read
about them in depth. but the world is a complicated
place. see again something like the pruneyard v robins
case. property rights arent absolute or always trumps.
similarly, simple "common sense" principles like
"coming to a nuisance" dont always make the most
sense. see e.g. spur v. del webb, and Guido Calabresi
and Melamed: Property rules, liability rules and
inalenability: one view of the cathedral, from the
harvard law rev. --psb
\_ There are two underlying principles to this
decision:
1. Property should be put to the best possible
use
2. The law should be allow rsrcs to be allocated
in the manner that maximizes their use
From a certain pov Ms. Kelo's use of the prop.
was not the most profitable (ie best possible
use) of the land; the property could be put to
better use by Pfizer (or their proxies).
Once the city decided that Pfizer could make
better use of the land than Ms. Kelo, the duty
of the cts is to see that this decision is
implemented UNLESS it can be shown that the
decision will not maximize the use of the
property.
If this is the view then Ms. Kelo bore the
b/p to show that her use was as good or better
than the proposed use - she could not show
this, so her b/p was not met, so the city's
wins. Case closed. Everyone go home - except
Ms. Kelo, she doesn't have a home.
\_ What? You actually believe those 'principles'
and what follows from them?
\_ Absolutely not, but that is the only
way that I can make sense of this
garbage.
\_ This may need a Constitional amendment, from a first reading.
-moderate
\_ Yes, the majority ruling is constitutional and I agree insofar
as this is correct within what's currently legislated. But, law
doesn't provide for what's "ample and reasonable compensation."
An amendment should probably address that to favor excessive
recompense for the "condemned properties." After perusing the
pdf opinion from the Conn. SC erikred posted, I agree that
(1) public use for economic development should be allowed.
(2) limits on this are a flexible and changing issue, and
need to be determined case-by-case via the legislative and
judicial system. In this case, the economic development in
question was planned by the city for a large economic develop-
ment zone, which happened to include Pfizer offices. There's
also a marina, park, etc. Eventhough some of the specific land
in question may be sold to a private entity(Pfizer), the plan,
in whole, is justified under "public use." -nivra
\_ You want case-by-case. I think raising the bar higher via
Constitutional amendment is something which should be
seriously considered. -moderate
\_ I think recompense should be increased, but the correctness
of interpreting "public use" --> "public purpose" is valid.
case-by-case allows the correct judgment to be made in
borderline public good/private benefit situations. If
the recompense to the existing property owners is aug-
mented, I don't see why "raising the bar" is needed. -nivra
\_ Like I wrote before, a Constitutional amendment is
something which should be seriously /considered/.
I'm not sure the American people believe being paid
"more" is sufficient for an interpretation of eminent
domain that goes beyond transportation and military
bases. -moderate
\_ I parse "raising the bar" and "wider interpretation
of eminent domain" as two different issues.
Raising the bar is increasing the burden of proof
that the economic development is public use.
"wider interpretation" is changing the definition
of "public use" -nivra
\_ Let's just change the Constitution so it qualifies
"for public use" with "limited to improving
transportation infrastructure or in the interests
of national security". -moderate
\_ Opinion: This is bullshit. Eminent domain is one of those issues
where I set the bar REALLY REALLY high for the government to even
have a right to get involved directly. -- ilyas
\_ In your opinion, which side is more strict constructionist --
interpreting the Constitution as it is written, as opposed to
following the spirit of it as a loose constructionist?
\_ Is this a joke? -- ilyas
\_ No.
\_ Your question is a tautology. -- ilyas
\_ This discussion reminds me of something a guy I knew from the
Caribbean said. He asked, "How come Americans can't own land?"
Huh? "Well, do Americans have to rent the land from the
government or something?" Uhhh.. no. "But you pay property
tax. How can you say you own something when you have to pay
someone to keep them from taking it from you?" Uhhhh...
\_ This ruling is a disaster. Now any tract of land anywhere in the
country is up for development, all a wealthy developer has to do
is to pay off a city council, and the city council can make a case
that the development will benefit the public by creating jobs or
whatever, and you can kiss your house and your neighborhood
goodbye!
