United We Stand
Mary Madigan
Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
"I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, supporter of the use of Eminent Domain to seize private property for private use.
"L'Etat, c'est moi"
17th century French monarch, Louis X1V (1638-1715), in opposition to those who wanted to maintain a separation of powers with its guarantees for the respect of representative national institutions
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country, I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
New London resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood.
...
Conservatives and Liberals are opposed to the the recent Kelo et al v. City of New London decision by the Supreme Court. Fox News said:
Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court (search) ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.MSNBC's Tucker Carlson debated this issue with Wesley Horton, the lawyer who won the Supreme Court Case in favor of eviction.In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
HORTON: ..The question is whether there is a difference between a road and other things that are just as much in a public interest. If a city is dying, as the state of Connecticut has said that New London is an economically-depressed city, it seems to me that it's certainly in the public interest to do something about an economically-depressed city to bring it back and put it on the map.The white supremacists of Stormfront and the Democratic Underground Leftists are also fuming:CARLSON: And that may be right. I guess, Mr. Horton, what I'm looking for is an acknowledgement that real people, individuals, are being hurt in this.
HORTON: Oh.
Let me see if I get this straight.Yesterday, the Star Ledger described the plight of some of the real people who were being hurt in this - people like Josephine and Carmen Vendetti, whose neat & modest ranch home was bulit in 1960 with bricks Carmine carried from their winter home in Newark. Or Frances DeLuca's pink bungalow, which has been in his family since 1918. Or Lee and Denise Hoagland, who, like their neighbors, say that the issue isn't money, but an "irreplacable way of life".The Supreme court rules that if a business will be a money making thing for your town or city, the government can LEGALLY force you to move, and give up your home.
I realize that roads, highways and water treatment plants have been in the Eminent domain logs for a long time.
But... Now this? What? Do we live in f**king RUSSIA?
According to the city, that way of life is called "low end ratables", and it needs to be leveled to make way for townhouses.
Personally, I'm in favor of progress and development, and nothing bugs me more than NIMBY types who claim to support better housing, green energy sources, etc., while simultaneously turning around and opposing those things in their own communities.
But progress and development is good when individuals support it. When the state decides that it has the right to make the decisions for, and oppose the will of, the people, the state is acting in direct opposition to the constitution.
The framers of the constitution made it clear that the purpose of the government is to follow the will of the people. That's their job, it's why we pay their salaries. Government employees are, essentially, middlemen. Who do these middlemen think they are, kicking retirees out of their homes for the good of a "state" that consists of individuals who strongly object to this process?
Obviously, there's a glitch in the checks-and-balances system that needs to be fixed. But until it's fixed, what can people in NJ do to stop this? According to the New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog:
We’ve had many inquiries today concerning what the property owner can do. The only answer is for the property owner to be vigilant regarding proposed municipal action and to participate in and contest the blight studies when they are presented to the municipal Planning Board. If the property owner sits on their rights and does not do this, they will have a very difficult time filing a Prerogative Writ suit contesting the municipal action.Speaking of low-end ratables, how much money does this old thing generate?The law requires an appeal of the municipal action within 45 days of the adoption of the ordinance authorizing blight or "an area in need of redevelopment." This is the first step toward condemning the properties. Many owners come to us well after the municipal action was undertaken. Often, they were not even aware of the municipal action and received no notice of the proposed ordinance.
Absent a viable Prerogative Writ suit on the blight declaration, property owners will be left with what they have in every condemnation case: A contest over what amount of money constitutes just compensation, and payment of relocation assistance to owner/occupants dislocated by the public project.
In her dissent, Justice O'Connor said:
"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded, i.e. given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public – in the process."
Flashback to February and the oral argument, when Justice O’Connor asked: "Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now is that okay?"
The simple answer, according to five Supreme Court justices, is yes.
But, we’ll leave the light on for ya.
I'll bet the bathrooms and the heating system are way out of date. Is anyone else thinking 'blighted'? A Ritz-Carlton with an attached upscale mini-mall would be a money machine in this high tourist-density area.
Those judges better get their noses out of their books. Start paying attention to the local municipal actions, guys, read them daily. You never know.
[Link to the New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog thanks to Fausta's Bad Hair Blog]
Related Posts (on one page):
Well we got exactly what those who advocate a living constitution wanted. The people answering to government instead of a government that answers to the people. What happens next? Abolish the 1st Amendment, the 2nd how about the 9th and 10th? What ever happened to the 14th Amendment?
