posted
From what I understand, the decision was basically only that this particular case was within the reasonable bounds of eminent domain. It won't stop a future court from deciding that some other instance is an abuse of the power. And an opposite decision would not stop a future court from deciding that some other instance is A-okay.
Or am I misinformed? (Which, by the way, is very possible. I haven't actually followed the story at all, really.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem is that they allowed it at all. If it's allowed in one place, it's allowed elsewhere unless the SCOTUS rules otherwise. Which will never happen.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Short version: Freeport wants to build a marina along Old Brazos River to serve luxury yachts. The property belongs to two seafood companies, and the city has been fighting with those companies about getting the land for some time now. The city hopes that by building a marina, hotels and restaurants will pour into the area to spur economic development in a city that has little businesses in its jurisdiction. In short, it's kicking out two businesses that contribute heavily to their commercial taxes in favor of what could end up being a pipe dream. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of New London, Freeport is going ahead with preparing the legal documents necessary to seize the property.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I've been following this locally: a developer recently tried to strongarm a local business owner in Hollywood FL by telling him that if he did not sell, they'd just have the city sell his land to them at a cheaper price.
Gee, this family only provides a building from which several small businesses and their employees work out of....people with no where else to operate their business from. What's that compared to a huge condo development (and the inevitable campaign contributions the developers are likely to give).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"The problem is that they allowed it at all. If it's allowed in one place, it's allowed elsewhere unless the SCOTUS rules otherwise. Which will never happen."
Erm... It was already allowed. It's been allowed for a couple hundred years now. As Simon alluded to, the Constitution provides for eminent domain as long as "just compensation" is provided. There was never any chance that the court would declare eminent domain to be wrong. It was just a question of whether New London was crossing the line.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The constitution implicitly allows the government to force you to sell your land for public use. The Supreme Court has effectively expanded the definition of "public use" to mean that the government can force you to sell your property to anyone they please. I don't think anyone argues that this is what the amendment in question was actually intended to mean, do they?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Snark aside, it's easy to construct an argument wherein it is in the public good for Company X to put down a critical piece of infrastructure, whether its economic, some utility, or so on. Say, if everyone needed a zombie defense wall where your house was, I'm not sure I see the distinction between the government taking the land to build one itself and taking it to sell to Zombie Defense Contractors, Ltd.
I can't be bothered to read the actual decision and dissenting opinions (thus putting me in good company with the majority of commentators and pundits, I imagine), but I think any problems thus described with the law are with either the very concept of eminent domain or with the methodology used to determine public use. But we're well convinced, here in the U.S., at least institutionally, that the private sector can constitute a public good.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Snark aside, it's easy to construct an argument wherein it is in the public good for Company X to put down a critical piece of infrastructure, whether its economic, some utility, or so on. Say, if everyone needed a zombie defense wall where your house was, I'm not sure I see the distinction between the government taking the land to build one itself and taking it to sell to Zombie Defense Contractors, Ltd.
But this is exactly what's not happening here. The court decision is allowing the City of New London to seize the property under eminent domain then sell it to a private developer to build an office park, research centers, a resort hotel, retail space, and a conference center. Most of that is not going to be public use of the land unlike if it had been seized for a highway, park, or zombie defense barricade. That's the problem with the court's decision; it says any pipe dream of a boost in economic activity can be considered "for public use" and thus allowable under eminent domain.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm well aware of the quibbles of legal language, but we can reconstruct the argument using the second phrase, if we want. All I'm saying is that we already have agreed, in general, that big profits are good and trump many other concerns. This doesn't seem like a revolutionary decision to me, in other words, or a radical reinterpretation.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, we can't go back and say "for the public good" instead of "for the public use". They mean completely different things. "Public good" means society benefits from it. "Public use" means society can use it. They do not mean the same thing. A hotel and conference center, an office park, a research center, these things are not for the public use. A highway, a rail line, a utility easement, these are things for the public use.
And no one's proven at all that any of these land grab for private economic development is going to pay off at all. How many stadiums have been built in the past several years on promises of economic riches and urban revitalization? How many have fulfilled their promises? Look at Houston. We were promised redevelopment and economic revivals on the eastern side of downtown thanks to Toyota Center, Enron Field, Hilton of the Americas Hotel, and other crackpot schemes. That side of town is still a wasteland, and no we have yet another large hotel that barely make 50% occupancy. The promises are empty.
Private developers and municipal governments can do the hula all night long to their economic forecasts, and they have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not they'll hit success or wind up with a boondoggle. Caught in the middle between developers and city official seeing dollars signs are these having their homes snatched away from them for developments that they won't have access to. Look at Freepot with the article I linked above. The city has very few businesses in its jurisdiction that it can tax; these two companies make up a good amount of that tax revenue. Now Freeport is essentially kicking them out to build a marina for luxury yacht owners who may not have a need for yet another berthing place along the Texas gulf coast and pray to God that the hotels and restaurants come in and that they'll score big with use. If they succeed, good for them. If they don't, Freeport no only has a tax revenue shortfall after yanking the land out of two large companies, but it has an $8 million dollar marina sitting unused and more business failures in anything that decides to try and capitalize on the marina's promised benefits. Considering the reputation that Texas cities have for spurring economic development, this is likely going to be a disaster.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Upon taking a shower, I further contemplated the actual text of the amendment in question. I have revised my opinion. The constitution says that if property is taken for public use, just compensation must be provided. It says nothing else on the issue, which would seem to mean that property CAN be taken for private use, and furthermore, this can be done WITHOUT just compensation!
Of course, that's a complete rape of the spirit of the law. Did I miss something somewhere that would prevent this? Please tell me I did.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'll grant that I was a little loose with my language, Siegfried, but the public can get plenty of use out of a fancy new marina by a.) paying to use it as individuals b.) collecting taxes from it.
I'm not exactly defending this decision, you know. I'm just saying the problem isn't something the court has suddenly invented.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
