It is just plain wrong to think things were just peachy in the United States until last week when all the Supreme Court did was make de jure what had been de facto for quite some time regarding the state’s ability to sieze private property for no other reason than to get more tax. But perhaps this is for the best as there is no longer any doubt that things are badly broken and that this should not be a left vs. right issue. As Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent:
If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect discrete and insular minorities, surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms to victimize the weak.
Those incentives have made the legacy of this court’s public purpose test an unhappy one. In the 1950s, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of public use this court adopted in Berman, cities rushed to draw plans for downtown development. Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were non-white, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them. Public works projects in the 1950s and 1960s destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely lower-income and elderly Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; in cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as Negro removal. Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the slum-clearance project upheld by this court in Berman were black. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the court’s decision will be to exacerbate these effects.
I trust that decent Democrats who are not in the pockets of public sector employee associations and who actually have at the core of their convictions the desire to help the ‘have nots’ against whom the system can at time be so slanted, will set aside partisan politics and join with Republicans who are not in the pockets of well funded business interests to rebel against this savage wound to the US Constitution which in effects rips out the Fifth Amendment. Let this case be the litmus test of decency against which political figures of both left and right will judged and judged harshly.
This case is a great opportunity to use the rhetoric of the left for centre-right and libertarian purposes.
Though the front page of Daily Kos approves of the decision , plenty of the comments say that this decision favors Wal-Mart and the big corporations.
I think that’s what Perry has been doing pretty effectively for quite some time.
This case is a great opportunity to use the rhetoric of the left for centre-right and libertarian purposes.
I think that’s what Perry has been doing pretty effectively for quite some time.
I don’t believe in these tactics.
You have to spread the “meme”, the ideas, the metacontext of libertarianism. You do not wish to peddle some particular, specific, outcome, under false pretenses, masquerading as a leftist cause. Doing so you concede their point – you concede that their values and principles are more valid than ours. This is wrong.
And don’t deluge yourselves that it works, or that it makes you popular with the lefties.
From the opinion of Justice Thomas as quoted:
“Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; in cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as Negro removal. “
I have a question. I don’t know the facts, it’s just a question: those blacks that were forcibly displaced from urban ghetos and blighted areas – are they better off or worse ? I mean: they surely got compensation. I don’t know how much. Maybe, just maybe, they found better places to live, in better, less crime infested neighbourhoods thanks to this compensation.
I oppose in principle government schemes for wholesale forced replacement of people, whether black or white, or green, and whether they end up better or worse off. I don’t think that pointing out the color or the income level of the displaced person adds to the case.
Justice Thomas, is trying, maybe understandably, to harp on the “poor black” motif. It hasn’t endeared him to any of the lefties (or the leftie blacks).
Jacob’s first point above is a shot-on-goal. The right of this fight is right, whether the left agrees or not. And they’re never going to get behind the fundamentals of the thing, which is what makes ’em lefties to begin with.
Who needs ’em?
That is because you clearly do not understand what I am doing at all and certainly touches on why I am so indifferent to the whole ‘libertarian’ label. I am interested in the truth and developing better theories about things and letting the ‘ism’ take care of itself.
There is nothing phoney about what I say, it is indeed what I think, I just decline to allow my enemies the moral high ground when what they say they want is at odds with what they do. They claim to support the minority, the poor, the working man, whereas in reality nothing could be further from the truth. You don’t like the way I frame it? So what? You are not who I am talking to as preaching to the choir is not why I write what I write.
Not the sort of thing I usually comment on, but as an old navy man myself, I know it is a good idea to be the one who chooses the place of battle and ideally frame the terms of the engagement.
Left and Right misses the whole issue here. To win politically you need to convince not just your natural supporters but also the people who often listen to the other side. Tony Blair wins by talking to former Tory voters in a language they understand rather than the sort of flat cap Union hall speak of his predecessors.
If you cannot see what I am driving at, then I guess you cannot see what the good Mr. de Havilland is driving at either. It is all about connecting things.
