| Author |
Message |
    
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:42 am: |     |
An arguable precedent for Springfield Ave?
What is the value of "Public Purpose" vs Individual property protection?
_____________________________________________
From the Times:
Published: June 24, 2005
"The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in one of its most closely watched property rights cases in years, that fostering economic development is an appropriate use of the government's power of eminent domain.
The 5-to-4 decision cleared the way for the City of New London, Conn., to proceed with a large-scale plan to replace a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research and development, a conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian "riverwalk" along the Thames River."
..."the majority concluded on Thursday that public use was properly defined more broadly as "public purpose."
..."in a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor objected that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power."
..."Justice Stevens, examining the New London plan in light of the majority's general analysis, said the plan "unquestionably serves a public purpose," even though it was intended to increase jobs and tax revenue rather than remove blight.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8861
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:25 pm: | |
I think what is going on "down the shore" is disgusting. However, I don't equate the Universal Chain site, the Verizon building (basically a windowless bank vault) or the more scuzzy areas on SA in the same light. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5813
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 4:52 pm: | |
Depends on your definition of blight. The majority Supreme Court seems to have taken an extremely loose interpretation in their decision. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 435
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:09 pm: | |
I am not sure that the Supreme Court ruling in the New London case would apply. That seemed to be a fairly narrow decision based on one specific case.
But I am not a lawyer. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7909
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:24 pm: | |
The Supreme Court doesn't rule on a case unless there is a broad issue at stake. When a case reaches the Supreme Court, it is because a broad issue at stake. I realize Maplewood isn't in awful shape, as I gather New London is, but what's to stop people from applying this ruling to less blighted places? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8881
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:28 pm: | |
The Supreme Court ruling didn't change law. The practices going on in New Haven have been legal for just about ever.
Basically, the Supremes said there was nothing unconstitutional about eminent domain. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7915
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:57 pm: | |
I'm pretty sure it's New London, not New Haven, bobk. There's a 48 mile difference.
I realize the ruling allowed the status quo. And as ashear said in another thread on the same topic, the process by which they came to the decision was rather reasonable. But it still troubles me, because what has changed, although gradually, is the use of eminent domain for the benefit of a few people, and those are generally people who are already doing well for themselves.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5828
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 8:12 pm: | |
I don't like the concept of eminent domain but I can understand the need for it when public use is required. I have a serious problem with eminent domain being applied to the taking of private property to give it to another private citizen so higher ratables can be developed. This seems to me to be contrary to other legislation, such as Mount Laurel, which requires that land be set aside for affordable housing which will produce lower ratables. There is an eminent danger of the supreme court decision giving credence to a land grab by the powerful and wealthy of perfectly serviceable property owned by the rest of us. |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:17 am: | |
As I said on the other thread, if you think this is bad the Supreme Court made it clear that states have the power to limit eminent domain via legislation. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8884
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:31 am: | |
Tom, New London is correct. Me bad!!
I am sure there are real possibilities of abuse with the use of eminent domain. However, the concept endorsed by the Supreme Court is that there is a public good in revitalizing blighted areas, which makes sense to me.
The thing to do is to make sure that these actions are aboveboard and conducted in the light of day. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page