No Politics Please

Status
Not open for further replies.
vjbrennan said:
. Secondly, it is a question of the needs of the many vs the needs of the few. If a county or city needs revitalization and a few houses are in the way, I don't think it unreasonable to cite eminent domain.
.
Click to expand...
Alright, I am new to this land and very happy to be here, so I whisper my opinion!
I am all for government implementing this rule to benefit for the public good (roads, community centers, hospitals) But this is not even close. These people own their land, have made sacrifices, and committed themselves to create a home and a community that is theirs. To uproot this for deep pocketed business is not only ludicrous, but unjust. I am currently looking to buy a home, a home in my new country, and what was an exciting prospect has filled me with hesitation and fear. And I know the odds are slim that this will happen to me, BUT IT CAN, and now it is in the back of my mind.
 
I understand your feeling on that. But the supposed purpose of this (and I realize it will be manipulated and eploited) is to revitalize ares. That does things like create housing and jobs. The rich will benefit, but so will the less fortunate. There are probably times when this is a good thing, even if it is rare. That is why the Supreme Court wants the local courts to deal with it. They should know more about the specifics of each situation.
 
vjbrennan said:
I understand your feeling on that. But the supposed purpose of this (and I realize it will be manipulated and eploited) is to revitalize ares. That does things like create housing and jobs. The rich will benefit, but so will the less fortunate. There are probably times when this is a good thing, even if it is rare. That is why the Supreme Court wants the local courts to deal with it. They should know more about the specifics of each situation.
Click to expand...

You did not make note that the area to be redeveloped was not a slum, but was a middle class residential area. They just happen to have water front property. So you say that it is for the public good that a private developer should have the water front property than the people that have lived there for years. Bull ****!!!

And you say that it is good that local government entities should make that decision. Local governments are some of the most corrupt entities in the world... the dollar rules, period. Here is a link to what one of your "better able to make decisions" local politicians did with disaster relief money...

http://www.bdtonline.com/articles/2004/07/21/news/04fraudpleas.txt

Just think about the greed feeding frenzy a large private development brings with it.

No, Eminent Domain, should never be used to transfer private property from one private owner to another.
 
I understand your point about the specifics of this issue. But Supreme Court rulings set precedent, so it is not about this particular neighborhood or project. It is about whether or not the federal government should be the one to rule on these issues, or whether the States should. Theoretically I believe that a state has a better understanding of it's own needs than thet feds do. But yes, you do have the problem of corruption in local legislatures. SOmeone talked earlier about Florida. It is probably the worst state in the union when it comes to caving to developers. Read Carl Haissen's book called "Team Rodent: How Disney devours the World" It's horrible (the stories, not the book). But the Court can't decide things based that some legislature might be corrupt somewhere.

And don't forget that private ventures benefit immensely from public projects. Lots of people get rich from eminent domain to build and maintain bridges and community centers. It's not black and white.
 
vjbrennan wrote:
My initial reaction was the same as the sentiments here. But then I thought about it some more. I have no doubt that O'Connor was right is her assessment about how this will pan out.
Click to expand...

SHe is exactly right in my opinion. Which is why she voted it down.

But the spirit of this decision is not that simple. First of all it returns the right and responsibility of making this decision to the State/City/County where it is happening. Theoretically, and costitutionally, that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Returning the right to the local level is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is that the definition of Eminent Domain has just been permanently changed and he buck will stop at the local level. No more going to the high court for an answer.

The federal government only has the power to interfere when necessary. You can argue that this action is a violation of the 5th amendment, but the court feels differently.
Click to expand...

The court feels differently. Yes; this is at the heart of the issue. This is the court ruling in favor of the corporations; ruling in favor of the money and power; ruling in favor to those already privleged and who already have a influence in high places. This is the court being influenced by politicians who are influenced by corporations no doubt.

Secondly, it is a question of the needs of the many vs the needs of the few. If a county or city needs revitalization and a few houses are in the way, I don't think it unreasonable to cite eminent domain.
Click to expand...

In this case; it is over 80 homes and some businesses. Give or take a few. So tell us; where is the line drawn? At a few ? Is that three? 30? 300? When is it okay and not oaky? I say it is not okay for prvate gain.

Now don't get me wrong. I find the seizure of private property a heinous act, and my heart is on the same side of the fence as the rest of you. This decision will hurt many people, while the greatest benefit will go to those already priveleged. But I have found through many political discussions that people often interpret the Constitution and the Law to their own ends; and not always in a selfish way.
Click to expand...