Well, I rather liked Jacob’s”don’t deluge yourselves”. We all at times deluge ourselves in the belief that our arguments are so persuasive that no listener/reader could remain unconvinced. Alas, alack. Henceforth, I will be on my guard against being deluged with delusions about the power of my arguments.
Perry de Havilland writes:
“That is because you clearly do not understand what I am doing at all and certainly touches on why I am so indifferent to the whole ‘libertarian’ label. I am interested in the truth and developing better theories about things and letting the ‘ism’ take care of itself.”
You might risk blindness, or hairs growing in the palms of your hands or somesuch, but may I commend the above as a ‘quote of the day’?
Too often, comments here deteriorate into a ‘more libertarian than thou’ pissing contest.
As Mr de Havilland says: it isn’t about ‘isms’ – it’s about the truth. ‘Isms’ are prisons – inimical to truths, which they try to set, immutable, like flies in amber.
Two thoughts come to mind regarding Jacob’s comment.
I agree we must spread the word on the value of liberty but I would temper that with the fact that liberty is not the only value. And if we are not looking to take the path of revolution then “politics is the art of the possible”.
Which means we have to engage the minds of many parts of the political spectrum and build common ground where it might not already exist.
1. This is an example of judicial activism in total contradiction with the text and original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Once again, activist judges (who happen to be of liberal political/ideological bent) allowed the state to take away your property for another private entity.
My suggestion to the private developer – buy the properties from individual homeowners, instead of using the corrupt city hall for your advantae.
2. Here is an insightful and satirical look at the decision.
“Wal-Mart To Demolish The Supreme Court for Super Supreme Center”
at http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog June 23, 2005 article.
Bernie – Which means we have to engage the minds of many parts of the political spectrum and build common ground where it might not already exist Surely you mean “where it has not already been colonised and castrated.”
Perry is correct about the gradual erosion of American liberties going back a long way. To pick up on the recent bleat about the decreasing pleasure of driving in Britain, by the 1950s most U.S. jurisdictions had got rid of the prima facie speed limit, that is, the defense against a speeding charge that your speed was correct for the weather, road, traffic, etc. at the time. Now it is an offense merely to exceed the posted speed limit. I believe that this is what is called in Britain an absolute crime, for which there is no defense. And while U.S. jurisdictions are generally willing to overlook a 4 mile/hour infraction (owing to radar inaccuracies), I believe British speed cameras will nail the driver who exceeds by even a single mile/hour.
anonymous – doubtful. Everywhere I have been in the world, including many states in the US, the conventional wisdom is “the police will give you five”.
Britain being, now an iron-fisted fascist state, this may not be the case there any more. But in most countries of the world …
I don’t know what an “absolute crime” is. Could someone explain? I thought it was wearing white high heels at Ascot.
Verity–
Anonymous is correct that most states used to allow one to argue that one’s speed was correct and reasonable for the conditions, and that the posted signage was clearly in error. This was changed in most states in the ’50s. Certain exceptions exist.
The problem with these sort of “appropriate for the conditions” laws is that they are ripe for abuse– the police can enforce strictly against those that they don’t like, and overlook it in other cases. Of course, they do that with the practice of allowing 5 or so over the posted limit. (In my home state of NC, on a 70 mph highway, a cop told me that “90 is about where I have to start pulling people,” so it clearly goes higher at times.)
Verity writes-
“Everywhere I have been in the world, including many states in the US, the conventional wisdom is “the police will give you five”.
This is usually the case in the state of Georgia. But some areas are more strict than others. There are times when you’ll see an officer on the side of the road with a speed radar checking everyone who passes by. Then there have been many times when I would be going ten miles over and a cop would pass me and not even bother to come after me.
Very late to the party, please excuse my rambling.
I must confess a certain familiarity with the personalities posting at Daily Kos, and in defense of that buzzing hive of lunacy, I can say that Armando, the blogger defending the Kelo decision, is hardly in the mainstream there.
As for the possibility that decent, not-in-anyone’s-pocket (etc) Democrats will be united with their Republican counterparts in opposition to this decision; those meeting this description seem to be very thin on the ground here in our (US) government. And it’s not just employee associations that own Democratic congressmen – the credit card companies seem to have more than a few in their collective pockets, including leaders like Joe Biden. I’m not optimistic.
