(merged) Supreme Court OKs personal property seizures

[Ghost of]

I find it funny, Predicto, how you and chom support something you'd be condeming if the justice split had gone differently. Legalities and precedent notwithstanding.

Besides, using bad law as precedent is a mistake.

[Ghost of]

Remember the referendum in Maryland where a private developer(s) wanted land along the shore and the vote was whether to approve teh State's taking of the land for 'development?'

It was defeated 63-37 or something like that, but that it was EVEN ON THE BALLOT disturbed me.

[Ignatius J.]

Don't you guys think it's a little strange though that this is a federal court issue??

This isn't the federal government using eminent domain as written in the constituion. What is the jurisdiction of the court here?

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Don't you guys think it's a little strange though that this is a federal court issue??

This isn't the federal government using eminent domain as written in the constituion. What is the jurisdiction of the court here?

Again, read the case. It will answer all of your questions.

The case was appealed from the Supreme Court of Connecticut on a writ of certiorari. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction meaning they can hear claims that deal with both federal and state law. Thus, the original court, the Superior Court of Connecticut heard the case [but if could have been heard in federal court through federal question jurisdiction (26 USC 1331)]. Second, while the actor in question, the New London Development Commission, is not a federal or state body, it was acting on the authority of the city of New London and thus is considered for purposes of eminent domain to be a state actor. The 5th amendment was held to apply to state actors through the Fourteenth Amendment in Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897). Finally, the USSC has jurisdiction over all federal claims (with some limited exceptions) even though the cases may arise in state courts. That's why this case went through the Connecticut system and why the USSC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.

[luckydevil]

This is the type of the stuff that makes the republican party look more attractive.

Sigh

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Liberty

how can you read that, it is illegible when photoshop opens it up

try acrobat reader not photshop, it is a pdf not an image

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Remember the referendum in Maryland where a private developer(s) wanted land along the shore and the vote was whether to approve teh State's taking of the land for 'development?'

It was defeated 63-37 or something like that, but that it was EVEN ON THE BALLOT disturbed me.

Well then maybe people should pay attention to the yellow signs outside, as well as the mail the recieve that will let them know what is going on. All the local newspapers have stories on most of these issues. The problem is when people don't thin it impacts them they don't care, and most likely they never realized it does impact them to its to late.

Big business is not going to revive old and problematic areas, the communities and government do.

You might learn something when you put the channel on your local governments channel. As a homeowner you should be aware of this anyway, if you don't then why do you own land?

Last of all this is not a political issue. This isn't left vs right, this is what is best for the community.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I find it funny, Predicto, how you and chom support something you'd be condeming if the justice split had gone differently. Legalities and precedent notwithstanding.

Besides, using bad law as precedent is a mistake.

I never said I supported the decision. I'm not sure what I think about it yet, to be honest. All I was pointing out was that no one wants to discuss the actual opinion or the reality of the situation, they just want to yell their catchphrases ("out of control liberal judiciary!") and get on to the next thread.

[SkinsHokieFan]

So really, does any property hold any value at all anymore?

Say for example if a private commercial developer wanted to come to Falls Church Va, and build a new community of homes where I live, and this community included parks, public recreation and nicer homes.

Would I be forced to move out of my place? Would I just get what my house is worth as determined by a court? Who would determine if this new community is better then the current one?

If so where the hell do I go?

[Predicto]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

So really, does any property hold any value at all anymore?

Say for example if a private commercial developer wanted to come to Falls Church Va, and build a new community of homes where I live, and this community included parks, public recreation and nicer homes.

Would I be forced to move out of my place? Would I just get what my house is worth as determined by a court? Who would determine if this new community is better then the current one?

If so where the hell do I go?

Property has the same value it always did - you get paid for it if they take it away.

If a private developer can convince the Falls Church city council of the substantial net benefits of the plan, yes you yould have to move out.

Yes, you would get what your place is worth, fair market value. Courts are not known for being stingy on this.

The Falls Church city council would determine if the redevelopment is warranted.

You take the cash and you buy a new place.

Same as it ever was. People are acting like eminent domain was just created by this ruling.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Predicto

Property has the same value it always did - you get paid for it if they take it away.

If a private developer can convince the Falls Church city council of the substantial net benefits of the plan, yes you yould have to move out.

Yes, you would get what your place is worth, fair market value. Courts are not known for being stingy on this.