\_ Realistically speaking, I wonder how much an average Joe would
have to spend to fight a dubious eminent domain claim in the
courts? Could be a lot, I think. I'd just sell and forgo my
rights, unless nice GOP people gave me money.
\_ see ad-absurdia claim above. -nivra |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts?page=1,50 Stew Padasso Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes HOPE YEN Associated Press WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may sei ze people's homes and businesses against their will for private developm ent in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights. Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office compl ex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revita lize blighted areas. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projec ts such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax r evenue. Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a deve lopment project will benefit the community, justices said. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believ es will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but b y no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice Joh n Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H Souter, Ruth Bader Gin sburg and Stephen G Breyer. At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments t o take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "publi c use." New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeown ers' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities shou ld not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are pro vided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taki ng only if it eliminates blight. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporati ons and development firms." She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H Rehnquist, as w ell as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in r ecent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners. New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city ha s suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the c ountry, with losses of residents and jobs. The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-er a houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the c ase is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more th an 50 years. City officials envision a commercial development that would attract touri sts to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, whi ch argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring ur ban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway. Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo an d the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an u njustified taking of their property. View Replies To: Stew Padasso Does that mean that my county may seize my proerty if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house? I tell you, if nothing will drive house prices down, then this law will. View Replies Comment #5 Removed by Moderator To: Stew Padasso Unbelievable. I generally don't like to resort to name-calling, but what a bunch of liberal scumbags that voted for this. View Replies To: Stew Padasso It's funny how cities need land on lakes and other naturally beautiful sp ots. It would be called theft if our society was more honest... View Replies To: Stew Padasso Homeowners, arm yourselves. You're just one developer's idea away from lo sing your greatest investment now. And a simple bribe to a corrupt judge will put most of those nails in your coffin. View Replies To: blueberry12 Does that mean that my county may seize my property if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house? Yes, and if you live on a beautiful piece of property that would cost the city too much to buy, they just steal it from you. View Replies To: Stew Padasso The thing that adds insult to injury is the fact that the main reason cit ies are seeking to bulldoze residential property is the fact that a lot of unused industrial property is too risky to develop due to potential C ERCLA liability. View Replies To: GOPJ That's exactly what Janice Rogers Brown just called it in a recent dissen ting opinion and that is precisely the reason the socialist democrats di dn't want her near an appeals court. I wonder if this means my city can now bulldoze "little Mexico" to p ut in pig farm? This would greatly increase the tax value of the land, a nd greatly reduce police, fire, and social services costs. View Replies Comment #22 Removed by Moderator To: kellynla Chairman Mao's General Store coming to you back door... What on earth does this decision have to do with the Chinese? View Replies To: Stew Padasso Will anyone who criticizes these Nazi tactics by these dictators in robes be slammed or praised? The media are polling themselves as we speak, to decide which side to take. View Replies To: Stew Padasso Our beloved Constitution has a big security hole. They will tear down this great free country if we don't reorga nize our government. View Replies To: Stew Padasso Didn't our forefathers fight a revolution over this kind of crap? Yet another BS court decision th at will probably require an unobtainable Constitutional Ammendment to co rrect. View Replies To: GOPJ We need another minuteman project to defend residents against the outrage ous actions that will take place as a result of this ruling. The folks s hould be defended against this outrageous action by armed militiamen wil ling to die for the freedoms we hold