Finally, cheers for this bit:
I am interested in the truth and developing better theories about things and letting the ‘ism’ take care of itself.
Would that more on my side of the pond felt this way.
Perry,
“…preaching to the choir is not why I write what I write.”
Well, ok. But preaching the wrong religion is not what you want to do.
Eminent domain takings are wrong because they violate property rights and not because they deprive the “poor”.
The probable result of your preaching might be that lefties will agree with you that taking from the poor, or from the black is wrong, so lets limit our takings to the rich. Or, since they don’t like private property at all, they’ll say: “ok, since the poor suffer we need to compensate them”, i.e. – they’ll never agree that takings are wrong.
“I am interested in the truth and developing better theories about things and letting the ‘ism’ take care of itself.”
That’s very praiseworthy indeed. Starnge how I never thought about it.
If you thing that basing you opposition to takings on the suffering of the poor rather than on the importance of property rights – that this is a “better theory” – I disagree.
The theory is simple: take someone on the left who does not much care for property rights and who will react to abstract arguments about it with either a yawn or suspicion. The show them the implications to the poor/blacks/lesbian single mothers/whoever who then end up getting their houses bulldozed for a Wal Mart because their property rights are not being respected and then ask them again: “So, Senor Leftie…NOW what do you think about the issue?”.
You may find you suddenly have allies in the strangest places when you speak to people in language they understand. You do not have to lie about anything, just speak in a way that makes you relevant.
Property rights: they are not just for property developers any more.
I watched the “Georgia Gang” this weekend and all commentators on all sides of the spectrum were appalled by this decision some for property rights reasons some for populist reasons. Good news was that the former editor of the Atlanta Journal asked the GA AG for an opinion under GA law and he came back with a never will happen (legally at least) in GA even under existing law. What’s more apparently there is a bill to be taken up (already passed the Senate) by the House next year further strengthening property rights in GA. So I am not as freaked as I was, but Congress still needs to act to prevent action by the federal government. When you have an black commentator say that this is like Dred Scott you know people are angry. “Rick and Bubba” said this illustrates the reason for the 2nd amendment.
Increasingly a mythical beast, I am afraid. I can’t remember the last time I saw a Dem buck the teacher’s union, at least not twice.
I would have thought that prior experience with such monstrosities as Constitution Plaza in Hartford, Connecticut, or Government Center and Charles River Park in Boston would have been sufficiently instructive. The unholy alliance of “planners” and real estate developers continues. The only major change in Kelo, though, is that the planners no longer have to even maintain the fiction that they are renovating a blighted area. The mere improvement of the city’s finances is enough. By similar logic, the city of Cambridge could condemn the property of Harvard University. After all, commercial development of this valuable real estate would mean a substantial increase in the property tax rolls by the conversion of exempt properties. Why not?
One more thought: most cities and towns in the US apply a higher property tax rate to commercial properties than to residential properties. This is very popular with the voters. If they are turned out of their houses and forced to move away, they aren’t voters any longer, are they? At least not in that town. So converting residential property to commercial is a paying proposition for a town. As long as the voters in other parts of the town can be persuaded that the taking was beneficial, the pols will escape the condign punishment that might otherwise be visited upon them at the next election.
Utterly disgusting.
The facts stemming from this horrible decision are simple:
1. It’s being attacked by both Left and Right because, at the heart of the matter, it violates any remaining vestiges of the concept of “private property”. The Left sees it as another example of the BushCheneyHalliburtonEnron oligopoly strangling the proletariat (not altogether wrong, either, except for the incorrect linkage to GWB), while the Right sees it as yet another example of Big Gummint bullying the individual. Regardless of the reason for opposition, what’s clear is that everyone is at risk because of this concept. The only difference is likely to be the reponse: the Left will go to the courts (good luck), and the Right will go to the guns (again, good luck).
2. With this latest decision, the Supreme Court has further widened the gulf between itself (one of the three pillars of the State) and the people. It had already started on this path many years ago, but of late the decisions have become more and more alienating to people.
