| Author | Message | ||
     tourne Citizen Username: Tourne Post Number: 449 Registered: 1-2003 |
A group protesting recent Supreme Court abuse of Emminent Domain has decided to use the courts recent rulings to condemn the home of Justice Souter. THIS IS PERFECT! See www.natural-rights.org/ for more info. | ||
| tourne Citizen Username: Tourne Post Number: 450 Registered: 1-2003 |
Sorry for the spelling error. EMINENT DOMAIN! CHECK OUT THE WEB SITE AND DONATE! Spread the word around for a good cause. | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 791 Registered: 9-2004  |
So... this group seeks to avenge an attack on natural rights by violating another man's natural rights? | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 469 Registered: 10-2005 |
Albatross- Avenge is a strong word, don't you think? Just trying to teach Souter a lesson with a law he help put on the books. I hope no developers find your property appealing... | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 792 Registered: 9-2004 |
I actually disagree with eminent domain except in the most extreme cases. I think that if the government is able to take land and property for public purpose, then it has the responsibility to exhaust every possible alternative before it does so. For that reason, I opposed the proposed eminent domain action on Springfield Avenue a couple of years back. As far as Souter and the Court, their majority opinion interpreted laws on the books and the last few decades of Supreme Court precedent. The eminent domain proceeding in Kelo had its roots in Connecticut state law. Souter had nothing to do with the law's passage; all the Court was able to do was evaluate the proceeding vis-a-vis the law and Constitution. Beyond that, it's the Connecticut legislature's responsibility to ensure the fairness of the law. Avenge is a strong word, and I chose it purposefully; as you said, the objective is to 'teach Souter a lesson'. The Lost Liberty Inn Project cannot remedy the decision. It does not provide aid to persons whose homes were condemned. | ||
| CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 557 Registered: 6-2003 |
Yes it is true it does not provide aid to the poeple who have and will have their properties taken for the benefit of developers. However, if one of the most powerful men in the US finds his own home being taken - because of a ruling he supported (not every Justice supported it) then I think it is PRICELESS | ||
| darrensager Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 236 Registered: 11-2001 |
I agree. I really hope his land gets taken away. What Souter put into effect has every state now re-evaluating their emininent domain laws to find ways of increasing their revenue from the land they oversee. People in this town are so liberal I'm shocked their not furious about this ruling. Don't people get it: Grandma can be kicked out of her house now so that we can build a mall. What if the town council decided that we should wipe out entire streets and neighborhoods in town to turn them into a commercial venture? People here would be up in arms. But because it happened up the coast in CT, they don't seem concerned. Every home owner should be very very concerned. Their basic right of ownership of land has been compromised to now not having a say if that land will be "beneficial" to the town's tax revenue. If its deemed the town could do better with your land, so be it. You're outta here! | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 369 Registered: 8-2003 |
This is nothing more than grandstanding – absurd grandstanding at that. Think about the contradiction. A group opposed to eminent domain for fundamental constitutional reasons wants to use eminent domain as a means to punish an individual. If they were to succeed, they would be implementing what they oppose, namely an unwarranted use of eminent domain. Thus it would be nothing short of vengeful, as Albatross notes quite rightly. But they won’t succeed because, like many proposed uses of eminent domain, this “project” won’t clear the threshold for demonstrating that it provides for the public good. The supporters know this full well, but that doesn’t stop them from drawing attention to themselves and collecting donations. So go ahead, send your money to NaturalRights.org. They’ve got cute t-shirts on their website, and I noticed they will provide free shipping on orders over $50. And, of course, your donation will help antagonize a individual Supreme Court justice who, as near as I can tell, was performing his judicial duties in good faith. (Oh, if by chance you actually wish to campaign against eminent domain, I suggest contacting your representatives in Congress and state legislatures. That’s where the real power lies on this issue, not with the voters of some small town in New Hampshire.) | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 793 Registered: 9-2004 |
Again: Souter and the Court didn't put it into effect. The Court evaluated the action vis-a-vis state law and the last few decades of precedent. Ultimately, Connecticut state law allowed the action; it is the responsibility of the Connecticut legislature to ensure the fairness of the law beyond what the Court can assess. I don't agree with the law or the decision either, but the decision was made with sound legal principles. It's wrong to pursue a vendetta against a public official (or any person, for that matter) just for the sake of it. "What Souter put into effect has every state now re-evaluating their emininent domain laws to find ways of increasing their revenue from the land they oversee." I'm not familiar with any examples; could you elaborate? Has anyone else read the opinion in Kelo? | ||
| malone Citizen Username: Malone Post Number: 298 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ever been to Long Branch? | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 474 Registered: 10-2005 |