The Falls Church city council would determine if the redevelopment is warranted.

You take the cash and you buy a new place.

Same as it ever was. People are acting like eminent domain was just created by this ruling.

Are courts going to actually give you market value or appraised value?

There is a big difference there.

And yeah I have known about eminent domain for a while, and I think many people have less of an issue with say your property being taken away for a school or some real public good.

But if my home is taken away to build BIGGER HOMES so that a developer profits, well that is corporate welfare to the core.

And as you know predicto, how on earth am I going to be able to get a place comparable to what I own now?

Even at market value I am gonna be stepping down in terms of a home, that is the catch 22 of the real estate market now.

So I end up a net loser, because some corrupted, bought out, or just downright stupid people on the FC City Council deem a new development or a hotel more benificial to the community then my home.

[iheartskins]

Realitistically speaking, a plan like this would likely only work where the was a subtantiated pecuniary gain as a result of the condemnation and the town/area required the boost. If the area is prosperous, I doubt that a town or city development company is going to condemn valuable properties. Further things like this don't happen overnight, there are hearings, meetings, elections, etc.

[Larry]

Interesting perspective I just heard on this, from my local talk-radio show.

Caller announced that the Supreme Court just revealed their true Communist agenda.

The (conservative) host asked the caller how come this "Communist" Supreme Court "illegally" picked George Bush for President.

[stevenaa]

"Further things like this don't happen overnight, there are hearings, meetings, elections, etc."

That you'll be paying an attorney to attend to protect what you own.

This is such a communist idea. How about someone who owns a home in an area where the housing market is so crazy. They have a house the bought 15 years ago for 100k that's now worth 500k. They have over 400k in equity. They're forced out and given 500k for their home. Now to buy an equivelant home they have to spend the whole 500k. They just lost 400k. That is just absurd and anyone who subscribes to this WELFARE should be ashamed.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by stevenaa

"Further things like this don't happen overnight, there are hearings, meetings, elections, etc."

That you'll be paying an attorney to attend to protect what you own.

This is such a communist idea. How about someone who owns a home in an area where the housing market is so crazy. They have a house the bought 15 years ago for 100k that's now worth 500k. They have over 400k in equity. They're forced out and given 500k for their home. Now to buy an equivelant home they have to spend the whole 500k. They just lost 400k. That is just absurd and anyone who subscribes to this WELFARE should be ashamed.

Reread the first part of my post; it'd be the same thing that I'd write here.

[Jay Master Jay]

Well dont be surprise after they take someones home. He or she is ready to shot someone or blow something up. It seems like they are giving people reasons to take the law into their own hands. Asked yourself what would you do if they come and take your home from you?

[iheartskins]

I'm just curious, Jay Master Jay, did you read the opinion? If so, did you discern the legal standard?

I'm not advocating that it's right, but eminent domain is pretty far from what you think it to be at least as indicated in your post above. The State can't just come by your door and say, "We are buying your house and your real estate." There's due process involved and hearings, etc. The process may not always be fair, but there is always some process before something like this can happen.

[redman]

Given the way that the voting went, I figured I'd open the boobie hatch for a quick peek.

[redman]

Here are my objections to this in a nutshell:

1) the government taking (or more appropriately, forcing the sale of) private property simply because the government can make more money from it is abhorrent to me;

2) the government controls the eminent domain process and can find if it wants to that damn near anything constitutes "blight". Given that blight can now apply to any situation in which the government seeks to increase its revenue stream, the fox is truly guarding the hen house.

3) the average property owner is totally unfamiliar with eminent domain; the government and developers are pros at it;

4) "just compensation" under eminent domain does not recognize subjective value to people. It doesn't matter that your great-great-grandfather built your homestead with his bare hands. It doesn't matter that you, yourself planned to tear down your commercial buildings a year from now and rebuild something new there. You'll only get what the property is worth in an "arms length" transaction on the open market today.

5) The law as it is interpreted is tilting the playing field away from the average private citizen in favor of people with the wherewithall to develop real property profitably, which is to say a politically and economically powerful class of people. That's arse backwards.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by stevenaa

"Further things like this don't happen overnight, there are hearings, meetings, elections, etc."

That you'll be paying an attorney to attend to protect what you own.