I can only hope that the states will start amending their own state constitutions to restore full property rights — one Texas legislator has already begun the process — but I have to say that I’m not too sanguine about this happening universally.
I think an extra 100 rounds at the range is called for, to celebrate this one.
I’ll add to Mitch’s comment the observation that in the USA local governments use zoning regulation as another abusive means of boosting the tax base. For example, in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC the government of Montgomery County has zoned desirable close-in areas for business use under the obfuscating rubric of “smart growth.” That’s great for generating tax revenues, but the people who work in these areas often can’t afford to live near them — thus the horror stories about long commutes. And since the commuters don’t vote in the county where they work, there’s little negative feedback to the local government that misuses its zoning authority.
This isn’t a Left-Right issue? Its an issue of the “living Constitution” and who do you think trampled on the Constitution and private property owners?
The 9th, 10th and 14th amendments were ignored and the 5th was discarded by unelected, irresponsible elitists.
Couple this with their religious decisions, capityal punishment, police protection and foreign precident issue and you have an imperial court that is going amok. We had a revolution to rid ourselfs of such rule. I guess democracy in the United States is dead.
One thing is certain, current day Americans are sheep. They are waiting for their “betters” to tell them what they need.
I hate to break this to you but the Republicans have not exactly been rolling back the frontiers of the state lately. Like the guy says in the article, this isn’t something thats just happened, it’s been going on for a long time under governments of both parties. I’m a Republican but I’ve seen plenty of Democrats who are horrified by this ruling.
I guess it takes a Brit to look in from the outside and see it clearly without the tribal crap but there are plenty of Democrats I would trust over scum like McCain or Arlen Specter or that worthless jackass Bloomberg. No, this isn’t a left-right issue, it is a common sense and common justice issue and when it comes to over turning this national disgrace, I’ll take my allies where ever the hell I find them.
I don’t mean to just recycle and praise ideas I’ve seen Perry and others post here on Samizdata, but you could argue that it’s not democracy, but the republic, that’s dead. There are no rights, just what the collective, the greater good, wills.
Sen. Cornyn (R.Tx) has introduced abill in the Sen. to counter the impact of Kelo:
(a) . . . The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.
(b) . . . In this Act, the term “public use” shall not be construed to include economic development.
(c) . . . This act shall apply to (1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.
Sub. (c) is the sticking point. Volokh(Link) Thinks it won’t have much impact on local and state action.
Other legal experts, such as SCOTUSblog(Link) think it is a significant piece of legislation. Of, course it has just been introduced and could be modified during the process, assuming it actually gets somewhere.
“the term “public use” shall not be construed to include economic development.”
Is road building economic developement ? No ? What is it then ?
Is it more important to build a school than a mall ? Who says so, who decides ?
The term “public use” is very difficult to define, as is the term “economic developent”.
I’m afraid we will always depend on judges to decide in each particular case if the use of eminent domain is acceptable, and, when accepted, if the compensation was adequate.
If Japan, with far higher population density and land prices than the USA or UK, can manage to become an advanced first world nation without ’eminent domain’, then the idea that no roads will ever get made or rails laid without such legalised robbery is clearly not the truth.
Fine. So let’s abolish this eminent domain thing. It only requires an amendment to the Constitution, but let’s do it.
As for Japan – I would hesitate to throw it about as an example of respect for individual liberty. I don’t know enough about them but I’m sceptical.
You were not talking about individual liberty, you were talking about how infrastructure will not get built unless there is eminent domain. I pointed out that a highly developed industrial nation does not use such powers for that sort of thing. That does not require Japan to be a paragon in liberty for the example to be true and therefore for the utilitarian argument for eminent domain to fail.
Poetic Justice?:
Weare, New Hampshire (Link)(PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.
Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home
I can’t see what all the fuss is about. If it is constitional for the Government to pass laws (aka tax laws) requiring people to give up their money for vague public purposes, then it is hardly surprising that it is constitutional for the Government to pass laws requiring people to give up their land for vague public purposes.