Supreme Court Ruling on Emminent Domain

OmahaBen · Post by **OmahaBen** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:47 pm

Yikes, the slippery slope on this one is awful.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that governments and municipalities can use emminent domain for private uses (such as a new walmart) provided that the new use provides an economic benefit to the community.

This is an absolutely god awful decision. It's bad enough when emminent domain is used for a new school or roads or whatever. But forcing people to sell so a private venture can take over the land is awful.

June 23, 2005 - the day private property rights died in the USA.

lonnie · Post by **lonnie** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:04 pm

OmahaBen wrote:Yikes, the slippery slope on this one is awful.

The liberal justices that voted to take away our property rights are:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer

Take note.

Raraavis · Post by **Raraavis** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:37 pm

So if I have a friend on the City Council, I can come to him with my plan to fix up your house.
Since my improvements would raise the property value of the home and therefor the property taxes, giving me the home serves a public good.
So the city can kick you out of your home, paying you what they determine is market value, and sell or give your house to me.

So much for the 5th Amendment.

Asten · Post by **Asten** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:42 pm

lonnie wrote:
OmahaBen wrote:Yikes, the slippery slope on this one is awful.
The liberal justices that voted to take away our property rights are:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer

Take note.

Bastards, every one.

This is the kind of |expletive| they pull in Beijing (and other places in China). We've just lowered ourselves to their level.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:50 pm

Are you kidding? They don't even stop to contemplate whether it's right or wrong in Beijing.

Hey Big E! ... <insert reality check here>

GoWest · Post by **GoWest** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:27 pm

lonnie wrote:
OmahaBen wrote:Yikes, the slippery slope on this one is awful.
The liberal justices that voted to take away our property rights are:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer

Take note.

Anthony Kennedy is not a liberal justice, take note.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:28 pm

How many of these justices were appointed by 'liberal' administrations?

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:49 pm

Anybody care to speculate what this could mean for the businesses as 72nd and Dodge in the years to come?

Post by **Brad** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:42 pm

Anybody care to speculate what this could mean for the businesses as 72nd and Dodge in the years to come?

I think this applies to some that ownes an eyesore in the middle of town. Like this, say that Joe Retard Mother F. owns the vacent TRAVEL INN and he dosn't want to sell it just to spice the mayor, we will use fahey for exapmle, well along somes Days Inn and they want to put a hotel on that property, now the law becomes a good thing.

They are not going to come take your house just because someone wants to build a better one on your land.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:51 pm

<<<<
Like this, say that Joe Retard Mother F. owns the vacent TRAVEL INN
>>>>

That's hard to argue against. I would love to make it easier for people/entities/governments to knock down and redevelop crappy areas/buildings. But just keep in mind... 20 years ago Jobbers' Canyon was considered crappy enough to turn into a mini-mall.

Heck, ask the people that used to live on the Southeast corner of 132nd and Dodge about imminent domain. (Coyote might be able to back me up on this one.) These are (today) $400K homes - on the low end. Today, there's a freakin' gas station, Lexus dealership, frontage road and one more lane of 132nd street. Unfortunately, there's $3 million dollars LESS worth of homes along that half mile stretch. But hey... at least we can get our SUVs onto east bound Dodge 47 seconds quicker.

-Big E

Raraavis · Post by **Raraavis** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:53 am

Brad wrote:I think this applies to some that ownes an eyesore in the middle of town. Like this, say that Joe Retard Mother F. owns the vacent TRAVEL INN and he dosn't want to sell it just to spice the mayor, we will use fahey for exapmle, well along somes Days Inn and they want to put a hotel on that property, now the law becomes a good thing.

They are not going to come take your house just because someone wants to build a better one on your land.

Using your example, if you run your business in a way that annoys a politician. He can shut you down and replace you with a business providing the exact same service simply because he likes them better. This is a good thing?

Why are you so sure they won't take your home? As of today you have no constitutional right to hold on to your private property. Maybe Hearthstone or Celebrity wants to bulldoze your neighborhood and fill it with their new McHomes. They have the money and political influence and you don't. You have no right to stop them.

POTUS · Post by **POTUS** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:28 am

Some things to consider about imminent domain (you should read up on the town in Connecticut that this case was about, too):

1) The govt is not going to just swoop in on anyone and develop your land. Any domain taking will of course be fronted with months of debate, protests, boycotts, elections, and controversy. Don't expect cranes at the old Travel Inn next week.

2) The areas and buildings most likely to succumb to developer pressure to use imminent domain are the areas that are hurting the city, not breaking even. As horrible as the Travel Inn is, it's not hurting the city at this point. In fact Omaha has very few places that could be considered for use under this ruling.

3) There has to be a developer. Sure we have developers sitting around waiting to build Cabelas, (an amusement park?), restaurants, hotels, single-residence houses, but none of them are trying really hard to get the lot currently occupied by Travel Inn. There is too much space available in this town to be used up before any of our metro governments start kicking people off their land.