so dear. View Replies To: Stew Padasso There is no check on the judiciary in this country. Mark Levin's idea to amend the Constitution to allow legislative override of judicial decisions is a must given the judiciary's tyranny. His othe r recommendation, judicial term limits, is also right on target. View Replies To: Stew Padasso That F'ing SOB John Sunnunu. He put that SOB Souter in the court, and the damage that has been done is immense. If the government ever takes my h ouse for a private developer, I am going to burn down Sunnunu's house. View Replies To: BerthaDee Ya'll know what this ruling reeally means. It means us landowners are onl y SERFS paying rent on property owned by the ruling classes and their go vernment puppets. When they decide to kick us off our own land, they can legally do so. View Replies To: blueberry12 This is outrageous - welcome to the United States of the Soviet Republic. This country is going down before our very eyes via judicial tyranny. View Replies To: Stew Padasso Excellent example of why Dubya needs to be able to place at least 2 new j ustices. Problem is that I don't see the list of liberal justices that v oted for this ruling coming up for replacement, but rather those that vo ted against this unfair ruling. last Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyr... |
| tinyurl.com/bepw2 -> forwarding.tinyurl.com/ttp://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2005/06/23/ap2108859.html Not Found The requested URL /ttp://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/200 5/06/23/ap2108859.html was not found on this server. Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat) Server at forwarding.tinyurl.com Port 80 |
| straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html -> www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html Help support the LII More than one million times each day, 365 days each year, people from mor e than 140 countries make use of the legal information freely provided b y the LII. The rest are people of all kinds: teachers, businesspeople, government officials, students, police officer s, and private citizens who need or want to know more about the laws tha t affect their lives and livelihood. Twice each year, in December and June, we ask for your help. Your tax-ded uctible contribution makes it possible for us to maintain and expand our services, and offer them freely for the benefit of all. If you see this screen repeatedly after choosing not to, you need to enab le cookies in your browser This notice will be removed June 30 2005. All information solicited from donors is absolutely confidential. We will, however, publicly display yo ur name as a way of acknowledging your gift if you do not choose to rema in anonymous. |
| csua.org/u/chd -> www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/LS145/poletown.html This case raises a question of paramount importance to the fu ture welfare of this state and its residents: Can a municipality use the power of eminent domain granted to it by the Economic Development Corpo rations Act to condemn property for transfer to a private corporation to build a plant to promote industry and commerce, thereby adding jobs and taxes to the economic base of the municipality and state? The Economic Development Corporations Act is a part of the comprehensive legislation dealing with planning, housing and zoning whereby the State of Michigan is attempting to provide for the general health, safety, and welfare through alleviating unemployment, providing economic assistance to industry, assisting the rehabilitation of blighted areas, and foster ing urban redevelopment. To further the objectives of this act, the legi slature has authorized municipalities to acquire property by condemnatio n in order to provide industrial and commercial sites and the means of t ransfer from the municipality to private users. What plaintiffs-appellants do challenge is the constitutionality of using the power of eminent domain to condemn one persons property to convey i t to another private person in order to bolster the economy. They argue that whatever incidental benefit may accrue to the public, assembling la nd to General Motors specifications for conveyance to General Motors for its uncontrolled use in profit making is really a taking for private us e and not a public use because General Motors is the primary beneficiary of the condemnation. The defendant-appellees contend, on the other hand, that the controlling public purpose in taking this land is to create an industrial site which will be used to alleviate and prevent conditions of unemployment and fi scal distress. The fact that it will be conveyed to and ultimately used by a private manufacturer does not defeat this predominant public purpos e The power of eminent domain is to be used in this instance primarily to a ccomplish the essential public purposes of alleviating unemployment and revitalizing the economic base of the community. The benefit to a privat e interest is merely incidental. If the public benefit was not so clear and significant, we would hesitate to sanction approval of such a projec t RYAN, Justice (dissenting). it is, in the last analysis, good faith but unwarranted judicial imprimatur upon government action taken under the policy of th e end justifying the means. It was, of course, evident to all interested observers that the removal b y General Motors of its Cadillac manufacturing operations to a more favo rable economic climate would mean the loss to Detroit of at least 6,000 jobs as well as the concomitant loss