Support NeoGAF

[SatelliteOfLove]

It'll take concerted sob stories from alot of people thrown out of house and home for strip malls for this to get rescinded.

 

[Guileless]

I knew when I heard about this on the news last night I would get some great OT theater. And y'all didn't disappoint, what with the hysterical exaggerations, ignorance (reflexively blaming Republicans was a nice touch), and vows to leave the country.

The Court limited the decision to comprehensive redevelopment plans and stated it was not to be for the benefit of individual developers. Also, the states are free to enact more limitations on eminent domain as they see fit. I guarantee you that there will be a bunch of Republicans using this as a campaign issue in 2006, so feel free to vote for them if you are exercised enough to declare the country dead if this decision stands.

And, if you read the facts of the case, you would be hard pressed to agree with the landowners here on anything besides an abstract desire to limit the Takings clause. These are not good facts for them, which is why they lost a close case. I would have sided with the majority here.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Yeah, this is a liberal thing to do. Its the concept of taking away houses for the people. The fact that people jumped to the conservatives was hilarious but not shocking.

1980.

It came back in the 1990s. Thats how the US was able to have two years of balanced budgets. The Republicans at the time forced Clinton and the Libbies to submit to it. We were able to pay back $380 billion. Newt Gingrich is going to run in 2008 on the platform of the return to balanced budgets.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Newt Gingrich is going to run in 2008 on the platform of the return to balanced budgets.

Newt "Banging More Than The Gavel" Gingricg is going to make one hell of an insurgent candidate in 2008.

 

[Nerevar]

It came back in the 1990s. Thats how the US was able to have two years of balanced budgets. The Republicans at the time forced Clinton and the Libbies to submit to it. We were able to pay back $380 billion. Newt Gingrich is going to run in 2008 on the platform of the return to balanced budgets.

This little rah-rah, we're-so-great speech ignores the fact that spending is always more balanced when you have a split Congress and presidency (dem pres / rep. congress or vice versa), and it always spirals out of control when the presidency and congress are of the same party. The balanced budget of the 90's was simply a consequence of this rule. If the Republicans are so concerned with balanced budgets, how come we have the greatest budget defecit of all time right now?

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

If the Republicans are so concerned with balanced budgets, how come we have the greatest budget defecit of all time right now

The reason is they'd rather worry about the Bible and stupid shit like Terri Schaivo than the balanced budget. That money needs to get paid off ASAP but nobody wants to worry about that.

A shame since we always hear about these new government programs that help the kids spending as much money as they want so the kids grow up and have to be saddled with a debt that will probably be $20-30 trillion before anyone wants to mess with it.

I'm not a Republican either by the way. I'm just anti-moron and blaming it automatically on the Conservatives without the facts was a moron thing to do.

 

[Nerevar]

I'm not a Republican either by the way. I'm just anti-moron and blaming it automatically on the Conservatives without the facts was a moron thing to do.

ah, I mistook the "we" for "Republicans", not "Americans".

Anyways, I think that rule needs to get hammered into people's heads. When 1 party controls both branches of government for financial planning, we get a big budgetary mess. I feel that a Republican Congress and a Democratic pres (you tend to get more "fiscal" republicans in Congress than the whackjobs in the executive branch) is always the best for the country, so I hope that's what happens come next election.

 

[tedtropy]

Since the thread I made about this kinda' fell flat and since it's related to this topic...

City of Freeport uses eminent domain to steal citizen property for a private marina

I heard about this story listening to Glen Beck on my drive to work and was simply amazed. I know the government taking land at a whim is nothing new, but this is absurd...

http://www.scandalinfreeport.com/learn1.html

Worst still, they're using tax-payer dollars to front the guy $6 million to set the thing up and sue the citizens that protest. Money he doesn't even have to pay back if what he develops isn't profitable.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

The fact that we are fighting a war in Iraq, continuing operations in Afganistan, and "waging a war on terror" is the major reason we have such a large budget deficit. But, that is changing. The deficit has become a lot more of an issue recently and they (Congress and The President, Dems and Repubs) are on track to get things balanced again, barring any more unseen conflicts.

The other issues, like Terri Schiavo and "the Bible" are not the reasons there is such a huge deficit. Those are political issues pulled out for people to making public stands on issues to get great PR and photo-ops. Saying they are the problem is kind of silly.

Edited to make more sense!

 

[Nerevar]

The fact that we are fighting a war in Iraq, continuing operations in Afganistan, and "waging a war on terror" is the major reason we don't have such a large budget deficit. But, that is changing. The deficit has become a lot more of an issue recently and they (Congress and The President, Dems and Repubs) are on track to get things balanced again, barring any more unseen conflicts.

