I guess not being an American I really shouldn't comment, but this ruling really sucks. You can bet they won't be bulldozing rich people's homes.
My god, I actually find myself agreeing with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Is that a pig flying outside my window?
Re:Brain imploding
vsergu on 2005-06-23T19:11:38
Oh, boy. It's full steam ahead on stadium-building cronyism, then. Seize people's property and give it to team owners who promise future riches that the city somehow never sees.Re:Brain imploding
Ovid on 2005-06-23T19:29:43
No kidding. The conservatives on the court definitely were right that this was a stupid idea. I can't believe this was upheld.
Re:Brain imploding
pudge on 2005-06-28T19:53:34
I don't know anyone who likes this ruling, except for the justices who agreed with it, and various municipal officials who want to take peoples' land, and, of course, the developers who want to develop on it.Re:Brain imploding
jdavidb on 2005-06-24T00:54:02
I'm just happy there were any dissenting justices at all. Both liberals and conservaties will at times gladly abuse eminent domain for "the greater good."
My grandfather owned a dry cleaning shop in Philadelphia, right off of the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. That is, until UofP decided it wanted to expand the campus and "liberate" a couple blocks of thriving commercial activity and rental properties. The site where my grandfather's store was is now part of the new Dental School. Actually, the parking lot for the dental school.
One of my earliest lessons about government is that because government makes the laws, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
I got a reinforcment of that lesson when I turned 18 and had to register with selective service (the compulsory registration that took the place of the draft). I was talking with an Army recruiter when I was in High School about some kind of enlistment program where the Army (or was it the Air Force?) would guarantee you the kind of training and posting you wanted in exchange for enlisting. Except that it wasn't a binding contract, and if Uncle Sam decided he needed people in the infantry, then don't cry when you're not going to tank repair school.
Once you've learned that lesson, you start to see the signs everywhere. Take Social Security -- the government has made a "contract" with wage earners that they will support you with a safety net in your retirement in exchange for supporting retirees today. Except when they decide at some point in the future to rethink the deal and leave you high and dry...
Re:Emminent Domain
Matts on 2005-06-24T00:58:53
Unfortunate that all those things are, doesn't make any of it right.
Am I shocked? Not really - the Patriot Act prepared us for just about any shocking act of government (not that this was the original sin by any stretch). But disappointed, yes.Re:Emminent Domain
ziggy on 2005-06-24T02:56:40
It's not a question of right or wrong. It's just the way things are. That was what I was trying to highlight.Unfortunate that all those things are, doesn't make any of it right.It'd be nice to fix it all, but fixing it would take a revolu+++
NO CARRIERRe:Emminent Domain
vsergu on 2005-06-24T21:57:31
Right, but the difference is that UofP is part of the government. This case wasn't about the government taking private property for itself (that's what eminent domain has been about from the beginning), but about government taking property from one group of private owners (which in most cases will be small businesses and individual homeowners) and giving it to another group of private owners (which in most cases will be large developers and sports team owners), on the theory that the rich guys are better able to serve the public good (meaning, in many cases, that they've made bigger campaign contributions).Re:Emminent Domain
vsergu on 2005-06-25T00:25:51
Oops. I guess I mixed up UofP and Penn State. Still, the fact that this sort of thing has been going on for a while doesn't mean the Supreme Court is going to rule in its favor. It was a 5-4 decision, after all.Re:Eminent Domain
ziggy on 2005-06-27T14:10:56
You're not the only one. I had a friend who did his undergrad at PSU and his grad work at UofP. Someone presented him a tshirt that said:The long tradition of eminent domain certainly didn't pre-determine the court's decision. I haven't read the decision (yet), but the soundbite or two that I heard seem to indicate that the courts think this isn't a federal matter, and that municipal governments have the best idea as to what's a reasonable public benefit.Penn State University of PennsylvaniaCase in point: I read someone citing Jane Jacobs that this kind of cronyism is what destroys cities. But eminent domain is a tool; it is neither good nor bad. When abused, it leads to the effects that Jacobs wrote about in the 1950s (and still just as true today). Yet this is the same statute that allows a county government to seize a mismanaged apartment building that slowly turns a neighborhood into a slum, and sell it to a developer who can raze or renovate it, making the same property a net benefit to the community.
In that light, I find the reported stance cited in the majority opinion much less objectionable.
Re:Emminent Domain
pudge on 2005-06-28T19:59:24
It's relatively rare for such takings for the direct benefit of a private institution like UPenn, though. (But it won't be rare anymore.)
Take Social Security -- the government has made a "contract" with wage earners that they will support you with a safety net in your retirement in exchange for supporting retirees today. Except when they decide at some point in the future to rethink the deal and leave you high and dry...
No promise of a specific level of future benefits was ever made, though, and no one is talking about "cutting" benefits such that anyone would see a cut in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars (except for the wealthy, which I am personally in favor of cutting).
That said, they could actually cut it, of course.
I blame society.