Hank: "Mr. Strickland, as much as I love propane and propane accessories, I can't stand by and allow you to bulldoze Mr. Han's house. It just ain't right!"
Cotton: "I didn't lose my shins in the Big One so you could knock over that Chinaman's hut! That's the Army's job!"
[Dale adjusts the sights on his rifle at the top of a tower... meanwhile, Bill is ordered to drive the bulldozer...]
TBC
As it turns out, there's a local interest for me in this - as there is in so many communities. The local board wants to put a hotel in a high-density neighborhood...
I'm not putting words in their mouths, they put up that post and those comments. I was also shocked to hear some DU'ers talking like Americans. Who knew?
WWHD?
What would Hank do? It's been a awhile since I saw that show. Got to start watching it again.
I'm not sure if the New Jersey Eminent Domain blog's recommendations apply across the country, but they might. The only good thing about this ruling is that it made people aware of (and angry about) a situation that has existed for years.
I'm sure the John Birch Society will be opposing this decision. Back in the late 1960s, policemen who were members of the John Birch Society* paid the bails of members of the Students for a Democratic Society (S.D.S.) who had been arrested while protesting against "urban renewal".
I'm starting to come around to the idea that about 90% of the New Deal falls in the same category. It's a somewhat difficult idea for somebody born in '54.
Back in late 1957 through late 1959, I was hanging around Jimmy's Woodlawn Tap at the corner of 55th and Woodlawn, playing chess in the tavern and fiddling around with the sports car owners (Austin-Healey 100s, Jaguar XK120s and XK140s, MG-TCs and TDs, Alfa-Romeos, Mercedes-Benz 300SL gullwings, and many others. I had a '56 Austin-Healey 100-4.), most of Hyde Park looked like bombed out Berlin after the bricks had been picked up and moved. The neighborhood was just plain gutted and de-populated.
And the funny thing was, it largely remained that way for another 40 years or more. The last time I visited Jimmy's in 2001, with my college-age daughter who wasn't even born until some 25 years after that earlier era, 55th Street was still largely a bombed-out combat zone. Which all goes to show you that they sometimes take private property on the cheap, then never even bother to replace it, as master plans rapidly succeed one another.
Same thing happened up here in Madison. There was a fine old Italian neighborhood known around here as the Greenbush. It disappeared under the urban renewal bulldozers, along with its numerous old family residences, small specialty food stores and whatnot.
And what replaced it? A stinking, lackluster, suddenly-its-1936 public housing development, which is where the city parks a large number of its newly arriving asian residents these days. Nobody else will even live in such housing.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
But since eminent domain is probably here for the duration, I'd like to see the laws modified to ensure that the disposessed are shafted.
In addition to the fair market value of the property--which generally does make the current owner whole for the current value--I'd like to see that owners of property taken for commercial purposes get a slice of future value. Maybe a fixed percentage of after-tax profits would cover their future interests.
As far as capturing sentimental value--the old family manse, etc.--I don't see a way to do that fairly. Consider it a price for living in changing times.
Your suggestions about owners of such taken properties being compensated with a slice of future value, such as a fixed percentage of after-tax profits, however, is a double-edged sword. Sometimes such land use conversions result in losses. No government, local, state or national, can assure stabilized equity over time without making provision for shrinkage in estate value.
The more I think about this supreme court decision, and the liklihood of difficulties in getting it changed through constitutional amendment, the more I think the way to overcome the inequities threatened by its introduction is to pressure local governments and the commercial firms that might try to take advantage of the avenue of legalized piracy perhaps unwittingly offered to them. Increasing a local tax base is one thing. Driving numerous widowed grandmothers out of their 1880 Queen Anne homes is quite something else.
But for the short-term at least, remember that nothing can overturn the US Supreme Court is either a future court, which happens infrequently in American history, or a constitutional admendment.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The only way to differentiate between a good project and a bad one is to take a vote. A bunch of lawyers can't be expected to do it.
Not when the law in unconstitutional. The issue here is a direct violation of the 5th amendment.
And yes, the vast majority of the left (that I've read) is up in arms about this as well.
What's funny (in that sad, scary way) is that many on the left is saying the same ridiculous sh*t as Thomas and Cybrludite, only mirrored.
We all find something that the large majority of both sides totally, completely and passionately agree on, and we still spend more time using it to bash eachother rather than working together!
WTF!
Some were, and some were saying the same thing as the DU'ers (what is this, Russia?)
But the Stormfront site had other, unrelated comments that were full of Jew/black/Bush-bashing. The site is so offensive in general, I only link to it when it's absolutely necessary.