18 Responses to “Awww….”

1. #1 |  Dwight Meredith |  September 27th, 2004 at 10:46 pm

   Since I have been representing landowners whose property has been taken by eminent domain since before you were in long pants, perhaps it would be more appropriate for me to welcome you to the issue.

2. #2 |  Micha Ghertner |  September 28th, 2004 at 2:26 am

   The No-Treason folks are gonna have a field day with this one. Yikes.

3. #3 |  The Interloper |  September 28th, 2004 at 3:21 am

   Wait one second, Mr. Agitator man, Eminent Domain also provides for “just compensation”. When is the last time a mugger swiped your wallet, but, just before taking off, handed you a check for what the wallet and its contents were worth.

4. #4 |  Eric |  September 28th, 2004 at 8:37 am

   Just wait until they try to use it to build another stadium. Somebody in S.E. Washington isn;t going to cotton to the ballpark, and doubtless Mayor Williams will try to steamroll them.

5. #5 |  matt |  September 28th, 2004 at 8:40 am

   It may be wrong, but it is Constitutional.

6. #6 |  Beefcake Blogger |  September 28th, 2004 at 9:46 am

   Actually that isn’t a rebuke at all, just a visceral reaction to percieved injustice. The use of condemnation for public purposes is sanctioned by the Fifth amendment and 100% of state constitutions. You can’t get much more legal than that. Takings jurisprudence being what it is, there are remedies for legitimate claims for inverse condemnaion, although I wouldn’t exactly rely on the IJ for the most level-headed view on that.

   Condemnation allows local governments to implement proper land use planning. The market actually drives its use in most cases, particularly for facilitation of commerce. You would be surprised at the role business interests play in these actions.

   If you have a problem with eminent domain, you would have to go back several hundred years of property law. Good luck.

7. #7 |  Evan Williams |  September 28th, 2004 at 10:38 am

   When is the last time a mugger swiped your wallet, but, just before taking off, handed you a check for what the wallet and its contents were worth.

   A wallet and its contents can usually be easily replaced. A more apt parallel would be, “when’s the last time a mugger came and stole your grandmother’s antique broche which had been in the family for generations, then the mugger made a declaration of what he thought the broche was worth (in monetary terms), then issued you a check for that declared amount?”

   First of all, not everything can be bought off with cashola. Taking a wallet and its contents is not the same thing as taking a piece of property and a house or business that you love.

   Second of all, even if the property holds no emotional signifigance, the fact remains that forcing people against their will, at gunpoint if necessary, to engage in a economic transaction with you, is morally bankrupt. What if I came to your house and asked you to sell your grandmother’s antique broche, and you declined, but then, I put a gun to yoru head and forced you to sell it to me. Whether or not you offer me “just compensation” is besides the point. It is still the immoral act of forcing someone to do soomething against their will, for your own good.

   As an aside, “just compensation” is an oxymoron. The only “just” compensation is the one that is agreed upon by all parties, not the one that is forced upon one party. That is not “just”.

8. #8 |  Rodney Caston |  September 28th, 2004 at 10:48 am

   Interloper, I’ve seen first hand the meager compensation a city will provide someone for taking their land, and it is by no means ‘just’, they pay people very little for it because nobody is able to stop them.

   This is completely outside the free market.

9. #9 |  Jason |  September 28th, 2004 at 10:52 am

   Can’t you link the argument for property rights with eminent domain to tax and spend welfare programs? I mean what is the difference between seizing your home to build a road or strip mall for the great good ands seizing your wallet to do the same thing?

10. #10 |  Kenneth G. Cavness |  September 28th, 2004 at 11:24 am

    Hey, guess what? Kevin, at least in part, agreed with something that’s clearly near and dear to your heart.

    Learn the value of strange bedfellows, will you? Sneering at allies, even temporary ones, … well, there’s a word for that, and it ain’t “smart”, if you catch my drift.

11. #11 |  Rodney Caston |  September 28th, 2004 at 11:37 am

    heh, with comments and opinions like these, I’m beginning to have renewed hope in America’s future.

    I can’t help but feel the 20-35 crowd in the US is extremely libertarian…

12. #12 |  roach |  September 28th, 2004 at 12:27 pm

    Radley are you against all eminent domain?

    What about networked goods like utilites or roads. If the owner values at 10, but realizes he’s in a bilateral monopoly with government, he may try to extract 100 if the two must have voluntary negotiation. Besides, for any risk of idiosyncratic value being lost, he can always by insurance.

    I’m kind of a law and economics guy on this one, and for the provision of economic goods eminent domain is perfectly appropriate.

