Skip to main content

Kelo v. New London

This is the website where you can read this case. While the opinion is lengthy, the implications touch every homeowner or future homeowner. I find it very disturbing that our government can take our privately owned property and transfer it to another private owner who uses it for profit either reselling or for a commercial use and under the claim of "public use" or "public purpose".

I would like to know the thoughts of others; attorneys or property owners or regular citizens, on what you think the long term ramifications of this case will be on our country in general and Black people in particular. I look forward to the discussion.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Honestly, I'm torn. On the one hand I certainly would not want this to happen to me or anyone I know. At the same time, as a member of a community, I believe that we have to make sacrifices consistent with the over-all welfare of our community.

To be clear, I don't like the idea of the government taking anyone's property, but if there is somethng about a specific parcel of land that would provide some broad community benefit AND the parties involved will be adequately compensated for their loss - then I might be inclined to see the over-all benefit. I guess it all is up to the definition and determination of the phrases "public use" and "public purpose". I would want the determination of those criteria to be a part of an open and transparent public process.
Can you explain how many of you have big issues with the government confiscation of REAL ESTATE private property because of the greater benefits that it will bring to the society

BUT

You just love PROGRESSIVE TAX POLICIES which confiscate an increasing amout of PRIVATE PROPERTY that is in the form of INCOME from certain segments of the population and feel perfectly content because YOU ARE NOT THE ONE GETTING SCREWED?

If the logic follows that had these people had possession of the money that that the government took in PROGRESSIVE TAXATION they could have purchased REAL ESTATE with it AND THEN you would be opposed to the government taking it in THAT FORM ------Why is it that you are so upset with the government confiscating private property in the form of REAL ESTATE?


HUmmmmmmmm
Renaldo (since that's what people who know you call you), and for that matter, MBM & Surfingnymph:

The problem with Kelo v. New London is that it gives government the right to take private property and give it to another private person, simply on the grounds that the new developer will put the property to a use that will bring in more tax revenue. So the problem is not that the government could take property; the government was always able to do that. But with this decision, government can now take property for virtually any reason. Before, there were limits to when; now, there really isn't.

Under the way the 5th amendment is logically read, eminent domain was supposed to be limited only to purely public purposes; taxes are for purely public purposes. But this decision allows eminent domain for just about any kind of private purpose. That's one big difference, and it's one huge reason why you can support the progressive tax and oppose this decision.
It appears to me that you are focusing in on the 'technical margins' to make your case.

The fact is, for example that the government collects tax money right now and then provides money to PRIVATE HOME OWNERS so that they can fix their private property up because they can't afford to do so on their own.

(I know that by bringing this up this is showing my self hatred, hatred of Black people that are disproportionately and hatred of the poor, but)

Can you distinguish for me the MATERIAL difference between a private developer and a private home owner as they both benefit from receipt of tax money that was collected from someone else for their own benefit?

Keep in mind that my next iteration of questioning I would ask if you would support having tax payer money go to fix up a rich person's mansion in order for you to justify any "well they are poor people" claims that you or others might decide to make.
I guess the difference lies in our apparently different senses of values. If you see no practical difference in "public benefit" between using general tax moneys for purposes like the one you mentioned (of which how much of that is from the money you're complaining about), and taking specific real property from a few specific unlucky people and giving the land to Pfizer to build a satellite office, then you simply have a different set of values than I do.

I'm sure there's more of a key difference than that, otherwise this issue would have shown up somewhere in one of the justice's opinions. But to even conceive of such an argument shows that you have a different set of values from most other people.
Vox, you are real familiar with CF aka Renaldo. He once used the moniker Conservo on TBWT.

On topic,

Renaldo, why is that you made an argument that we are not the ones getting screwed by way of taxes being taken for usage by the government to do whatever they please with it, be it sponsor a war, give low income families money to help build a home or whatever. Do you think the men and women on this board are poor? I would be willing to bet that there are probably more of us on this board who have a greater income than you thus meaning we pay higher taxes than you and yet we still see the necessity in helping the poor via our tax dollars. You are a wanna be elitist seeking to protect the real elitist simply because you share the same ideology.

Laws like this will continue to be double edge swords; there is no way around it. Out here in So.Cal there is a group of home owners that have homes next to the freeway and this freeway is always congested, the city is looking to expand the freeway to relieve the congestion and these homeowners have been offered more than enough compensation for their homes but some of them still refuse to move. In this instance I support the city but there will always be instances where I believe a city is over reaching.
quote:
taking specific real property from a few specific unlucky people and giving the land to Pfizer to build a satellite office, then you simply have a different set of values than I do.