The other issues, like Terri Schiavo and "the Bible" are not the reasons there is such a huge deficit. Those are political issues pulled out for people to making public stands on issues to get great PR and photo-ops. Saying they are the problem is kind of silly.

as long as the legislative and executive branch are under the control of the same party (be it Republican or Democrat), we will have budgetary problems. This has held true pretty much since WWII, I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

as long as the legislative and executive branch are under the control of the same party (be it Republican or Democrat), we will have budgetary problems. This has held true pretty much since WWII, I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

I don't disagree with you, but fighting an expensive war isn't helping matters at all, and pointing to photo-op issues such as Terri Schiavo as the cause, is still stupid.

 

[ronito]

I knew when I heard about this on the news last night I would get some great OT theater. And y'all didn't disappoint, what with the hysterical exaggerations, ignorance (reflexively blaming Republicans was a nice touch), and vows to leave the country.

The Court limited the decision to comprehensive redevelopment plans and stated it was not to be for the benefit of individual developers. Also, the states are free to enact more limitations on eminent domain as they see fit. I guarantee you that there will be a bunch of Republicans using this as a campaign issue in 2006, so feel free to vote for them if you are exercised enough to declare the country dead if this decision stands.

And, if you read the facts of the case, you would be hard pressed to agree with the landowners here on anything besides an abstract desire to limit the Takings clause. These are not good facts for them, which is why they lost a close case. I would have sided with the majority here.

Drama isn't just here my friend it's everywhere. All my conversations at work and after work were about this, and I didn't start any of them. People are indeed very, very, ticked off, both pubs and dems. You, in fact, are the first person I've seen that actually supports this decision.

That being said you do have a point. And I can tell you that if the dems support this in 2006 I for one will not be voting their way. That's not to say I'll go to the republican by default, but this is one of those issues that I feel (regardless how small) is essential to what makes America great.

 

[Hitokage]

This little rah-rah, we're-so-great speech ignores the fact that spending is always more balanced when you have a split Congress and presidency (dem pres / rep. congress or vice versa), and it always spirals out of control when the presidency and congress are of the same party. The balanced budget of the 90's was simply a consequence of this rule. If the Republicans are so concerned with balanced budgets, how come we have the greatest budget defecit of all time right now?

That's an oversimplistic way of looking at the issue, not to mention is contradicted by pretty much all of the 80s. Sorry, whether or not the executive and legislative are homogenous is no real indicator of fiscal sanity, however, the presence of a rubber stamp mentality, as is present today, is a real indicator of the lack of it. To today's republicans, the GOP in congress serves to make the laws the administration wants so then Bush can rubber stamp it, and existing policymaking processes are to be dismantled. What you get is tax cut after tax cut with not a single veto handed down on spending for everyone's favorite pork and graft(including the "War" on Terror). Hell, look at the reaction they get when Dems say they don't like a appointee. Heaven forbid the legislative actually checks the executive. Even more insulting is the Bush Administration's demand that other parts of government not try to "second guess" them.

BTW, the 90s may have produced a balanced budget, but it also produced an irrational push towards deregulation which had ramifications that shafted a great many people.

I will agree, however, that cases like this show why we need sane republicans in government. Everybody needs proper opposition to help keep them in line, but current politics don't offer this luxury.

 

[Nerevar]

That's an oversimplistic way of looking at the issue, not to mention is contradicted by pretty much all of the 80s. Sorry, whether or not the executive and legislative are homogenous is no real indicator of fiscal sanity, however, the presence of a rubber stamp mentality, as is present today, is a real indicator of the lack of it.

The 80s, especially "Reagonomics", was well known for it's budget defecits. CCheck out the chart on this link. While the Democrats controlled the House, Republicans controlled Congress throughout most of the 80s as well (Strom Thurmond was Pro Tempore from 80-87, the strongest push of Reagan's budget). I'd say the single party controlling both houses has just made it worse.

 

[Hitokage]

You need both parts of Congress to actually control it, since one can override the other... and that's my point. The 80s started the recent lack of fiscal sanity, and wasn't because a single party had a lock on the executive and legislative.

 

[DDayton]

Hmm... as scary as this ruling is, I can vaguely see the logic to it... the court ruled that they shouldn't be the ones deciding on this issue, and that it should be left to the states. If you live in a state run by wackos who sell out to the highest bidder... well, the state sometimes has the ability to do that. This isn't a federal issue but a state issue, as far as I can tell. It deals with the application of an accepted legal concept, NOT the concept itself. It's not a matter of ruling whether or nor eminent domain should be allowed... rather, it acknowledges that eminent domain is valid and exists, but says that it is the responsibility of the state and local governments to decide on how it applies.