Albatross- Why are you making this issue so difficult? Broadening the definition of "public use" is the issue here. The SC didn't come to a unaminous decision on Kelo, so some did have trouble with the majority's decision. I will read Kelo tonight on the train, but I have read alot (mostly negative) about the decision alread from both sides of the aisle.... How many ex-Brooklynites are engaged in this discussion that agree withe SC decision? Remember the Nets moving to Brooklyn and all the hoopla about building an arena on the corners of Flatbush and Atlantic Ave (my old hood)? Well, how many of you disagreed with that-well, what is the difference? | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 794 Registered: 9-2004 |
Scrotis: I'm sorry, I'm not trying to make the Kelo issue difficult. I'm trying to explain why I think that the Lost Liberty Inn Project is ill-concieved and vengeful; 'twas my purpose from the outset. Again, I disagree with Kelo, and I disagree with the state law that allowed it to happen, but I can't find legal fault with the majority opinion. One thing you'll find in Kelo is that the definition of 'public use' was expanded to 'public purpose' long before Souter. Malone: No, I haven't. Why don't you tell me about it? One last edit: the Kelo decision can be found via Cornell's LII site at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 476 Registered: 10-2005 |
within time...gotta catch up on work!  | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 795 Registered: 9-2004 |
We cross-posted; the initial unedited post was addressed to Malone. I've marked it clearly in my edit. Apologies. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3087 Registered: 3-2004 |
Albratross: fwiw, I agree with you about Souter. I like his humility, even though I may not agree with all of his opinions. He's a simple man who carries his lunch to work in a paper bag. My kinda guy. | ||
| darrensager Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 239 Registered: 11-2001 |
Examples of local governments looking to abuse new rules thanks to Souter and friends... http://www.macon.com/mld/cctimes/news/transportation/13660904.htm?source=rss&cha nnel=cctimes_transportation http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/13689307.htm?source=rss&channel=inqu irer_business http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_re_us/hotel_souter_8 Those are just a few. Go do a search in the news area for the subject and lots of articles will show up. | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 796 Registered: 9-2004 |
Thank you for the examples. The decision clearly affected how local government views eminent domain. Whether or not it's an abuse, though, should be evaluated case-by-case. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5654 Registered: 12-2001  |
yes I have been and have worked in Long Branch. Whats your point? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 942 Registered: 6-2001 |
Just one man sitting here in Maplewood thinking out loud. I'm wondering why its just Justice Souter's home which Natural-Rights is going after? Why aren't they going after the homes of Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg or Breyer? (Clearly a bunch of subversives if ever I saw one). Kind of makes one wonder exactly what a "liberal" (whatever that means in terms of the judiciary) Justice is. As I wrote, just sitting here in Maplewood, thinking out loud. TomR | ||
| darrensager Citizen Username: Darrensager Post Number: 240 Registered: 11-2001 |
I believe they went after Souter's home because his home is in New Hampshire, which is the, "Live free or Die" state. Political views up there are a bit more conservative and maybe the chance of getting their agenda passed would fall on more sympathetic ears. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 478 Registered: 10-2005 |
Albatross- I didn't read the actual Kelo decision (holy moley is it long) but I printed out what I found on Wikipedia for the train ride home. If what they are saying is true, then there is a call for concern. The 5-4 decision broadened the definition of "Public Use" found in the 5th amendment (and 14th amendment for states/local) while also allowing city/town govt to hire third parties to represent their interests (developers). Furthermore, after winning thier case, New London actually charged Kelo back rent!!! I understand towns want to increase their tax revenues and appeal (especially with blighted areas). I am a big believer in gentrification myself because it benefits practically all in a given neighborhood, but this is definitely different. The founding fathers weren't thnking of monetary interests when putting this in the 5th amendment, it was all about protection from an intrusive govt. taking your home....just some thoughts of a tired mind-sorry if I am babbling-good night! | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 797 Registered: 9-2004 |
Not at all; what you've said makes sense. It's definitely different than gentrification. Personally, I have trouble with the arguement that economic development could occur in that area alone, and that the last and best option is to raze the land. Maybe the idea was to keep it within city limits, who knows? | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 481 Registered: 10-2005 |
TomR- Maybe they should....  . Albatross-ahhh, wide awake now! I hear you. The fact that govt. can "hire" third parties to pursue such interest is scary for me, because they are acting on purely monetary goals. It is quite simple, if towns want perivate property then be willing to pay. If a property owner doesn't want to sell then th town better be willing to pay heavily. I find it sad that towns offer low ball figures and if the owner does not agree they kick in the ED. And as I mentioned before about Brooklyn, the arena is suppose to go up 6 blocks from where I use to live and I thought it would benefit everyone and the surrounding hoods. Ratner is busy buying property owners out and from what I hear at an appealing price (up to triple the value). He obviously understand what is needed to achieve his goals. I sure hope those owners that are not interested (even though I haven't heard of anyone objecting in quite sometime) understand the big picture and take an offer. But if for some dopey reason they still decide not to sell, then so be it, it doesn't mean the ED police should be called in, no matter how much I think that arena should be built.... | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3978 Registered: 12-2001  |