4) It's also a matter of compensation. Kicking people off means compensation. Those residents of the CT town are being offered fair market value of their homes. Same thing would happen here.

5) This is not a law. Anything the Supreme Court hands down is called a "decision". The first lawsuit that tries imminent domain that goes to the Supreme Court can overturn this decision. And I'm sure if a case does originate in Nebraska, it would stop at the state Supreme Court because we just have too much land available.

6) And the kicker: any developer has to provide the investment. The ciy isn't going to come in and build a new strip mall on top of an ugly trailer park (ie: 63rd and Center). The developer has to not only front his own resources, but he must prove that his development is an improvement that is worty of taking a |expletive| on people's personal property rights.

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:30 am

I can not believe this passed. I can understand some public uses "for public good" but even that sometimes became cloudy. Now, it will be private uses (big business) for the public good? (without even the need for blighted designation) - SCARY!

Nice dissenting argument by Justice O'Connor.

Concurring votes for the record (not all liberals!!!):
John Paul Stevens (Ford)
Anthony Kennedy (Reagan)
David H. Souter (Bush)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton)
Stephen G. Breyer (Clinton)

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:32 am

Do you think Mayor Seng is going "DOH" about 48th & O right now? Heh..

I hope the first court case gets this ruling thrown out. "For public good" is kind of like saying "for your safety". Its not a real reason, but now its a legally justifiably one.

FatGuy · Post by **FatGuy** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:06 pm

As of today you have no constitutional right to hold on to your private property.

"A fair process is required (notice and hearing) for a government agency to individually take a person's "life, liberty, or property." "Property" includes more than personal belongings and realty, but an abstract need or desire for a benefit is not enough. There must be a legitimate claim or "entitlement" to benefit under state or federal law. Example of property interests include continued attendance at public school., welfare benefits, and governement employment." (cited; Conviser on property law)

This is a matter of procedural due process. We should ask what process should be given to the to the deprivation of the property interest for the individual.

DMRyan · Post by **DMRyan** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:33 pm

Finn brought up a good point. Eminment domain for the purposes of economic development has been going on for a long time, many just choose not to fight it in court. The difference is it can now be used in areas that aren't designated as having "slum and blight" which had to be the case previously.

Eminent domain is usually the last option a city wants to use obtain property. It's costly, controversial, and highly political. Voluntary acquistion with due compensation is always the route the city would prefer to take. I think governments will keep this in mind and be choosy about who's property they'll be taking for the purposes of economic development.

I have a feeling we'll hearing about plenty of court battles coming up.

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:38 pm

DMRyan wrote:

'I think governments will keep this in mind and be choosy about who's property they'll be taking for the purposes of economic development.'..

We can certainly HOPE this is the case..If not..

Yikes!..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:46 pm

Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?

Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fo ... tm?cnn=yes

DMRyan · Post by **DMRyan** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:08 pm

Just what we needed. More incentives for Wal-Mart to advance "economic development" in our communities.

**
The problem before this ruling is that there is a pretty fine line of what the true definition of "slum and blight" really was. Slum and blight could be defined as a rural area on the fringe of the city with a couple less than stellar houses and no jobs. Slum and blight could be a couple of 1970's urban renewal businesses that have seen better days. Although I'm just a lowly planner and not an attorney, I can't see too many things changing with this new ruling. Seriously, the kind of thing discussed in this court case has gone on for a long time now, it's just that an organization with the time and resources to attempt to fight eminent domain got to hear their case heard by the high court. If you don't believe me, I'll bring up two examples that hit close to home, and just happen to be the examples that I mentioned above. Downtown KC and their new arena/entertainment district, and Jordan Creek Town Center in Des Moines.

Post by **Brad** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:43 pm

I can think of three uses of eniment domain for private business here is Nebraska, One UP had the city buy out and tear down the old strip of buildings where the new UP building is. In Hastings UP had to use eniment domain to build new tracks around town. Finally Con Agra/Jobbers Cannyon. All three private projects.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm

F! the man!

Post by **Brad** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:06 am

Eminent domain ruling concerns farmers
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1638&u_sid=1444892

Farmers who work the soil near cities and towns face loss of their land, just like residential landowners, if they stand in the way of privately owned projects that could benefit those municipalities.

Post by **Brad** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:17 am

posted in two places because it is about 2 different threads.
Supreme Court Decision Affects Omaha Businesses

http://www.kptm.com/news/local/1623227.html

Some downtown business owners have some big concerns today.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday local governments can seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development. For owners in the north downtown area, it's a ruling to which they're paying close attention

Raraavis · Post by **Raraavis** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:52 am

In the case that was before the SCOTUS the only public good the city sited was increased tax revenue for the city. That can be used to justify any development that creates sales tax or increases property values.

Omaha Forums