for you law-knowin' types

[rufnek05]

eminet domain. doesn't the land have to be used for public use? that's about all i remember from polly sci class. so how does an athletic village benefit the public and not one party (jimmy jones. i mean pickens)?

[Hatfield]

because lately the judges have been giving the green light to private corps. as well....about a year ago bunch of folks on the eastern seaboard had to give up their homes for a strip mall. whoo hoo.

[Taxman71]

Go read the Kilo decision. Basically, the threat is that private enterprise can take non-property tax generating land (i.e.-ag land, church land (exempt org.)) under the premise that it will generate big bucks in property taxes for a quasi-public use.

[StuIsTheMan]

We have been battling a land use measure for a few years now here in Oregon. One that they tried to get by us without a vote. Nixed that and finally got to vote on it...Voted it down...they tweaked it and passed it through congress and did it anyway...now we are voting on it AGAIN!
The Urban Growth Boundaries are a real issue here in Portland. And the Politicians are really pushing the limits.
We also have this "Council" called Metro. They can do just about anything in the Portland metro area w/o a vote by the public. They are the ones pushing this so hard.
I hate Politics! Just let us vote and deal with the outcome...THAT IS WHY WE VOTE! right?:pop:

[jk the sooner fan]

isnt it "public good" rather than public use?

[OUinFLA]

A couple of older retirement villages got slammed by "public good" down here in Florida, when a condo developer said he could generate a few million more a year in county taxes than the existing moble home parks. County commisioners love hearing this kind of ****.

[OUHOMER]

UMM, maybe that would have been a great question on the YOUTUBE debate.

What would you do to protect property rights

[Taxman71]

A couple of older retirement villages got slammed by "public good" down here in Florida, when a condo developer said he could generate a few million more a year in county taxes than the existing moble home parks. County commisioners love hearing this kind of ****.

Not to mention that condo dwellers generally require less police involvement and sport much fewer mullets than those in mobile home parks...NTTAWWT.

[StuIsTheMan]

UMM, maybe that would have been a great question on the YOUTUBE debate.

What would you do to protect property rights

they would not have an answer...not on their agenda me thinks.
:pop:

[OUinFLA]

Not to mention that condo dwellers generally require less police involvement and sport much fewer mullets than those in mobile home parks...NTTAWWT.


heh,
less county guberment expenses.

[mikeelikee]

More and more of our rights are being whittled away. You ain't seen nuthin' regarding eminent domain until the NAFTA Superhighway gets going. The right-of-way is reportedly going to be four football fields wide! :(

[47straight]

Ah yes, Kilo. Thank your buddy O'Connor.

[Taxman71]

More and more of our rights are being whittled away. You ain't seen nuthin' regarding eminent domain until the NAFTA Superhighway gets going. The right-of-way is reportedly going to be four football fields wide! :(

Or stated another way, it has to be that wide for the "family farm land" owned by the politicians to be frontage on both sides.

[Okla-homey]

Ah yes, Kilo. Thank your buddy O'Connor.

Don't be hatin' on Sandra.

This stuff got rolling in the early 1950's. In Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), the Supreme Court defined the clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The court ruled that private property (a crappy area in DC) could be taken for a public purpose if the owners were paid a fair price for the property. Berman opened the door for later cases ruling that condemnation of property needing economic improvement is a public purpose and therefore constitutional. Thus, without Berman in 1954, we wouldn't have had Midkiff in 1984 or the reviled Kelo.

[Ike]

Don't be hatin' on Sandra.

This stuff got rolling in the early 1950's. In Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), the Supreme Court defined the clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The court ruled that private property (a crappy area in DC) could be taken for a public purpose if the owners were paid a fair price for the property. Berman opened the door for later cases ruling that condemnation of property needing economic improvement is a public purpose and therefore constitutional. Thus, without Berman in 1954, we wouldn't have had Midkiff in 1984 or the reviled Kelo.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the majority opinion in Kelo basically say that "this is the way the law reads", and then note that congress has the authority to change it...

In other words, I seem to remember the court basically saying "yes, we know this ruling suck ***, but our hands are a bit tied by the law"

If I'm correct, maybe there are reasons to have activist judges :)

[Okla-homey]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the majority opinion in Kelo basically say that "this is the way the law reads", and then note that congress has the authority to change it...

In other words, I seem to remember the court basically saying "yes, we know this ruling suck ***, but our hands are a bit tied by the law"

If I'm correct, maybe there are reasons to have activist judges :)

I haven't read the case in a while, but your characterization of how it's the Court's job to interpret the Constitution is generally accurate. They are also mindful of the work of their judicial forebears, which is at the essence of the notion of stare decisis. Stare decisis is a "good thing" since it is desireable for society to be able to expect a Court to rule consistently with earlier decisions on a similar set of facts or the same legal issue. Without stare decisis, every case would be a crap shoot.

That said, if the peeps don't like the Court's interpretation of the Constitution in a given case, they are free to amend said document to foreclose any such "unpopular" interpretation in the future.

Moreover, states are free to enact laws which are more restrictive of state and local government's authority to use eminent domain powers. Many have.

[47straight]

I haven't read the case in a while, but your characterization of how it's the Court's job to interpret the Constitution is generally accurate. They are also mindful of the work of their judicial forebears, which is at the essence of the notion of stare decisis. Stare decisis is a "good thing" since it is desireable for society to be able to expect a Court to rule consistently with earlier decisions on a similar set of facts or the same legal issue. Without stare decisis, every case would be a crap shoot.

That said, if the peeps don't like the Court's interpretation of the Constitution in a given case, they are free to amend said document to foreclose any such "unpopular" interpretation in the future.

Moreover, states are free to enact laws which are more restrictive of state and local government's authority to use eminent domain powers. Many have.


My bad, upon further review, Sandy rolled her 20-sided balancing test die and came up with the right answer. Stevens, surprise surprise, was the jackass at the helm. He probably wrote the opinion hoping that it would be used to close churches, temples and synagogues.

Does your hero's position change your answer homey? ;)

[Okla-homey]

My bad, upon further review, Sandy rolled her 20-sided balancing test die and came up with the right answer. Stevens, surprise surprise, was the jackass at the helm. He probably wrote the opinion hoping that it would be used to close churches, temples and synagogues.

Does your hero's position change your answer homey? ;)

While I mightily admire Justice O'Conner, she is not my hero.

The position of Supreme Court hero in the mind of me is occupied by one Justice Antonin Scalia. There has never been a justice possessed of such ascerbic wit, common sense, and innate ability to cut through the vitriole, hyperbole and general bovine waste and in his own inimitable style...tell everyone they can just SUC IT!