Personal property? Not anymore...

I don't know what anyone else thinks about this issue of the government being able to seize land, but I think the whole thing stinks of corporate corruption. I mean COME ON!!! Seizing personal property for the "good of the community"? What a load of bullshit. It needs to be reworded for the "good of corporate America and our skyrocketing profits agenda". Puh. Excuse me while I go puke.

((Also I'm not an online subscriber to NYtimes so the article is not complete, but search any news source and I'm sure you'll find similar articles.))

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/politics/24scotus.html

WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in one of its most closely watched property rights cases in years, that fostering economic development is an appropriate use of the government's power of eminent domain.
The 5-to-4 decision cleared the way for the City of New London, Conn., to proceed with a large-scale plan to replace a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research and development, a conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian "riverwalk" along the Thames River.

The project, to be leased and built by private developers, is intended to derive maximum benefit for the city from a $350 million research center built nearby by the Pfizer pharmaceutical company.

New London, deemed a "distressed municipality" by the state 15 years ago, has a high unemployment rate and fewer residents today than it had in 1920.

The owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, including one woman who was born in her house 87 years ago and has lived there since, had resisted the plan and refused the city's offer of compensation. After the city condemned the properties in November 2000, the homeowners went to state court to argue that the taking would be unconstitutional. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain in a ruling last year.

In affirming that decision, the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens resolved a question that had surprisingly gone unanswered for all the myriad times that governments have used their power under the Fifth Amendment to take private property for public use. The question was the definition of "public use."

The homeowners, represented by a public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, which has conducted a national litigation campaign against what it calls eminent domain abuse, argued that taking property to enable private economic development, even development that would provide a public benefit by enhancing the tax base, could never be a "public use."

In its view, the only transfers of property that qualified were those that gave actual ownership or use to the public, like for a highway or a public utility.

But the majority concluded on Thursday that public use was properly defined more broadly as "public purpose." Justice Stevens noted that earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment had allowed the use of eminent domain to redevelop a blighted neighborhood in Washington, to redistribute land ownership in Hawaii and to assist a gold-mining company, in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice Stevens said, adding, "Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor objected that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power."

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."

Justice Stevens, examining the New London plan in light of the majority's general analysis, said the plan "unquestionably serves a public purpose," even though it was intended to increase jobs and tax revenue rather than remove blight.

He described the plan as "carefully formulated" and comprehensive. Sounding a federalism note, Justice Stevens said that state legislatures and courts were best at "discerning local public needs" and that the judgment of the New London officials was "entitled to our deference."Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter joined the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. Justice Kennedy also wrote a separate concurring opinion to emphasize that while there was no suggestion in this instance that the plan was intended to favor any individual developer, "a court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should treat the objection as a serious one and review the record to see it if has merit."

 

Anything for a dollar..the fukers will stop at nothing

 

A very sad day indeed. I just heard on the radio a few days ago that they made a woman sell her house...for a shopping center to go up!! Jeeze....

 

There has always been "imminent domain" where the government could condemn property for government-sponsored construction like roads and such. But this is condemnation for private enterprises! And you wouldn't think that Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Bader Ginsberg, and Beyer would come down as for something like this. But they did. Have aliens abducted the supremes?

 

^ no, just big business.

 

I can't wait to see what the fallout on this will be...I'm outraged that something like this could happen, and I don't think we've heard the end of the story. This WILL turn into a big "land grab" for anything the govt. sees fit, if the people don't stand up and fight. At least this issue may serve to wake the "sheeples" up to what is going on. We can only hope..

 

eminent domain


Those are words that will strike fear in any home owner's heart.

 

All hail King George and the Supremes!

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/bush_and_the_texas_land_grab.htm

 

Immiment Domian (late and I can't spell at the moment) is where land is taken for PUBLIC use, like a highway or a sewer. This is to allow PRIVATE businesses to take your land to do whatever they want with it, and you have NO SAY in it.

It's evil.

 

I would ask why does the council of this town believe that the ‘economic survival’ of their town depends on this development?

