Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property

[amarain]

Thank you, HippieLawChick. I didn't realize that only people who had been to law school were able to have valid opinions about the actions of our government.

So Lenny, if the President decides to start firebombing your town, you really should withhold judgment since you haven't had any formal military training.

You're basically saying that it's bad to criticize anything or express an opinion unless you are able to do something about it. I'm sorry, but if I was required to change every issue I have strong opinions about, I wouldn't have time to work and pay my taxes.

[A.J.]

I think this needs some context.  Do you think a few select people in a location largely allocted to growth and expansion should be allowed to hold up the process for everyone else?

The city of NY decided a small coffee shop couldnt stand in the way of the world trade center because the net benifit to the city was perceived to be far greater than any loss to the owners.  The private owners were compensated accordingly as in the others will be, or have been.

This ruling does not mean the government can be capricous in its selection of who keeps and who loses their homes.  There has to be a larger purpose and they will have to compensate.

[ViagraSaint]

in most property transfers, it is the seller who determines the price, not the buyer.  that's what makes it troublesome.

[A.J.]

Theyll have to pay a market determined price presumably determined objectively by some third party.

And thats not correct.  Sellers and buyers come together in a market driven by supply and demand, not supply only.

Edit: unless you mean simply the acceptable price, in which case its up to the seller to say yeah or nay to the offer

[amarain]

I'm extremely troubled by the fact that this essentially gives a blank check to the government to take anyone's property at any time. They don't have to show blight or anything. They can force you out of your home, against your will, as long as they give you some money back (amount determined by themselves). If a group of residents in one area do not want their homes bulldozed to make way for a Wal Mart, then that Wal Mart ought to find somewhere else where the residents ARE willing to give up their homes. That's how the free market is supposed to work - offer enough money that people are motivated to leave, and if they're still not motivated, then find somewhere else.

Essentially, this ruling puts the rights of corporations and developers above citizens.

[A.J.]

I'm extremely troubled by the fact that this essentially gives a blank check to the government to take anyone's property at any time. They don't have to show blight or anything. They can force you out of your home, against your will, as long as they give you some money back (amount determined by themselves). If a group of residents in one area do not want their homes bulldozed to make way for a Wal Mart, then that Wal Mart ought to find somewhere else where the residents ARE willing to give up their homes. That's how the free market is supposed to work - offer enough money that people are motivated to leave, and if they're still not motivated, then find somewhere else.

Essentially, this ruling puts the rights of corporations and developers above citizens.

Im not sure how much of that is accurate, but I cant answer that question. 

In the instant case it has to do with CITY plans and CITY allocated land zones.  The concern is for the economic growth and the beautification of that city/state and for the benifit of the city/state as a whole. 

You may equally argue that the ruling actually puts the rights of the larger group of citizens over the select few who are perhaps holding back progress.

[Lenny]

Exactly what I was going to say.  The opinion starts with the proposition that the government can't take from A solely for the benefit of B.  Thus, this decision does not put the "rights" of a corporation over the "rights" of the citizen because the rights of the corporation are in no way implicated by this case.  Instead, the case deals with the right of a (politically accountable and democratically elected) city government to determine city growth versus the right of an individual to stay where they are. 

Again, I am not saying it is bad to express dislike of the status quo or of a court decision.  I am simply stating that this expression of dislike is only the first half of the process.  Point out the problems, but at least attempt to offer a solution or an alternative - and don't be upset if people attack your suggestion.  Plenty of smart people offer up unworkable solutions before the true solution is discovered.

[amarain]

But here's my question: were we really having a problem with "progress" before this ruling? Is it really necessary to resort to this sort of measure, where the government can take whatever it wants in order to build more strip malls, more condos? What I'm interested in knowing is whether or not the other people in the community supported the developers or the residents. Was there a big public outcry against those people clinging to their homes and impeding progress?

[A.J.]

I dont think that would answer the question of whether its desirable or not.  Here in my town the city decided to put up several condos that block the bay view of some residents and in their minds detract from the rustic quality of the town.  These people are out in full force against it, calling town meetings and picketing.  That has hardly detered city planners who are not simply trying to create what would be a boon for the contractors or the future landlords (no matter what opponents say, read anti corporation argument) but rather recognize that without organized development ultimately the local region will suffer sprawl and overcrowding. 

This is a case in my mind for not heeding the outcry of some group of citizens who the press and they themselves would have you believe speak for the town at large and instead looking at down the road a ways for the good of the entire area region.

[amarain]

I dont think that would answer the question of whether its desirable or not.  Here in my town the city decided to put up several condos that block the bay view of some residents and in their minds detract from the rustic quality of the town.  These people are out in full force against it, calling town meetings and picketing.  That has hardly detered city planners who are not simply trying to create what would be a boon for the contractors or the future landlords (no matter what opponents say, read anti corporation argument) but rather recognize that without organized development ultimately the local region will suffer sprawl and overcrowding. 

This is a case in my mind for not heeding the outcry of some group of citizens who the press and they themselves would have you believe speak for the town at large and instead looking at down the road a ways for the good of the entire area region.

I see your point, but that's a realllly dangerous road, one that I'm not willing to go down. Basically you're saying, the people don't always know best, and sometimes the government (or in this case, private developers who are out for a profit) has to step in and ignore the people's wishes and take the power away from them. It's not too far from there to defending dictatorship.