of literally thousands of allied an d supporting automotive design, manufacture and sales functions. There w ould necessarily follow, as a result, the loss of millions of dollars in real estate and income tax revenues. General Motors had announced its intention to close the plant and move t o the South unless the site of the Cadillac plant could be significantly improved. GM asked the City of Detroit to make extensive improvements t o the freeways, streets, sewers, and other aspects of the site. If those changes were made, GM said that it would keep the Cadillac plant open. The cost of the acquisition of the property and of making these improvem ents was over $200 million. The City intended to sell the site to Genera l Motors for $8 million. Faced with the unacceptable prospect of losing two automotive plants and the jobs that go with them, the city chose to march in fast lock-step with General Motors to carve a green field out of an urban setting which ultimately required sweeping away a tightly-kn it residential enclave of first- and second-generation Americans, for ma ny of whom their home was their most valuable and cherished asset and th eir stable ethnic neighborhood the unchanging symbol of the security and quality of their lives. It is plain, of course, that condemnation of property for transfer to pri vate corporations is not wholly proscribed. For many years, and probably since the date of Michigans statehood, an exception to the general rule has been recognized. The exception, which for ease of reference might b e denominated the instrumentality of commerce exception, has permitted c ondemnation for the establishment or improvement of the avenues of comme rcehighways, railroads, and canals, for example. It cannot for an instan t be maintained, however, nor has anyone suggested, that the case before us falls within the instrumentality of commerce exception. It may be ar gued, however, that the fact that the case before us lies outside the ex ception does not end the inquiry if the reasons justifying the existing exception are present here. that three common elements appear in those decisions that go far toward explicating and justifying the use of eminent domain for private corporations: 1) public necessity of the extreme sort, 2) contin uing accountability to the public, and 3) selection of land according to facts of independent public significance. With regard to highways, railroads, canals, and other instrumentalities o f commerce, it takes little imagination to recognize that without eminen t domain these essential improvements, all of which require particular c onfigurations of propertynarrow and generally straight ribbons of landwo uld be otherwise impracticable; t could hardly be contended that the existence of the automotive industry or the construction of a new General Motors assembly plant requires the use of eminent domain. One of the reasons advanced by the defendants as justification of the tak ing in this case, and adopted by the majority, is the claim of alleviati on of unemployment. Even assuming, arguendo, that employment per se is a necessity of the extreme sort, there are no guarantees from General Mot ors about employment levels at the new assembly plant. is sold to G eneral Motors, there will be no public control whatsoever over the manag ement, or operation, or conduct of the plant to be built there. The leve l of employment at the new GM plant will be determined by private corpor ate managers primarily with reference, not to the rate of regional unemp loyment, but to profit. With this case the Court has subordinated a constitutional right to priva te corporate interests. As demolition of existing structures on the futu re plant site goes forward, the best that can be hoped for, jurisprudent ially, is that the precedential value of this case will be lost in the a ccumulating rubble. Questions: a Would you characterize what the City of Detroit intends to do with th is land as being the provision of a public good? b Justice Ryan describes the area where the taking is to occur as a tig htly-knit residential enclave of first- and second-generation Americans, for many of whom their home was their most valuable and cherished asset and their stable ethnic neighborhood the unchanging symbol of the secur ity and quality of their lives. If this description is accurate, does it raise any special efficiency concerns about the governments taking this property at fair market value? Specifically, is there a particular prob lem here in under-compensating the residents of Poletown for their large subjective valuation on their homes and community? Boomer, where transaction co sts blocked bargaining over a public nuisance. The courts stepped in to move the entitlement to the party whose use was, presumably, more valuab le. The bargaining costs be tween GM and the neighbors are so high that, even if the valuation of GM s desire to use their property was greater than the valuation on the nei ghbors desire to remain where they were, no bargain could have been stru ck. What the court is sanctioning here is a hypothetical market transact ion that would have taken place but for the level of transaction costs. d There is no question that maximizing employment and minimizing the so cial dislocation of unemployment when an employer leaves town is a legit imate and worthy governmental goal. What other policies were available t o the City of Det... |