"Unlucky" - I wonder how you would be able to go into any legislature around this country and forumulate a law that encapsulates YOUR BELIEFS as stated above?

You couldn't do it.

Am I to believe that folks like "Barak Obama and Condi Rice" are LUCKY?
Luck is what will happen tonight if I win the Mega Millions $122 million having done nothing more than have the computer to choose some numbers for me and handing over a dollar.

PREPARATION in advance to take advantage of an OPPORTUNITY is a better way describe the "Luck" of a significant portion of people who have good fortune.
Renaldo, the point I'm making is that it's all about ideology with you. Taxes are part of the social contract. There is a theory that justifies the progressive tax. If there weren't, then it wouldn't exist, because it is the wealthy in this country that dictate these kinds of policies. I hope you don't believe that Ray-Ray from E. 99th Street lobbied successfully for the imposition of a progressive tax system. I don't know the actual ins and outs, but taxation is part of our social contract. We're here to take advantage, theoretically, of what America has to offer. We put in, we take out, from the system; we pay taxes based on what we can afford. That's why the progressive tax has, to date, won out over the flat tax or a national sales tax.

The constitution is also part of our social contract; it's the bundle of guarantees that's part of what we theoretically buy into as members of society. The 5th amendment does say that takings are supposed to be for a public purpose. The Kelo case, you have to admit, writes that out of the constitution.

Taxation and purely public use takings are, if I see it from as close to your perspective as I can allow, similar in purpose. But taking property to to give it to Pfizer to build an office is just not a public purpose. Aside from corporate welfare, there is nothing about taxation that's comparable.

And your example assumes that no poor people's tax money is used for these things.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
Vox, you are real familiar with CF aka Renaldo. He once used the moniker Conservo on TBWT.



Eek Eek Eek

This is Conservo?!? Didn't he used to be a bit more... thoughtful than this? I guess that's what happens when you get too hooked on that ideology juice.

Renaldo, this is Vox Nouveau/Brick Soul from TBWT. And you've really come a long way, if I remember Conservo correctly...
Last edited {1}
quote:
This is Conservo?!? Didn't he used to be a bit more... thoughtful than this? I guess that's what happens when you get too hooked on that ideology juice.

Renaldo, this is Vox Nouveau/Brick Soul from TBWT. And you've really come a long way, if I remember Conservo correctly...


More than "ideology" what you hear from me is the DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABILITY based on the system that we as Blacks have been told to follow for more than 40 years.

CLEARLY there are some variables that are not being dealt with and thus the 'air keeps going out of the tire' from these holes. Some folks DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THESE HOLES and thus they are not REALLY attempting to do all that is necessary to FIX THE FLAT.

The only change that I have made from those days at TBWT is to FOCUS ON A SYSTEMATIC AND MORE PERMANET CORRECTIONs rather than to implement policies that have SERIOUS DEPENDENCIES on your "traditional enemies" with the assistence of those from the "enemy camp" that have a bit more "Fox-like" attributes that distinguish them from the "Wolves".
Partisipants in this discussion may we please go back to the topic. I am disappointed with this opinion on a number of levels. First it rewrites the constitiution. Second, it turns us into a comutiaplist society, goverment taking for the sake of captialism. Third, and this is the most disturbing point, whose property is safe and what is next, how much more of our liberty will be decimated by the stroke of a pen.

See how people are reacting to Justice Souter's opinion

Another Article
Surfingnymph (love your avatar, by the way),

I too, have mixed feelings about it. It's too bad that these decisions are always "across the board", especially ones like this, when a case by case application of the law would be much better.

But that would require judges to do more work and we know that's not going to happen.

In this particular case, Kelo v. New London, I would definitely side with the homeowners. Come on, New London is no burned-out section of Watts or Detroit.

But on the other side, for the really impovrished and downtrodden areas of inner-cities where slumlords reign supreme and will not sell at a reasonable price, how are cities to renew these areas?

They have to be able to acquire the property somehow. Many abandoned buildings are owned by people who hold onto them for tax purpose or for whatever reason. And if just one of these people refuses to sell in an inner-city development and stands in the way of the renewal project, what is a city to do?

I don't know. There is no easy answer on this one. As I said, the best solution would have been to decide on a case by case basis. But, that didn't happen.
.
.
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×