A developer (THF) wants to build a Stupor Wal-Mart where a residential neighbourhood now stands. The residents wouldn't sell. A company hired by the developer declared it blighted. This clears the way for the city to seize it under eminent domain, then sell it to the developer and roll naked in the resulting Wal-Mart tax dollars. Boy, that sure sounds fair!
We should jump in cars at YAPC and see exactly what a blighted neighbourhood looks like. Then we can drive by the headquarters of THF and see what corporate pirate motherfuckers look like.
--Nat
Re:Protest?
gav on 2002-06-10T04:10:59
Didn't everyone know that goverment and corporations are in bed together with the end result of fucking over the consumer/voter. The reason is that they are so successful is that people will see a gain in the short term and forget about the long term.Everytime they build a new Walmart people lose jobs and those interesting little shops dissapear. But then who cares if you have the convenience and can save a few bucks?
The scary thing is, what can we do about it?
Re:Protest?
autarch on 2002-06-10T05:47:59
Well, one (relatively) easy thing you can do is spend money like it matters, cause it does.
I for one don't shop at Walmart, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or any other big chain stores, inasmuch as is possible. I make a point of going to neighborhood shops, although for some things I just don't know of a small locally-owned business to go to!
But at least for things like books, CDs, movies, food, etc. I can easily avoid the big ugly companies like the above.
This is probably the single most effective protest you can make, actually, since without our money these big chain stores wouldn't exist. Now the trick is to convince everyone else to do the same.Re:Protest?
ziggy on 2002-06-10T13:00:12
That's the problem in a nutshell.Now the trick is to convince everyone else to do the same.
Re:Wow
jdavidb on 2002-06-24T05:48:39
Of course, this is okay because they are religious people and we have separation of church and state, so the state should take action to make sure that the church is not seen within its borders.
<grumble, grumble, grumble>
It's too little, too late, but see my other post I just made in this thread about the Castle Coalition. Maybe they would get involved in this.
500 church members at a protest!?!?! If we had that many members, I certainly couldn't imagine anyone trying to take our land away.
That comment about there already being enough churches in the area sure gets me irritated. Who decides this? The people who want to have churches, that's who, and they express their decision by saving their money and buying land to build on. (Under the fraudulent claims of the government that you can then use the land you bought and have your property rights defended.) This smacks of the former Soviet Union, where existing churches are okay, and everything, but new religious groups have to jump through hoops to get in. After all, they already have enough churches, right? The established religions must be okay, and new unique groups certainly couldn't have anything useful to offer.
Some time back I found The Castle Coalition, an ACLU-like organization run by libertarians (they're okay, really! it doesn't rub off!) who fight eminent domain abuse. I have been suspicious of eminent domain since I first read the U.S. Constitution circa sixth grade and an outright hater of the law since 1997 when eminent domain was used to force some people out of their homes in Hurst, a neighboring city to mine, to build additions to the mall. (We went on to have a landmark turnout for our next local election when we voted to pass a law that eminent domain could not be used for businesses in this manner.) The Castle Coalition lists the mess in Hurst as one of the ten worst abuses of eminent domain in American history.
So, what night is "Blighted Neighborhood BOF"?
Re:Too little, too late?
pudge on 2002-06-24T11:29:17
I think that being against the government's right to seizure of land by eminent domain is like being against the government's right to declare and conduct a war. It's a useful tool that is sometimes necessary but should only be used when necessary. It doesn't make much sense to me to hate it or be against it, although it makes perfect sense to be against its abuse.
That said, I think this group you mention makes some incorrect claims. They say that Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States of America says that private property may only be taken for public use, and that just compensation must be provided. In truth, it does not: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." The construction of the sentence does not in any way lend itself toward the idea that land may only be taken for public use. The reason land cannot be taken except for public use by the Federal Government is not because of Amendment V, but because the US government cannot legally do anything that is not for the public use (it cannot legally do much of anything at all, cf. Amendment X; yes, I know the government breaks this all the time, but it is still law, and when they break it, they are breaking the law). The framers of the Constitution didn't think to explicitly state that the land grab may not be for private use, because the thought that it might never crossed their minds.
Why is this distinction important, if the bottom line is that the U.S. government can't take land except for public use? Because the U.S. Constitution as such does not prevent the State governments from grabbing land for private use. Oh, they still need to go through due process and all but the most literal (or coporately owned) courts would still interpret the U.S. Constitution as though just compensation must be provided, but the point is that there is no U.S. Constitutional prohibition to States grabbing land for something other than public use. If that is the issue, then the State Constitution and relevant law is what must be referenced.
Re:Too little, too late?
jdavidb on 2002-06-24T13:34:19
I think that being against the government's right to seizure of land by eminent domain is like being against the government's right to declare and conduct a war. It's a useful tool that is sometimes necessary but should only be used when necessary. It doesn't make much sense to me to hate it or be against it, although it makes perfect sense to be against its abuse.
Excellent thought for me to chew on. Of course, some people on this net seem to be against the government's right to declare a war.
... I think that being against the government's right to seizure of land by eminent domain is like being against the government's right to declare and conduct a war. It's a useful tool that is sometimes necessary but should only be used when necessary. It doesn't make much sense to me to hate it or be against it, although it makes perfect sense to be against its abuse.
Wonderful. Before I went on to read your tenth amendment argument, I started to respond prematurely with, "Great, so they don't have to compensate justly if land is taken for private use!"
:) Of course, in the three cases referenced by you, me, and gnat in this thread, we're looking at obvious abuses of the law. I don't hate the mall or Wal-Mart (sorry, gnat
:) ), but they are not the public interest anymore than a business I created would be the public interest. Whatever happened to that church, by the way?
Re:Too little, too late?
pudge on 2002-06-24T14:03:49
Those are certainly abuses of the spirit of eminent domain, but not necessarily the actual law. I tried to explain the U.S. Constitution only prohibits the federal government from seizure of land for private use, and that this isn't even specifically enumerated, but is merely generally understood.
The courts have consistently held for many years that the rights afforded citizens of the United States must be protected by the States as well (see Amendment XIV, Section 1). However, since there is no Right to not have property seized by the government for private use -- that is a limit placed on the federal government, not a right provided to the citizens -- then the states are free to do that, if their law allows it. As noted, they still must go through due process, and most courts would hold they still have to provide just compensation. But merely saying states or localities take land for private use is not, as I can tell, a violation of the Constitution.
One could argue that Amendment IX protects our right to not have our property taken for something other than public use, but any argument based on Amendment IX is going to be really shaky.
That said, I would favor a state or local law or Constitutional amendment that said land could only be seized for public use (as well as including many other protections); I just don't see that protection for us coming from the U.S. Constitution.
