6/23 I blame all you liberals for this Eminent Domain fuckup. Hang your
heads in shame. -- ilyas
\_ I thought all liberals would think this decision was stupid and
wrong since I am a liberal and that's what I think. The motd has
proven me wrong, and I do indeed hang my head in shame for my
fellow liberals.
\_ It's not liberals, ilyas, it's corrupt and stupid government, aided
by lack of transparency and control. Happens on both sides of the
spectrum. -John
\_ fuck you. there is nothing on the liberal docket to justify
Eminent Domain.
\_ Finally, we actually found an issue on the motd where the far-right,
far-left, moderate liberals and moderate conservatives all agree.
Leave it to you to turn that into a anti-liberal flame war.
\_ What flame war? Are we reading the same motd? You think
_this_ is a flame war? And as for everyone agreeing, apparently
the more 'liberal' justices didn't agree. I mean my original
comment was sort of tongue-in-cheek, but as the russian proverb
goes, in every joke there's a grain of a joke. -- ilyas
\_ Uh, why? How exactly would your typical liberal favor eminent
domain for a private developer? Most liberals I know don't even
favor eminent domain for storm drains. The politics of redevelop-
ment don't fall along the lines you might imagine. I will admit that
the voting over the recent SC case mystifies me. -- ulysses
\_ We had a rather heated discussion about this just now on irc.
My view is that liberals favor more conventional uses of ED,
while it tends to be a 'hot button' issue for conservatives.
Furthermore, liberals in my view tend to favor 'public good' at
the expense of 'private property' if these come in conflict.
Also, you can take the private developer out of the equation here,
the government can take full initiative here (or not even involve
a business at all). -- ilyas
\_ I think this view is a rather ingenuous application of a
stereotype. I know very very few liberals that are
comfortable with this development, or would have actively
campaigned for it. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but no
less so than your blanket assertion about 'all liberals
are bad, etc'.
\_ I don't think liberals are 'bad,' nor have I asserted this
as you claim. I happen to disagree with their moral
framework though. Some of them are fine people, really.
They are well behaved in public and everything.
Some of my best friends are liberals! -- ilyas
\_ Okay, my bad -- that was phrased very poorly...
But I think you're confusing the clout of big
business and their poilitcal alliances with rabid
Berkeley students fresh from HS.
business and their politcal alliances with rabid
Berkeley students fresh from HS. While the liberals
have some big philosophical weaknesses, I don't think
it's reasonable to blame them for the actions and power
of big wealthy, powerful, connected business interests.
it's reasonable to blame them for the actions of big,
wealthy, powerful, connected business interests. As
someone points out below, the simplification of this
issue into liberal vs conservative is, at best, naive
and at worst, a smoke screen to distract the people
from the not-very-subtle shift of power.
\_ This has nothing to do with big, powerful, connected
business interests. This is the supreme court
approving this and all future money grabs by the
government through increased tax revenue at the
expense of individuals.
Getting 'business interests' involved is a red
herring. Though they may be involved, they are not
necessary for application of ED, especially this
shiny expanded "I am gonna kick your ass" ED.
I hope you don't think the actions of the scotus
were the direct result of 'big business' interference.
You can't buy off the scotus that easily. They are
old and set for life. -- ilyas
\_ Ok I'll bite. What are the "big philosophical
weaknesses"?
\_ ^liberals^homosexuals
\_ I think it's enough for all the "liberal" SCOTUS judges to
have voted for expanding ED powers, and all the pricks
to have voted the other way, I mean, conservative judges.
\_ That too. I was sort of trying to explain why scotus voted
as it did. Frankly there are plenty of reasons to dislike
this ruling for almost every point of the politial
spectrum except perhaps some full-on hivemind
utilitarian/authoritarian. -- ilyas
\_ did you read the full opinion below? It explains why
the majority voted as it did. Additionally, Kennedy's
op. also illustrates it. For the record, I'm liberal,
and I think I'm hesitantly in favor of the ruling. But,
it's very borderline. I am not comfortable with what they
did to Kelo, nor the other home-owners. I'm also not
comfortable with the future resale of the land to Pfizer.
However, I am sympathetic to the logic of the ruling,
given current interpretation of law. You're right about
the sociological generalization of liberals favoring
"public good" over "private property," and if it weren't
for my philosophical leanings towards principle, I would
have no problem with this ruling. However, there's another
generalization about liberal principles that should be
noted: a favoring of individuals' privacy and rights over
that of corporations. These two liberal principles are
at odds in the Kelo case, which is why I'm very borderline
in my support for it. I would be amenable to an amendment
limiting eminent domain to cases like Hawaii or extreme
blight. But current law supports "economic development."
-nivra
\_ Out of curiousity, assume there was no private business
involvement at all. The gvt bulldozed over some
buildings to build a government business, like a post
office or a lottery. What would your feelings be
in this scenario? -- ilyas
\_ I'll be your token liberal. Neither of those qualify
as far as my "feelings" go. An eminent domain seizure
should serve a function beyond simply grabbing land
for a public (or private) project. Storm drains and
transportation corridors are a good example since
both are large scale systems that require continuity.
Landowners are rarely willing or able to properly
maintain drainage corridors they happen to own, for
instance, which can cause widespread flood damage.
The funny thing is, as I said, there is little
support for such an eminent domain act while
apparently grabbing land to build a gamepark is OK.
Whatever I might "feel" about particular eminent
domain applications has little bearing on how to
interpret the eminent domains clause. -- ulysses
\_ I agree with the last sentiment, as well. The law
and my perceived interpretation of it(favoring the
majority) are two different things. I feel like
Kelo was treated unfairly, but as the law cur-
rently stands, I support the majority interpreta-
tion. -nivra
\_ the usage of eminent domain needs to be demonstrated
as necessary. For instance, in Berman v. Parker,
the dept. store wasn't blighted, but was part of the
blighted community fixed to undergo wholesale
redevelopment. In this case, eminent domain
condemnation of the dept store can be seen as a
necessary portion of the "public good" over "private
property" as it is necessary to implement the grand
plan. In your example, the questions that need to
be asked are: 1) why this location? 2) why a post
office? 3) what is the public use/good of the
proposed development? 4) are there any alternatives.
For something as small as a post-office, I think the
answers will reveal that there are other options
available than eminent domain condemnation of an
un-blighted property. I can't off-the-top-of-my-head
imagine a scenario where that wouldn't be the
conclusion. Btw, this is also the prevailing
reasoning behind why Kelo v. New London makes sense.
-nivra
\_ stupid troll. The life of a few can and should be sacraficed for
the benefit of the mass. If you can tear down a few insignificant
houses for a huge Walmart that everyone can benefit from, then
you've done a great service for the community. Eminent domain is
a good thing.
\_ Don't blame me. I'm a moderate! -moderate
(Psst. So is Hillary. Pass it on.)
\_ well you can also blame Bush I and John Sununu, in part anyways.
\_ I agree this time around, the liberals have fucked it up. -eric
\_ Who is on the side of Wal-Mart? Hint: it ain't the "liberals."
This is classic big business conservatism, where government
dances the tune sung by corporations. Real liberals have been
fighting this drift for at least a generation.
http://www.corporateering.org
Get the book and read it. It is interesting stuff. -ausman |
http://csua.com/feed/