| csua.org/u/chf -> supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2004/february.html Vinson & Elkins LLP Houston, TX John A Pace v David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Ins titution at Graterford, et al. Artuz v Bennett, 531 US 4 (2000) - whether an untimely state postconviction petition may be "properly filed" under 2244? Carey v Saffold, 536 US 214 (2002) answered the question about "properly filed" that Artuz reserved? Find a Lawyer: Our free service locates Bankruptcy, Criminal, DUI, I mmigration, Personal Injury, Taxation, or Trademark lawyers in your area who can help you with your legal issues. Amicus Attorney: Easy-to-use and intuitive - experience great practi ce management software that works the way you do. WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: Connect with technology and programs that help you learn more effectively. Tabs3 and PracticeMaster: Reliable billing and practice management s oftware for solo to mid-sized firms. PCLaw & PCLawPro: ONE integrated system to manage your whole office. Provides time billing, accounting and practice management. IBM: ABA members save 10% on select IBM xSeries servers. Save up to 10% on the new tablet PC ThinkPad X41 and up to 20% on select ThinkPa d notebooks from Lenovo. |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown The decision of the Michigan Supreme Court allowing the taking of the pro perty became a touchstone for "public use" eminent domain cases. The dec ision was overruled by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2004 in County of W ayne v Hathcock. Although Hamt ramck has become highly diverse with 26 native languages spoken by schoo lchildren, there are still a Polish-speaking minority. |
| csua.org/u/chc -> michiganimc.org/newswire/display/6334/index.php Protesters march against the planned destruction of the Poletown neighbor hood in 1980. The new court ruling will bar such government seizures of land for private use. DETROIT Saying its landmark 1981 Poletown decision was a violation of t he State Constitution and a contradiction of a century of previous case law, the Michigan Supreme Court on July 31 largely barred local governme nts from seizing land for private use. The unanimous ruling, in Wayne County v Hathcock, was authored by the co urts four most conservative justices. It prevents Wayne County from sei zing 40 parcels of private land interspersed in a 1,300-acre tract the c ounty wants to use to build the private $2 billion Pinnacle Aeropark. Th e project includes plans for hotels, factories, offices, and a golf cour se adjacent to Metropolitan Airport. The court said its decision is retroactive, meaning that it will affect p ending cases that specifically challenged the Poletown decision, includi ng a lawsuit filed by residents of Brush Park against the City of Detroi t In the Poletown case, the court allowed the City of Detroit to seize and bulldoze hundreds of private homes, businesses and churches on the near east side so that General Motors could build an auto plant that replaced its Cadillac and Fleetwood facilities, actually cutting its total workf orce. The company had threatened to move that production out of Detroit if it was not allowed to build at the Poletown site. The Poletown ruling was the first of its kind in the country, and has bee n used since as precedent to seize private property in eminent domain ca ses nationwide. was such a radical departure from fundamental con stitutional principles and over a century of this Courts eminent domain jurisprudence . Noting that Article 10, Section 2 of the state constitution requires that government seizures be performed for public use, not just a public p urpose, the Court went on, Before Poletown, we had never held that a p rivate entitys pursuit of profit was a public use simply because on e entitys profit maximization contributed to the health of the general economy. Alan Ackerman, attorney for the plaintiffs in Hathcock, said, This rulin g means our government was meant to have limited powers, unlike in Engla nd, where private property could be taken for any use the king wanted. It protects peoples individual right s Ackerman said those signing amicus briefs in support of his clients inclu ded a broad political spectrum, ranging from libertarian right wing orga nizations like the Civic Legal Foundation and the Institute for Justice to the American Civil Liberties Union and Ralph Nader. He said the decision should favorably impact residents of Brush Park, but that plaintiffs in the Graimark case, which involved land seizures on t he citys far east side, had already signed off their property rights. A ttorneys in that case failed to challenge the Poletown decision. Ackermans clients included private home, business and farmland owners. L ead plaintiff Edward Hathcock, who owns Gem Products and Supply, a kitch enware and millwork plant in the path of the Pinnacle project, was exult ant at the courts decision. This shows what can happen if you stand up and fight, when enoughs enou gh, said Hathcock. This puts the county on notice that they cant just acquire our property. Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano issued a written statement in reacti on, saying, The court ruling impacts economic development for the entir e state. All municipalities and government entities are affected and mus t explore how they will be competitively leveraged to attract investment s that result in jobs that improve the quality of life for those who liv e, work and raise their families in Wayne County. Gwen Mingo is lead plaintiff in the Brush Park suit against the City of D etroit, which has seized the majority of the land there. A good deal of the remaining buildings in this historic district located off Woodward a nd I-75, have been destroyed in unsolved arson cases. This shows that God works in high places and the victory is his. Ours has been a ho rrendous ordeal for hundreds of people. Many have died or become very ol d, feeble and sick working to bring this to fruition. Many times I have driven burned up people to the hospital, and had to help those who were thrown out on the street and lost everything they had. Attorney George Corsetti was among dozens of people who were arrested in 1981 for participating in a sit-in at the Immaculate Conception Church l ocated in Poletown, prior to the churchs demolition. He and his associa tes documented the cost of the Poletown displacements on the residents lives, in a film called, Poletown Lives. Reacting to the Hathcock decision, Corsetti said, The justices who wrote the opinion were actually more interested in private property than in t he trials and tribulations of the Poletown people. Corsetti said that the Poletown precedent has been taught in law schools across the country as landmark case law, while at the same time many sch ools show his film to let students see the impact of such decisions. The two consortiums in the final running to be named project developer we re the Aeropark Alliance, Wayne County LLC, and the Metro South Developm ent Group, LLC. The Aeropark Alliance is composed of companies who are p rominent contributors to the campaigns of Democratic candidates, such as the Sterling Group, as well as Michigan Democratic Party co-chair Melvi n Butch Hollowell. The Metro South group is composed of companies who were prominent contrib utors to the campaigns of George W Bush and John Engler, including The Heritage Group and Kojaian Lehman Brothers Partnership, and may have bee n likely to lose out in the contest. Create a new account Enter a username and password which will enable you to edit this article later. You may leave these blank, but you will then not be allowed to ed it the post. As a law school student we read this case and it's go od to see that the Court is still standing up for the people and not the gov't! We should all be able to our our home and property without fear of a communist gov't! |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain The term "expropriation" is often seen as synonymous with "eminent domain " and may especially be used with regard to jurisdictions that do not pa y compensation for the confiscated property. The term "condemnation" is used to describe the act of a government exerc ising its authority of eminent domain. It is not to be confused with the term of the same name that describes the legal process whereby real pro perty, generally a building, is deemed legally unfit for habitation due to its physical defects. Condemnation via eminent domain indicates the g overnment is taking the property; usually, the only thing that remains t o be decided is the amount of just compensation. Condemnation of buildin gs usually occurs through health and safety hazards or gross zoning viol ation. In this case, the owner of the property does not lose the propert y, he or she merely needs to make corrections to the property to bring i t up to health, safety and/or zoning codes. The exercise of eminent domain is not limited merely to real property. economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax re venue for the local government. org/), a community group in Boston whic h attained the right to eminent domain and have used it to reclaim vacan t properties in the purpose of positive community development. national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or prot ection of the rights and freedoms of others. Constitution permits the federal g overnment to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on j ust terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which t he Parliament has power to make laws." This has been construed to not ne cessarily mean just compensation as a just term might not of necessity b e monetary or proprietary recompense. However, it is for the court to de termine what is just and it may be necessary to imply a need for compens aton in the interests of justice, lest the law be invalid (Andrews v How ell (1941) 65 CLR 255). For the purposes of s51(xxxi), money is not property which may be compuls arily acquired; the Commonwealth must also derive some benefit from the property acquired and not merely seek to extinguish the previous owner's title (Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 173 CLR 450). |
| forbes.com Five Metros With The Highest Rate Of College Grads Kurt Badenhausen San Francisco is tops, with 44% of the population having a diploma. Stock Of The Week: Amylin Pharmaceuticals John Dobosz A stock newsletter focused solely on the diabetes market says a new drug could work wonders for 90% of diabetics. Tyco And The Fort(ress) Of Oblivion Dan Ackman Tyco's former CEO concedes the board would put up false fronts when it felt the need. Customs Bureau Struggles To Modernize Andrew T Gillies Using technology to integrate government operations is a worthy goal, but difficult. Disclaimer Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes for Nasdaq, at least 20 minutes for NYSE/AMEX US indexes are delayed at least 15 minutes with the exception of Nasdaq, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 which are 2 minutes delayed. |
| Findlaw.com Submit Your Legal Issues for Free If you need a lawyer, we're here to help. Westlaw Cases For $12 Use your credit card to access Westlaw and KeyCite. |