Personally, I don't like it, but I can understand how someone could come to that ruling.

Edit: Just read O'Conner's dissent piece... yah, okay, I can't see any defense for this ruling now. It seems to directly go against the Constitutional amendment dealing with eminent domain procedures.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Loki, and other BK forummers:

This should enable Bloomberg to use emminent domain to allow Ratner to buy out all the remaining lots he needs around the Atlantic railyards to build the Brooklyn Nets stadium. He's already making noise about it.

Fuck.

 

[calder]

Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?
Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond
June 24, 2005: 3:20 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.

Retailers such as Target (Research), Home Depot (Research) and Bed, Bath & Beyond (Research) have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.

Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.

Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.

The ruling would seem to offer new opportunities to retailers. However, some industry watchers caution that with Thursday's decision thrusting the eminent domain issue into the national spotlight, companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.

Craig Johnson, president of retail consulting group Customer Growth Partners, said that retailers shouldn't interpret the high court's decision to be a green light to aggressively expand even into those neighborhoods where a big-box presence is unwelcome.

"Even with the Supreme Court's decision potentially in their favor, smart retailers would rather go into communities wearing a white hat rather than a black one," said Johnson.

The appropriate move for companies would be to selectively use eminent domain as a last resort, he said, not as a first course of action. "I think companies have learned a few lessons from Wal-Mart's public relations struggles," he said.
Where's the space crunch?

According to industry watchers, retailers face a different type of expansion problem on the East Coast versus the West Coast.

"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.

Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, (Research) has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.

Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.

"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group.

Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."

"It's crazy to think about replacing existing successful small businesses with other businesses," said Adrian Moore, vice president of Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization opposed to eminent domain.

"There are many, many instances where we've found that the cities that agreed to eminent domain use not only destroyed local businesses but the tax revenue that the local government had hoped to generate did not come to pass," Moore said.

But at least one retail industry analyst sees things a little differently.

"Expanding for big box store is a challenge, especially in the Northeast. Therefore, retailers will have to devise a strategy for using eminent domain," said Candace Corlett, retail analyst with WSL Strategic nRetail.

"Local communities may oppose Wal-Mart and Target coming to their area but as consumers, they also want to shop at these stores and they complain when they don't have these stores nearby," she said. "The fact is that shoppers ultimately vote with their dollars and retailers are very well aware of that."

Shit, when CNNMoney is a bit leery about it being too tempting an option for big box retailers to avoid abusing it, it's time to worry.

 

[Excess Poo Flakes]

People stop mixing conservatives and republicans when talking about budgets

 

[LakeEarth]

Posted this at the other one...

This whole "domain" thing actually happened in my city up in Windsor Ontario. Downtown there was some local businesses, including the last good arcade left in the entire damned town. Well in 99-2000 or so, newly formed Daimler-Chrysler decided they wanted to build an office building in that spot. Of course the city gave in and gave them the spot, destroying something like 20 small businesses including Fast Eddie's (they got compensation but really the property was in the perfect location, most of the business that moved folded in their new locations soon after).

So what happened to the building? Just after construction began, the car industry stalled and the money flow started to slow down. So they built the building only a bit over half at tall as planned (it was supposed to be the biggest building in our waterfront, instead it's just another building) and its barely even used. They don't even want it anymore.

 

[Loki]

Loki, and other BK forummers:

This should enable Bloomberg to use emminent domain to allow Ratner to buy out all the remaining lots he needs around the Atlantic railyards to build the Brooklyn Nets stadium. He's already making noise about it.

Fuck.

Yup, I was thinking the same thing, and someone wrote into the op-ed of the Daily News yesterday regarding this. Ridiculous.


If NY gets the Olympics, it'll be a tragedy of the highest order, considering that < 10% of NY'ers want it-- and for good reason. Bloomberg and his big business cronies can go suck a dick. Meanwhile, he's doing well in the re-election polls. Frightening. I've never seen a mayor so transparent in his contempt for the will of the people and so unyielding in his desire to line the pockets of his extraordinarily wealthy friends.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029

A private developer contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel.

Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

According to a statement from Clements, the proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, "featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America." Instead of a Gideon's Bible in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.

Clements says the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site – "being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."

Souter has claimed Weare as his home since he moved there as an 11-year-old boy with his family.

"This is not a prank" said Clements. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.

"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.

lements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project.