This is such a communist idea. How about someone who owns a home in an area where the housing market is so crazy. They have a house the bought 15 years ago for 100k that's now worth 500k. They have over 400k in equity. They're forced out and given 500k for their home. Now to buy an equivelant home they have to spend the whole 500k. They just lost 400k. That is just absurd and anyone who subscribes to this WELFARE should be ashamed.

Huh?

Am I reading this wrong?

YOu buy a house for 100k. Now its worth 500k.

YOu get paid that.

You take the 500k and buy a different house.

YOu still have 400k equity.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

Are courts going to actually give you market value or appraised value?

There is a big difference there.

----------------------

And as you know predicto, how on earth am I going to be able to get a place comparable to what I own now?

Even at market value I am gonna be stepping down in terms of a home, that is the catch 22 of the real estate market now.

-----------------------------

So I end up a net loser, because some corrupted, bought out, or just downright stupid people on the FC City Council deem a new development or a hotel more benificial to the community then my home.

You get fair market value, so in theory, you get a place exactly comparable to what you own now, because you have exactly the amount to spend on a house that your current house is worth on the open market.

[aREDSKIN]

Geez I wonder if the address of the plaintiff was 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. would the liberal block (heads) have reasoned the same way .

Why fleece just private owners???

[iheartskins]

While I generally agree with you redman, I have a couple counterpoints that are partially contrarian and partially because I sort of believe the alternate view point...

Originally posted by redman

1) the government taking (or more appropriately, forcing the sale of) private property simply because the government can make more money from it is abhorrent to me;

I'd bet the Gov't would argue that while increased tax revenue is an important purpose (and part of the reasoning for allowing the new "public good" project to move forward), the reasoning for the eminent domain project has much more to do with improving the local economy and the livelihood of local residents than the marginal increase in tax income. Depending upon how cynical one's feeling, the perception of this argument would change a lot. This is to say nothing of the collateral matter of whether Gov't should be an actor in facilitating (or enforcing?) economic development.

2) the government controls the eminent domain process and can find if it wants to that damn near anything constitutes "blight". Given that blight can now apply to any situation in which the government seeks to increase its revenue stream, the fox is truly guarding the hen house.

Indeed, as bearrock suggested earlier in the thread, perhaps eminent domain decisions should be judged with intermediate scrutiny or a modified intermediate scrutiny standard. The Government is like this in nearly everything it regulates, the more power or discretion it can take on to itself, the more it will.

3) the average property owner is totally unfamiliar with eminent domain; the government and developers are pros at it;

As they say in criminal law and is applicable here, ignorance is no excuse.

4) "just compensation" under eminent domain does not recognize subjective value to people. It doesn't matter that your great-great-grandfather built your homestead with his bare hands. It doesn't matter that you, yourself planned to tear down your commercial buildings a year from now and rebuild something new there. You'll only get what the property is worth in an "arms length" transaction on the open market today.

A subjective test would be totally arbitrary not to mention the evidence concerns that would be implicated by a new subjective standard. How do you value a home that has been in a family for generations? Would there be some kind of premium per generation? There is no test that would pass the "arbitrary and capricious" or "an abuse of discretion" or "unsupported by substantial evidence" (if there is a full hearing) standard--thus FMV is the only way. I understand what you are saying, but there is no way that a court could reasonably value the subjective desire to hold on to real estate.

5) The law as it is interpreted is tilting the playing field away from the average private citizen in favor of people with the wherewithall to develop real property profitably, which is to say a politically and economically powerful class of people. That's arse backwards.

That I tend to agree with.

[heyholetsgogrant]

Originally posted by Predicto

Property has the same value it always did - you get paid for it if they take it away.

If a private developer can convince the Falls Church city council of the substantial net benefits of the plan, yes you yould have to move out.

Yes, you would get what your place is worth, fair market value. Courts are not known for being stingy on this.

The Falls Church city council would determine if the redevelopment is warranted.

You take the cash and you buy a new place.

Same as it ever was. People are acting like eminent domain was just created by this ruling.

Tell that to people who have been living in the same home for 30 years..

-grant

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I find it funny, Predicto, how you and chom support something you'd be condeming if the justice split had gone differently. Legalities and precedent notwithstanding.

Besides, using bad law as precedent is a mistake.

the court systems are not here to make the law, but rather to interperate the law. congress makes the laws, president approves, and supreme court interprets the legallity of it.