This just in...you now have no property rights

No I am from MN. The land of 10,000 taxes. We are generally in the top 3 or 4 most heavily taxed states list.

But back on track - I have seen what Rose and Euterpe are describing happening here as well (the upping of taxes and fines to try and drive people out to make way for new developments - usually upscale).

I lived in a suburb of Minnepolis a few years back and watched with anger as four square blocks kitty-corner from my home were razed, to make way for more expensive private homes. This trend is disturbing to say the least. How adding upscale homes benefits the public, I am unsure. Granted, I saw a small rise in my own property value, but I would have rather seen my neighbors stay than to receive a few 1000 $ more for the home when I sold it.

This type of corporatization by cities is getting on my nerves. Could it be about city officials wanting a bigger salary and working toward getting it through a larger tax base by screwing middle or lower middle class home owners?

By the way, I was in CT for the first time last summer. We took the ferry from Port Jefferson, Long Island to Bridgeport. We then rented a car and did some touring. Nice state you have there. Hopefully Pfizer won't suck up all the waterfront!

That's not surprising.

The liberals are all about (properly regulated and integrated into the govt of course) big business steamrollering over private property. Always have been. That's the iron hand behind their supposed benevolence.

The conservatives, while lately being more about 3rd-world style cronyism, at least have a tradition of supporting (at least paying lip service to) small business and private property. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court are more paleo than neo conservatives.

What people often don't see is that private property rights are, when properly understood, actually the greatest defense against the evils of big business/oligarchy. The founding fathers supported them vigorously for that very reason.

That's such a weird and malicious lie that it sounds like it was quoted directly from Ann Coulter.

One good thing has come out of this, IMHO, is that I'm seeing Libs, Righties, Elephants and Donkies all expressing the same amount of outrage over this stupid ruling (no, I did not threaten a judge...don't send me to GITMO). Sad, it took such a blatently moronic situation to bring us all together....

C'mon everybody...Sing Together!

"I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony....."

your right about this - reguardless of politics - this ruling is just wrong

Thank you for my new Sig Ishtar! *hugs*

Ann Coulter? ow. She sucks.

Let's just say I think that Bush I and II, Nixon, Truman, FDR and Woodrow Wilson were all scum.
I'm an equal-opportunity curmudgeon.

I'll take it back. Let's just say that this liberal is fuming over this travesty, and I don't think I'm alone.

Taking land away from the little guy and giving it to some big development corporation makes me very angry indeed. The fact that the "liberal wing" of the court all sided with the government just makes me cranky and irritable.

At this point I'd vote for Sandra Day O'Conner as President, if she wasn't more valuable right where she is.

If the world wasn't already convinced that the U.S. Government is totally in the hands of greedy corporations, then I would think this is about the most obvious wake up call there could be.

What next? Corporations deciding what meals we eat each day? Telling us when and what to buy? Telling out children what they can and can't learn in schools? Jesus I hope there is a revolution someday. Parents, teach your children well...

=/ think were already at this point.

My personal favorite commentary is the NYT editorial (which supports the decision). They admit that it is an infringment on property rights, but that it won't be abused because the decision stipluates the need for a "plan" on the development and any benefits.

I give it a week before we see Krusty-Brand Eminent Domain filing forms and development plan MadLibs.

Course a few folks have suggested placing endangered species (plant or animal) to use the environmental laws to short circuit ED. Not an ideal solution, but would be damn fun to try.

As for the anti-corp rhetoric, well, much nicer when we all agree for once, don't get too many of these issues so might as well enjoy it.

Me too.

Sometimes my cranky anarchist inside joins hands with my bitter cynic inside. When those times come, I often say things that are a bit inflammatory.

I was in one of those moods this afternoon. Sorry for the overly strident tone.

While I don't agree with your assessment, I do defend your right to make it, and I applaud your courage in stating it here.

I do not see how this particular Supreme Court ruling could possibly benefit any individual ('common good' or 'common use' are vacuous words), rich or poor. In fact, unless one has a bastion of lawyers at one's beck and call, this particular precedent is, to me, very dangerous indeed.

Watching a news report on this topic now... apparently Reagan-appointed Sandra Day O'Connor was the most vocal dissenting vote on this because it "favors rich corporations". I thought conservatives were supposed to hate the little guy! I'm impressed...

I think it somewhat benefits the rich. I don't know if the thread has hit on an example yet, but...

Here's what can happen: Big redevelopment company contacts a city in financial plight and convinces them to "assess" an area that doesn't bring in alot of tax money to see if it is "blighted". After they see that (although the property owners are all caught up on their taxes and the houses are upkept fine) there is "high grass", "bad traffic", "dead ends", etc. they declare the area "blighted" so it can be redeveloped. Redevelopment might bring in another say, 2-3 million in tax money (lots of upper income housing)...thus it helps the city's bottom line. After the city does this, the developer contacts everyone living there and tries to get them to sell on the private market. Most sell, so then you're left with only a few holdouts... which probably don't have a chance to actually "hold out" for long. (Based on a true news story I just watched...so excuse any slight inaccuracies.)

So this benefits the developer, high income people moving in, AND (on the plus side) the city since it brings in more tax money. It hurts all the lower and middle income people who have to move, if they don't want to. But basically, bottom line, supporting this type of thing is supporting bigger government and well off development companies, not "the people" or our rights.

The decision was based on the fact that

This has been going on recently in the north of spain, around Valencia, where the local government passed regulations giving them the power to seize any land they judged fit, to be built upon. This could be private property development, provided only that the it would "benefit the community", interpreted as "bring in more taxes".

I understand that they have been forced to freeze these actions, whilst a test case is about to come up before the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg (or some such body).

Result could be interesting, though my guess is the US has not ratified the International Declaration of Human Rights, so it would have no force West of the Atlantic.

The Spanish case is even worse, because landowners are especially vulnerable. This is because there is a long tradition in Spain of ignoring the bureaucracy, including planning permissions and regulations. Nearly everyone does it, and gets away with it. But when suddenly they are trying to dispute derisory compensation offers they are told - "this house is worthless, it has no right to be here, we just found it has no permission, and can thus be demolished - its your own fault." And it's true !

Very big ouch.

Pfizer had to have oceanfront land where people have lived for many, many years? There was no other land available in the city?

Please note - I don't know enough details to say that there was other land available, but it does seem highly unlikely that there was no other place than on the sound where there are existing homes - homes that are not shacks either - at least the ones I saw on the news.

She's more of a moderate. And, I'm sure even some conservatives are unhappy with this decision.

I absolutely agree. Well......25% at least......

In a case like this, fair market value is nothing less than "how badly do you want it?" The land should be made available to competing commercial interests and the land owners should be the beneficiaries of a bidding war. Anything less than that is highway robbery.

Conservatives are quite often libertarians (against big government and government power).

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf



Rehnquist and Scalia are both republican appointees. So is o'connor, but she's been tricky one!

O'Conner is, first and formost, a top-flight jurist. I disagree with her on some issues, but I deeply respect her knowledge and commitment. She's on the short list of conservatives I would invite over to dinner without anticipating an shouting match

I've read before that she was considered generally conservative, but I'd agree with calling her moderate based on some decisions. I think she's probably one of the better judges there.