In the past ED has been used to secure land for highways and to clear slums for urban renewal as far as I can tell this project is being pushed using the same ‘public good’ argument.

According to the article the project will – “to replace a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research and development, a conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian "riverwalk" along the Thames River.
The project, to be leased and built by private developers, is intended to derive maximum benefit for the city from a $350 million research center built nearby by the Pfizer pharmaceutical company.”

It is saying that the public good of the city depends on this new tax revenue and the jobs it might produce. That its ‘economic survival’ is at stake, so shouldn’t we be asking why is New London in such a bad position and why are the taxes already raised not enough?

The article says that New London, was “deemed a "distressed municipality" by the state 15 years ago, has a high unemployment rate and fewer residents today than it had in 1920”

So far everyone is against the ED being used to get this land but I would ask what should the town be doing what are the alternatives?

 

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/con_property_backgrounder.html
I found this little snippet from the ij site rather intriguing as to the whole deriving more money from taxes angle.

So..... bulldoze the houses to build all the stuff for Pfizer and co to generate more $ to give it back to Pfizer and co?

 

'Looks like we got parallel threads goin' here (is that anything like parallel universes?).

This subject hits close to home, literally, in that New London is within 20 miles of where I live. New London may not be a boon town, but it ain't that bad, and there are nearby towns like Norwich and Willimantic that are more depressed, so that argument doesn't hold water IMO. Even if it did, this decision sets a scary precedent.

Pfizer is a huge pharmeucutical firm with lots of power, and they own a large chunk of the neighboring town of Groton. I've heard varying accounts from friends who have worked there, but they're basically your average modern-day American Dream corporate monstrosity, focused on the bottom line with little regard for the "little guy" (but hey, they make Viagra, so in a way they're concerned with another "little guy"--sorry, couldn't resist). A number of years ago Pfizer was gonna build a big research facility within a mile of my house on the edge of the UConn campus. This would entail tearing down a historic old barn and replacing a field in an agricultural section with a large building atop a hill. The problem was that not only would the building be unsightly in an otherwise pristine farm setting, but drainage from the facility would run down a hill into a water shed, eventually ending up in the Thames, and God knows what kinda toxic chemicals they might be sneaking into the ground water, being a chemical research facility and all. A friend of mine who's an activist and knowledgeable in environmental law took an interest in this project, and uncovered many short cuts they were taking in the design of the facility (and in the process made some public officials look really bad). Eventually, he made it so difficult for these people that they decided to can the whole thing, a major victory for those of us that live in the community, since the residents didn't want them there, just the big-money politicians that live elsewhere.

I'm not convinced Pfizer's presence will do a lot for the New London community anyway. They may support the tax base to some extent, and they may create some high tech jobs, but at what cost to the environment? Plus they won't be making it better for the economically disadvantaged people that live there, since most of the (high tech) jobs they create will go to qualified people that live outside the community, not the residents.

 

Here in Ohio, there was a big stink in Lakewood about eminent domain.

It seems developers wanted to tear down a modest (but actually still quite pleasant) area and build larger, more expensive houses.

Much of city council favored the idea, because property values and tax revenue would increase.

 

Is that the community they focused on on 60 minutes about a year ago?? There was an article in Mother Jones about a community in Ohio who was struggling with the eminent domain issue also.

 

there is another thread about this in america attacks....

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1473440#post1473440

 

**

This subject is interesting and for me opens up a number of questions about the US and American beliefs and attitudes. There seem to be those that are arguing that ‘owner’ should never have ‘their’ land taken away from them under any circumstances.

But if that is the case should not these people be arguing for the return of the land to the original owners, which I believe in this case was the Pequot tribe? (The original name of the settlement that became New London was Pequot)

Was the land originally ‘stolen’ from the Pequot or taken by force? Well from what I can tell (like most Indian land) it seems to have been a bit of both?