13. #13 |  Joe Sims |  September 28th, 2004 at 1:55 pm

    Just received this email from Chip Mellor of the Institute for Justice:

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    September 28, 2004

    U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Review
    Of New London Eminent Domain Abuse Case

    Washington, D.C.-Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of Kelo v. City of New London and decide whether the Constitution allows the government to use eminent domain to take one person’s home or small business so a bigger business can make more money off that land and pay more taxes as a result.

    “We and the New London homeowners are thrilled that the Court has taken up this case and we are confident that it will find, as we have argued all along, that New London violated the U.S. Constitution when it tried to take these homes,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.

    Dana Berliner, an Institute for Justice senior attorney, explained, “If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone’s home or business, then no property in America is safe because anyone’s home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one. We have to restore the meaning of public use to what everyone once understood the term to mean–something the public would own and use, such as a road. Economic development is not a public use.”

    The decision will affect homeowners throughout the country. According to a report issued last year by the Institute for Justice, in just five years, more than 10,000 properties were either taken or threatened with condemnation for private parties. There has been chaos in the state courts, with some states finding that “economic development” (tax revenue and jobs) justifies eminent domain and others finding it does not.

    In the last few years, the tide has shifted against the abuse of eminent domain. With decisions from Illinois, South Carolina and Arizona, courts have finally begun to restore constitutional protections to home and business owners. The decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in July, reversing its previous Poletown decision, which had allowed the condemnation of an entire neighborhood for a GM plant shows, just how far courts have come.

    Susette Kelo, one of the New London homeowners, said, “It is going to mean everything in the world if the U.S. Supreme Court saves my home. I’m so happy for myself and my elderly neighbors who just want to stay in their homes.”

    “Cities and developers will say that the sky is falling and that development can’t happen without taking other people’s property by force,” concluded Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice. “That’s ridiculous. Development happens all over the country, every day, with land purchased voluntarily. That’s the way our nation was built, and that’s what our Constitution requires.”

    # # #

    Obviously this is big for the eminent domain argument. I remember when the city of Merriam, Kansas condemned a retiree’s used car business because they wanted to give the land to an expanding BMW dealership next door, back in the late eighties-early nineties. At the time, I had never heard of the concept of ‘eminent domain’, but it seemed unjust. Since then, I keep hearing the same story over and over: condemnation of personal property, only to turn around and give it away in a nice tax and property abatement package to some big-time developer. The government is supposed to protect us from this sort of activity, not ameliorate it!

    I look forward to following this case.

14. #14 |  cubicle |  September 28th, 2004 at 6:10 pm

    “It’s wrong to take other people’s things.”

    Agreed, but the goverment is also in charge of protecting it’s people.

    The interstates were frist build during the cold war in order to move army goods and equipment around the nation quickly.

    While i realize that is not what we are talking about specifically, in general this conflict could still come up.

    If it is between protecting america and someone not selling their land, i care about my right to life more than their right to proptery.

    that being said it should be really hard to take someone’s stuff, and the goverment must be very open when it does do it.

15. #15 |  roach |  September 28th, 2004 at 7:27 pm

    Here’s a puzzle: public choice theory theorizes that there will be more government action with concentrated benefits and dispersed harm, e.g., farm subsidies. If you overcompensate individuals whose property is taken by eminent domain, wouldn’t you expect to see more takings? And, if so, wouldn’t undercompensation limit government action as concentrated victims mobilize to prevent the takings.

    If the only fear is compensation, wouldn’t insurance alone get the job done? But if the theory is that eminent domain takings responsibility disciplines government from over-takings, that flies in the face of public choice theory.

    Incidentally many things that we value as parts of a modern and advanced society–power lines, phone service, roads, etc.–would not be possible without eminent domain. Are you purists willing to get rid of that? Do you think anyone is going to buy your theories if your theory when implemented can’t provide basic features of a modern society?

16. #16 |  Libertas Infinitus |  September 28th, 2004 at 8:12 pm

    Incidentally many things that we value as parts of a modern and advanced society–power lines, phone service, roads, etc.–would not be possible without eminent domain. Are you purists willing to get rid of that?

    wrong.

17. #17 |  roach |  September 28th, 2004 at 8:44 pm

    I’m confused now. Wrong as in you’re willing? Or it’s a false dilemma?

    If so, how could you have a working electric grid, national road network, etc. w/o eminent domain.

18. #18 |  Hoosier Review |  October 5th, 2004 at 8:58 am

    The Suspense of SCOTUS

    Yesterday was, of course, the First Monday in October, which astute students of U.S. Politics know is the start of

---