Funny thread, this. Unrestrained supporters of capitalism - that heartless, soulness demon so many of us worship - are so opposed to eminent domain. Why is it that we allow the ebbs and flows of capitalism to lay waste to whole regions (deindustrialization of the Rust Belt) yet we won't empower governments to use eminent domain to try to recover. Obviously the power of ED can be abused, but does that mean that we disallow the tool altogether? | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 798 Registered: 9-2004 |
No, but like I said above, I prefer it as a tool of last resort. Then again, I'm not too hot on unrestrained capitalism, either. | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 2645 Registered: 5-2005  |
It amazes me that the government can take your land ED not for a public use but for private use.The big problem is it's done without public bidding and lets open the door for corruption. Our founding fathers came to this country because their land was taken by the government. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 501 Registered: 10-2005 |
tjohn-a major component of capitalism is the acquring of private property-why are you surprised? As Lucy stated, our founding fathers were not escaping "capitalistic" persecution but governmental persecution. Besides, supporting free markets does not make your heartless or souless but in fact embraces the core concept of utilitarian morality. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12049 Registered: 1-2003  |
Right, but utilitarian ethics are not the right ones to apply. Sometimes, deonotological ethics are more appropriate. The real trick is knowing when to use which system of ethics! | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 507 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tom- But economic systems/theories all seek the "greatest happiness for greatest number" goal, whether it is capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.... | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12053 Registered: 1-2003 |
...except when they don't. Not everything in life should be framed in economic terms. It may be cheaper to knock off your ailing mother, but you don't. Why? The answer is not economic. | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 258 Registered: 9-2003 |
But we can take your ailing mother's house to create a strip mall... | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3982 Registered: 12-2001 |
"utilitarian morality"??? Is that a wonderful oxymoron or is there some deeper concept that I am missing? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12060 Registered: 1-2003 |
It's not an oxymoron. I took an ethics class in college and learned of two schools of thought: utilitarian and deontological. Utilitarian ethics attempts to measure the effects of actions objectively, in order to come to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Deontology is rule-based. They are both forms of ethics, and in real life, we all use both. Perhaps deontology is what you call morality, but utilitarianism is not immoral or amoral. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2997 Registered: 5-2001  |
I think it's clear that, as is often the case, the problem is not the law itself, but how it is used. And it can be a sticky issue. I suppose that I would abhor most cases of eminent domain being put to use, especially if people are being displaced strictly so that some other people can make a pile of money. But what if the town wanted to tear down your grandma's house to build a fabulous hospital? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 943 Registered: 6-2001 |
Noglider, Using either the utilitarian or deontological models, wouldn't the ED proceedings in New London be considered ethical? In one case, the city fathers have decided that the taking and transfer will produce more housing units, shopping, and office space, which, in turn will, hopefully, produce more tax revenue to the benefit of the entire community. On the other hand, there's a set of rules to be followed for a city, or township, to achieve the taking and transfer of real property. Insofar as I know, nobody has raised a legitimate issue as to whether the rules were followed in New London. In this case, doesn't applying either of the two ethical models create distinctions without a difference? TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 944 Registered: 6-2001 |
notehead, What is the substantive difference between a hospital, and an increase in commercial tax ratables which would provide residential tax relief to, amongst others, somebody's grandmother; thereby allowing her to stay in her home. TomR | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12065 Registered: 1-2003 |
TomR, I don't understand your question to me. I'm on the fence on the subject of eminent domain. The one thing I feel strongly about is that taking property against the owner's will is against a deontological rule, which says, "you just don't do that." Therefore, if and when government does it, it should do so very cautiously, and with more than a mere utilitarian argument for doing so. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 509 Registered: 10-2005 |
tjohn- ok, how about utilitarain ethics-strive for happiness/avoid pain-seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number... you catch my drift? Reingold-I am not measuring everything on economic terms, but in terms of economics how else am I suppose to measure....one can also argue in each economic that part of the goal is deontological ethics...interesting huh? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12066 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yeah, your last point is true. And I guess I have to agree that economic viewpoints can only consider utilitarianism. That's why they're not the only useful viewpoints to consider. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12068 Registered: 1-2003 |
By the way, Scrotis, welcome to MOL. It's nice to have you here. |
