Another of a thousand small cuts...
Jun. 23rd, 2005 08:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpThe Supreme Court today basically cleared the way for the wealthy to use government power to bludgeon lesser property owners into submission by deciding that the taking of private property for private development is a legitimate implementation of the power of eminent domain, even when said property is not blighted.
The time was that governments could only seize property for projects with a clear public use - roads and schools, for example - which was later expanded to include redevelopment of so-called "blighted areas." Eventually, some jurisdictions began to condemn property that didn't need revitalization, and hand it over to developers for the construction of malls and hotel complexes. That's what got this case to the SCOTUS: ordinary citizens resenting the condemnation of their homes to make room for an office complex.
As a result of today's decision, it is now the "law of the land" that, if a developer can convince your local government officials that, say, building an office complex on the site currently occupied by your home or business will provide improved benefits to the community (e.g., more jobs, greater tax revenue), then said officials can move to confiscate your property for such development.
Personally, I'd have thought the opposite conclusion, supporting private property rights, would have been a no-brainer, because frankly, there's not a property in the country that couldn't be developed somehow to make it more "beneficial" to the community in terms of economic impact. And yet, somehow I get the feeling that only the owners of small businesses and not terribly affluent owners of choice property will be targeted by this decision.
The next logical step for developers (if it hasn't happened yet) is to bypass approaching property owners with an offer to buy and to go directly to local officials and pitch the benefits of condemning the coveted property and giving it to the developer for improvement.
Apropos of this, it turns out there is an eminent domain story in my family.
I am told my grandparents bought a few acres in New Jersey in the late 40s with the idea of retiring there, but my grandfather died before that dream could be realized and my grandmother simply willed the property to my parents, who - about 20 years later - had the acreage taken under eminent domain for some water district project in what by that time had become an affluent neighborhood. The "fair and equitable" price paid by the state for the property didn't even cover the taxes paid over the years on the property.
So, it's turning into a real disastrous year for SCOTUS decisions. Not only does Commerce Clause regulation extend to non-economic activity (which is going to turn around and bite today's proponents in the butt someday), but eminent domain really is a legitimate avenue for implementing what amounts to a planned economy. Ye gods.
Cheers...
P.S. If you think this is all some kind of grand Bush conspiracy, check out which justices voted on which side of the question.
The time was that governments could only seize property for projects with a clear public use - roads and schools, for example - which was later expanded to include redevelopment of so-called "blighted areas." Eventually, some jurisdictions began to condemn property that didn't need revitalization, and hand it over to developers for the construction of malls and hotel complexes. That's what got this case to the SCOTUS: ordinary citizens resenting the condemnation of their homes to make room for an office complex.
As a result of today's decision, it is now the "law of the land" that, if a developer can convince your local government officials that, say, building an office complex on the site currently occupied by your home or business will provide improved benefits to the community (e.g., more jobs, greater tax revenue), then said officials can move to confiscate your property for such development.
Personally, I'd have thought the opposite conclusion, supporting private property rights, would have been a no-brainer, because frankly, there's not a property in the country that couldn't be developed somehow to make it more "beneficial" to the community in terms of economic impact. And yet, somehow I get the feeling that only the owners of small businesses and not terribly affluent owners of choice property will be targeted by this decision.
The next logical step for developers (if it hasn't happened yet) is to bypass approaching property owners with an offer to buy and to go directly to local officials and pitch the benefits of condemning the coveted property and giving it to the developer for improvement.
Apropos of this, it turns out there is an eminent domain story in my family.
I am told my grandparents bought a few acres in New Jersey in the late 40s with the idea of retiring there, but my grandfather died before that dream could be realized and my grandmother simply willed the property to my parents, who - about 20 years later - had the acreage taken under eminent domain for some water district project in what by that time had become an affluent neighborhood. The "fair and equitable" price paid by the state for the property didn't even cover the taxes paid over the years on the property.
So, it's turning into a real disastrous year for SCOTUS decisions. Not only does Commerce Clause regulation extend to non-economic activity (which is going to turn around and bite today's proponents in the butt someday), but eminent domain really is a legitimate avenue for implementing what amounts to a planned economy. Ye gods.
Cheers...
P.S. If you think this is all some kind of grand Bush conspiracy, check out which justices voted on which side of the question.