“the murder of a trader who had treated some Indians harshly involved the Pequot in war with the Whites. At that time their chief controlled 26 subordinate chiefs, claimed authority over all Connecticut east of Connecticut River, and on the coast as far west as New Haven or Guilford, as well as all of Long Island except the extreme western end. Through the influence of Roger Williams, the English secured the assistance or neutrality of the surrounding tribes. Next they surprised and destroyed the principal Pequot fort near Mystic River along with 600 Indians of all ages and both sexes, and this disaster crippled the tribe so much that, after a few desperate attempts at further resistance, they determined to separate into small parties and abandon the country (1637). Sassacus and a considerable body of followers were intercepted near Fairfield while trying to escape to the Mohawk and almost all were killed or captured”
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/connecticut/

Now it is very possible that the present owners bought the land but if land is stolen how much legal right do you have to it? I mean if you buy a TV and it turns out to be stolen you might be compensated but it isn’t ‘your’ TV and if you know in advance it was stolen isn’t that an offence in itself?

In a way the land would have to be registered with the state (first the British then the US) so in a way they are the guarantor of the lands ownership but if the state wants the land are the present ‘owners’ in any different position than those native American ‘owners’?

As to the taking of land by force that just means that might is right and the land belong to the person that can hold it.

**

I also wonder about the belief amongst many Americans that the US had a ‘manifest destiny’ that gave them the right to displace the native Americans in the name of ‘progress’. It was argued that the native Americans were not using the land to it’s full potential so that the it was only right that European setters take the land for the greater good of all the people.

This would be the same argument being put forward by the New London council. That the people presently occupying the land are not using it (in the opinion of the council) to its full potential so it must be removed from them for the greater good of the town.

 

You are, of course, Balbus, correct in saying that all of this land was taken under less than ideal circumstances from the people who were on it when the Europeans came and laid claim to it. Oops, did I say Europeans? Now I wonder... where did this idea of "manifest destiny" come from? Europe, perhaps? Oh, did I say Europe? Where did your people come from, Balbus? Were they Celts? Angles? Saxons? Normans? Northmen? Have you any instances of "laying claim" nestled in your family tree?

Casting manifest destiny as an American idea(l) is a mite smug, don't you think? We in the states might have (and had) some bad ways of looking at things, but we had excellent tutors.

 

Now I wonder... where did this idea of "manifest destiny" come from?

Well the simple answer is from the pen of John O’Sullivan but I think he just put a title to an idea that was already formed, here are a couple of extracts that might explain things -

Manifest Destiny was a nineteenth century belief that the United States had a divinely-inspired mission to expand, particularly across the North Americanfrontier towards the Pacific Ocean. The phrase, which means obvious (or undeniable) fate, was coined by New York journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845, when he wrote that "it was the nation's manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." Manifest Destiny was never a specific policy or ideology; it was a general notion that combined elements of American exceptionalism, nationalism, expansionism, and racism. Some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny still form an underlying part of American outlook and policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

Manifest Destiny -- a phrase used by leaders and politicians in the 1840s to explain continental expansion by the United States -- revitalized a sense of "mission" or national destiny for Americans.

The people of the United States felt it was their mission to extend the "boundaries of freedom" to others by imparting their idealism and belief in democratic institutions to those who were capable of self-government. It excluded those people who were perceived as being incapable of self-government, such as Native American people and those of non-European origin.

http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2aeng.html



**

Where did your people come from, Balbus?

Well as far as I know on one side it is Scottish Celt on the other French Norman. But what I think you are trying to get at is the idea of conquest or as you put it ‘laying claim’. The thing is that expansion, migration, assimilation and conquest are all parts of human history, and not just for Europeans. There have even been empires before the American one that have claimed to be favoured by their god(s) and to be spreading ‘civilisation’ such as the Romans and British.

But my point here is that many Americans even if they regret the way the native Americans were treated badly still think that the outcome was a good one. The ‘stolen’ land was exploited in a way that was not being undertaken and may not have been undertaken by the natives, the gold, silver, oil etc that was then removed were what made the US into the power it is today. Without that land grab and exploitation the US would be very different.

So they see the removal of property from the natives to the European settlers as right because it contributed to the US’s progress and helped toward the common good of that community.

What I’m asking is why people that think in that way would be against the move by the New London council?