This is about Greed. This is about taking by fiat for private gain; not the benefit of the public. This isn't about an Interstate; this isn't a municipality; it is purely for a Drug Company, a Mall, an Office Complex and Apartments. Each one for PRIVATE GAIN NOT AT ALL FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. I don't want to hear about jobs being created; people are losing their homes by force. Period. It can happen to you; it can happen to me. But you can be sure it will never happen to any politician or corporate officer (I'm referring to BIG BUSINESS not the LLC or Type S) or families.

We feel that the law should do a certain thing. I struggled recently with the Schiavo case, but in the end the courts stuck to the most conservative (in the non-political sense) of the constitution; that being the right of the individual.
Click to expand...

Nothing at all to do with that; not at all related; not even in the same ballpark.

I'm not saying that it was the right decision, but it's not the Supreme Court saying they think it's okay to do this. They are just saying that it's a state by state issue.
Click to expand...

And in doing so we have lost the protection of the Supreme Court; in doing so it is over; in doing so it is the final word.

You know; no offense; but I hate Devil's Advocate. Devil's Advocate's never have an opinion. They stay in the middle and say "I think this is wrong, however I do see why they would do it and understand." Devil's Advocate's do not commit to one side or the other but argue for the sake of arguing. Take a stance please!

Rosestar is correct; this is a middle class, waterfront community. They are being ****ed. And it may happen to one of us one day and that is scary.
 
vjbrennan said:
I understand your point about the specifics of this issue. But Supreme Court rulings set precedent, so it is not about this particular neighborhood or project. It is about whether or not the federal government should be the one to rule on these issues, or whether the States should. ..........................................................

It's not black and white.
Click to expand...

It is Black and White. The Supreme Court is bowing out. The Supreme Court will no longer be there to have the final word in it. Here is a better way to see it:

You are an employee.

You have a Supervisor and Manager who is asking you to do something you disagree with and something that is not fair in your mind.

You go to the Owner of the company to ask for help in this matter as you feel you are being treated unjust.

The Owner tells you; I don't want to be bothered with this. Your Manager has the final say on this matter.


Alright; I tried with the analogy. My point is, the Supreme Court just told us they don't want to be bothered with this issue.
 
vjbrennan said:
My initial reaction was the same as the sentiments here. But then I thought about it some more. I have no doubt that O'Connor was right is her assessment about how this will pan out. But the spirit of this decision is not that simple. First of all it returns the right and responsibility of making this decision to the State/City/County where it is happening. Theoretically, and costitutionally, that is a good thing. The federal government only has the power t interfere when necessary. You can argue that this action is a violation of the 5th amendment, but the court feels differently. Secondly, it is a question of the needs of the many vs the needs of the few. If a county or city needs revitalization and a few houses are in the way, I don't think it unreasonable to cite eminent domain.

Now don't get me wrong. I find the seizure of private property a heinous act, and my heart is on the same side of the fence as the rest of you. This decision will hurt many people, while the greatest benefit will go to those already priveleged. But I have found through many political discussions that people often interpret the Constitution and the Law to their own ends; and not always in a selfish way. We feel that the law should do a certain thing. I struggled recently with the Schiavo case, but in the end the courts stuck to the most conservative (in the non-political sense) of the constitution; that being the right of the individual. The courts do not have the benefit of going with their feelings; they must follow their interpretation of the law. In this case, they followed the same conservative (non-political definition) and returned the right to rule on this to the individual states. State governments are (or should be) more in touch with the needs of their individual citizens and communities that the feds. That's why we have the system we do (although more power is ceded to the feds all the time), and it usually works.

I'm not saying that it was the right decision, but it's not the Supreme Court saying they think it's okay to do this. They are just saying that it's a state by state issue.
Click to expand...
I must respectfully disagree. The Supreme Court did not follow a strict constructionist path. Homestead and Private property laws and rights date back to the Western expansion of the frontier states. Currently the government does not have the right to forcibly seize private property in the name of private individuals or developers if it is not consistent with a NEED to serve the public good. Not a WANT. You are IMO opinion misinterpreting the onerous implications of this ruling. It's not a decision between whether Federal or State powers should have interpretive right of way , but the creation of a whole new power to be enacted. It is almost irrelevant as to which branch of government holds the power. This ruling belies everything America has stood for, and follows the worst type of creationist law tendencies in the judiciary.

America in large measure was a reaction to tyranny. And the power of the individual dream to uplift all others.




The creation of a new power that lessons the dream for one, lessons it for us all.
That's why these rights have been so zealously guarded.

This isn't interpretation. It's creation. By an unelected, life time appointed, cloistered Judicial elite. Who face no ramifications for their decisions, be the good or bad.

