Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[Spartan]

I think that eminent domain is a good thing when it is used for the public. It can help revitalize blighted areas or replace that dilapitdated crack house with a nice park.

I agree that taking private land and reselling it for private use is wrong.

[Sabaidee]

Even if the states restrict it, what's to stop the case from going to the Fed Supreme court  based on Federal public gain??  The court has already just ruled that it's the law they can take it for increased revenue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In this ruling, the marjority said states are free to pass laws limiting their eminent domain powers. The ruling said, governments CAN, not must.

[MrSmith]

In general I don't think the government should NOT force private owners to give up their land and i think as a result of this ruling you will see a lot of states passing tougher standards.

I think this ruling is a positive thing because it forces states to address what standards are needed before a property can be forced to sell. Currently there seem to be no standards in most states --so it completely hinges on public support or lack of it.

Talk to any politicians and you'll find that they would rather pluck their own eyes out then have to force businesses or home owners to move when they don't want to.

Reading all the posts on here you would think that we do not elect our local officials. You talk as if the government is something you have no controll over. My experience is that local officails are far more responsive and in tune to the people they represent. Additionally, they are generally normal citizens who got involved in governement because they wanted to make a difference. I think a characterization that they are some how separate from the community and lord over the community is inaccurate and a real disservice.

It is easy to demonize politicians and the government --but it is much more effective to work with them to shape good laws and good communities.

[Brickell]

So here's what I have trouble wrapping my head around... Is eminent domain good or bad for urbanism. I tend to think it's a bad thing, but where would our cities be without it?

[buster]

Check this out, someone wants to build a hotel on David Souter's property

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

[MrSmith]

If abused eminent domain can certainly be a bad thing. But, we do have a system of checks and balances in the form of elections, hearings and laws. Not to mention the fact that they can't simply take your land...they have to give your fair market value.

In my old neighborhood several old store fronts were being used for a church, offices etc. They were functioning but added no value to the neighborhood. A developer proposed a new condo project which included condos, public spaces, and retail. The neighborhood council supported the plan, the city supported the plan and six of the seven land owners came to agreements with the developer. The developer had even lined up high quality retail to lease the space.

One small land owner (who lived out of state) refused to sell at any price and the entire project fell though. This project would have done so much for the community. With this new ruling perhaps progress can actually be made and the neighborhood can finally be revitalized.

[krazeeboi]

Is the Supreme Court decision an eminently pro-sprawl decision?

[buster]

I think some people may be missing the important point of this decision. It's not about how much the government must compensate you for your land. It's not about what is good for a city (which of course is 100% subjective anyway).

It is about your right as an American to own property. Ownership MEANS something - it doesn't mean you have a financial interest in a property which can be bought out by other private investors at the whim of the government. It means the you the owner are in control.

"Supreme Court" is now quite a misnomer - maybe we need a new name for them. Any ideas?

[Spartan]

Another thing that most people forget is that eminent domain is not just used to build large, visible projects like the one in New London. Very basic things that most of us take for granted like sewer lines, water lines, mass transit lines, power lines, telephone lines and many other utilities require eminent domain to construct the elements that sustain our society.

[Exile]

If the city said the steps would be built, then the damn stairs will be built. So they aren't there yet, but it's not complete, and the promenade hasn't even began, but it will.

"Taking private property for the benefit of another private company's profits is NOT beneficial and is not a great leap from communism."  --- No part of the riverplace developement is being built where these building once stood. If they did, then i think it might have been difficult for them to start construction on the first building on the corner of Main and Camperdown... It is public space and is not private development that the city is planning on their former property.

Also, even if their businesses were there during the tough times, so what? It wasn't the few buildings and businesses of South Main that revitalized Downtown Greenville. I have honestly NEVER heard of anyone going downtown just to go to Mitchell stereo or the other two- so what'd they do? For one thing, they could've kept up their buildings and if they were appealing to view from the street level and from the river banks, then maybe they could've been spared and worked into the project's master plan. If they were doing such good business at S. Main, then why didn't they stay down there but in another location, instead of moving or closing down? It just doesn't add up.

Personally, If my property was in an urban area such as downtown and it was not my residence, then I would be happy to take the money and run. If I cared at all about the city in which I live, then I wouldn't hesitate. All of Greenville is benefitting from this development and it is increasing the quality of life. Therefore my opinion would not be changed if it were made more personal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is too easy to speculate on and judge people's motives for wanting to maintain ownership of their property. Your reasoning here is ad hoc, and is based on a judgment about the merits of a person's interest (financial or sentimental or otherwise) in their property. Such evaluations are irrelevant. Billy Mitchell could've offered the reason that he believed there was a tree-sprite living in the third stud of his upper-floor bathroom wall (how's that for off-the-top-of-my-head?), and that should be good enough to deflect any expropriation that isn't materially and tangibly beneficial to the public (sewer, road, the like).

The appearance of the building is irrelevant, too. You may not like it, but why should Billy Mitchell care whether you or I like it? If it suits his purposes, conforms generally to zoning requirements (as long as these aren't used as a pretext for eminent domain) and is structurally sound, then we all have to buzz off.

It is hard for me to see how a stairway rises to the level of utility of a sewer or road. Yes, technically it is owned by the city, but it is undeniable that Bob Hughes (and Phil?) reaps the material benefit from it (rental income). The aesthetics of a nice stairway for general public consumption just isn't enough.

Dare I say it: graft is what we'll get from this Supreme Court decision. We've already seen it writ small here in Greenville with the Riverplace development. It'll be writ large somewhere before long.

[Unifour]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but my family appears to think it's bad. Pretty cute about Souter's property, but seriously, the Supreme Court has had some pretty appalling decisions in the past, such as Dred Scott, ruling that blacks could not be citizens, were not free in free states, and congress couldn't bar slavery. Our rights have been infringed upon from the beginning. Only 15 years after the founding of the United States of America, the government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which essentially made protest and dissent a crime. The Constitution is, after all, only a sheet of paper. The only way to make sure they obey it is to be active, and pay attention and take action. Democracy doesn't gurantee good or honest government, it only gives you the ability to do something about it, which Americans haven't been doing much anymore. Always remember, the eternal price of liberty is vigilence.