I just hope the belief of individualism that so grounded your country is still strong.
 
I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. I'm giving my impression of the court's ruling. This is not by a long shot the first time they have sent an issue back to the purview of the states. Read the 10th amendment.

Is this particular case about greed? Most likely. But again, the rulings of the supreme court affect a broader scope than a single instance. I don't deny that it is a slippery slope. But who better to rule on an particular issue like this than the people who live there? I wouldn't want this to happen to me any more than I would want to get shot. But that doesn't mean that I favor stronger gun laws. I have my issues with this decision, but I think that the court ruled correctly. Sometimes allowing a private compnay the use of eminent domain might be necessary. To dismiss that possibility out of hand and forbid it entirely is short sighted and irresponsible. That's what a supreme court ruling against this would do.

You wanted my stance. There it is.

Edit: DandG. Your use of the term Need and Want are part of the issue. Who gets to define what those words mean? Should it be the guy in Washington, or the guy in your own state capitol? And don't go the corruption route, because there is no section of this government that is not bought and paid for, big or small.
 
Well put D_and_G as always (I like this guy).

Exactly. The ruling should have been:

NO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. YOU CANNOT TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PRIVATE GAIN FOR THAT WOULD BE WRONG. IN FACT; NOT ON OUR WATCH WILL THIS HAPPEN ANYWHERE.

These 5 justices dropped the ball. They had an oppurtunity to protect our civil liberties and they just stripped another layer from us. I'm buying my first home in less than a year; it add's a whole new vibe to the experience knowing this.
 
I agree with John Hudson here, VJbrennan, you need to take a side. When it comes to politics there is no theory. There is no "for the most part this is good, sure it might get abused, but for the most part it is good." It is not good for those who get abused and can do nothing about it. Every law is backed by the gun. This means that if you do not follow what the law says you can be shot and killed, or jailed in the name of upholding that law. It is better for this policy not to exist then it is for it to exist. Who was being harmed when the corporations couldn't come and take the land of innocent people? Who was harmed when the people had their nice cozy homes on their own land?

I once heard a quote that went something like this:
If all of mankind were in complete agreement on a subject, save for one person. Mankind would have no right to force their way of thinking on that one man, just as he would have no right to force his way of thinking upon all of mankind.
Click to expand...
 
vjbrennan said:
I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. I'm giving my impression of the court's ruling. This is not by a long shot the first time they have sent an issue back to the purview of the states. Read the 10th amendment.

Is this particular case about greed? Most likely. But again, the rulings of the supreme court affect a broader scope than a single instance. I don't deny that it is a slippery slope. But who better to rule on an particular issue like this than the people who live there? I wouldn't want this to happen to me any more than I would want to get shot. But that doesn't mean that I favor stronger gun laws. I have my issues with this decision, but I think that the court ruled correctly. Sometimes allowing a private compnay the use of eminent domain might be necessary. To dismiss that possibility out of hand and forbid it entirely is short sighted and irresponsible. That's what a supreme court ruling against this would do.

You wanted my stance. There it is.

Edit: DandG. Your use of the term Need and Want are part of the issue. Who gets to define what those words mean? Should it be the guy in Washington, or the guy in your own state capitol? And don't go the corruption route, because there is no section of this government that is not bought and paid for, big or small.
Click to expand...

Thank you for stating your stance; but the stance is still wavering in the 'sometimes' area. I am surprised that you would see it this way. I'd like to be there when they put up the Sony Corporation and Wal-Mart in your backyard. (To be clear; I say this in the spirit of conversation and the debate; I respect that you are a long standing member here. Consider this a heated exchange over over pints at our favorite pub and nothing else.)
 
I talk too much, my wife tells me that all the time. SOmetimes in using too many words I lose what I'm trying to say. SO I'll abridge

Jim's Heart and gut: Motherfucking corporations should not be able to take my house to put up another ****ing strip mall.

Jim's Head: If the Supreme Court ruled to forbid eminent domain in the private sector, it would mean that at no time, under any circumstances would it be allowed to exercised, regardless of the consequences to the economy or society living in that region, and the people who live ther would have no say whatsoever. That's too narrow for me. "Sometimes" is important. That's my point.

Edit: John: I'm not easily offended. I host a political current affairs round table. People disagree with me all the time. The worst thing someone can do is spend all their time with people who agree with them. You don't learn anything that way.

And I'd be honored to have a pint with you, anytime.
 
vjbrennan said:
I talk too much, my wife tells me that all the time. SOmetimes in using too many words I lose what I'm trying to say. SO I'll abridge

Jim's Heart and gut: Motherfucking corporations should not be able to take my house to put up another ****ing strip mall.

Jim's Head: If the Supreme Court ruled to forbid eminent domain in the private sector, it would mean that at no time, under any circumstances would it be allowed to exercised, regardless of the consequences to the economy or society living in that region, and the people who live ther would have no say whatsoever. That's too narrow for me. "Sometimes" is important. That's my point.

Edit: John: I'm not easily offended. I host a political current affairs round table. People disagree with me all the time. The worst thing someone can do is spend all their time with people who agree with them. You don't learn anything that way.

And I'd be honored to have a pint with you, anytime.
Click to expand...

The argument was on the definitition of "Public Use" from the 5th amendment. The court could have chosen to limit the definition, without jepordizing your precious "sometimes". Instead, the court chose to broaden the definition, to a degree that is, IMO, very dangerous.

This concept of private development for "economic development" being appropriate under the "Public Use" stipulation of the 5th ammendment is dangerious in that the individuals that make the decisions, in evey case, will have a conflicted interest. This confilcted interest does not even take into account the possiblity of corruption, just basic self interest. The decisions in these instances will be made by city councels or board of supervisors or what ever. This groups make their money and excersise their powers with tax monies. These "economic development" projects will, in almost every case, will raise taxes. Because of the vested self interest in raising taxes, the decision making process will never be objective and the rights of the less fortunate will not be given just value. If the decision making could be made objective and not tied to the size of the bank account of the local municipality, then maybe "economic development" would be approapriate "Public Use". I just do not see a way that that could happen.

Another point about the inclusion of "economic development" into the "Public Use" stipulation is the history of "urban renewal" and it's social impact. We have hundreds of examples of the falilure of "urban renewal" projects to learn from and yet, the same mistakes continue to be made. The impact of large development projects extends beyond the boundaries of the projects and in a lot of cases this impact is negative. The classic example of this is the impact of artificially and rapidly inflated property values and the subsequent rise in property taxes. People in the surrounding neighborhoods either must pay these increased taxes, or move. In the best scenario (for the powers to be), more affluent individuals move into these higher valued properties, maintain or even improve the properties and pay the increased taxes. This scenario makes municipal politicians happy. For the displaced individuals however, it is a different story. In most instances, they will never be able to match the quality of the habitation they are forced to leave.

The worst case scenario involves a rapid artificial inflation of property values and subsequent taxes but a failure of this artificial inflation to be absorbed by the market demands of the area. What we see is tax defaults, abandonment and the rise of the absentee landlord all of which leads to downwardly spiralling property values and in the end, the creation of a blighted area. This worst case scenario has played out in many cities in this country. No matter what the outcome, these "economic development" projects are huge gambles, that, in too many instances, "pay off" for very few people.

In too many cases, these development projects end up being Potemkin showcases on the edge of accelerated deteriation, that only affect corporate bottomlines and provide photo-ops for self interested politcians. A good example of this process is included in the film "Roger and Me" by Michael Moore. In the film we see the development and collapse of "Auto World", an "economic development" project in downtown Flint Michigan. Also, the PBS show "Now" did an episode about this debate. There website has some useful information.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html



It use to be in this Republic that the majority's role was to protect the rights of the individual. I guess those days are gone. "Greater public good" fostered by the injustice of a few is not a value that I want to share.
 
I agree with much of your post, and I respect your opinion, but given the choice between an absolute ruling on the federal level that would disallow local communities from having the power to decide their own fate on this issue, even in the most extreme of circumstances; and the possibility (even probablity of) corruption in the process, I believe that this is still the best choice. Having faith in our system of legislature and judiciary at all levels is as much a part of the fabric of our country as personal property is. I don't doubt that there will be abuses, and we must be vigilant to them. Frankly I am damn glad this wasn't a decision that i had to make. We will just have to agree to disagree. :beer:
 
WOW!!!

I wish I still had my high school underground newspaper going.

What is amazing is that this was a 5 to 4 ruling!
It is the main problem with this country right now, we are truly divided 50/50.
or apparently 60/40, and 50.5/49.5 when it comes to the presidential election.
I am saddened by all of this. I love my country but it don't love me back!
Majority rules is a truly scary concept! Break that down to 5 people win 4 people lose, where is the frickin justice in that.
This country needs to draw a line and say OK ... you guys can have that half and we will take this half.
This "united" states is far from united and I don't believe it will ever be.
I fear that it won't be long before there are army tanks petroling the streets and books will be banned and burned by the "firemen"!


VIVA LA REVOLUTION!! I've been searching long for a worthy cause anyways!

my 2 sense.
- CAVEMAN
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top