Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Do you support eminent domain? [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)32. I voted to pass on the existing options because my response is
I support the centuries old power of eminent domain, recognized in the US Constitution, if "public" is defined very narrowly and the price paid is very fair, meaning a bonus for the involuntary nature of the move, not simply fair market value of the property.
If a city really needs a right of way or a piece of property for a valid and necessary city use and the owner(s) won't sell, something has to give for the good of the city's population. But, eminent domain has been abused and the results have been highly detrimental to the general population.
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.
The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of ten years after the court's decision nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $100 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which owned a $300 million research facility in the area, and would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its facility, and did so shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.[12] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
when the Texas Rangers used it to build a stadium, I fully understood the potential for abuse.
virtualobserver
Feb 2016
#4
ED has been abused time and again for "Public Good." Many times "Public Good" is bullshit!
TheBlackAdder
Feb 2016
#39
"for public use" - does that include making you sell it so they can build a Walmart store? n/t
PoliticAverse
Feb 2016
#3
Ok so you are positing a more restricted version of eminent domain than that allowed...
PoliticAverse
Feb 2016
#10
A private NJ pizza shop EDed someone's backyard for off-street parking, seen as "Public Good"
TheBlackAdder
Feb 2016
#41
If I recall correctly, in the SC case from Connecticut related to this, the progressive justices
hughee99
Feb 2016
#12
That is a wonderful idea - the idea that the persons so dispossessed would get a share in
Yo_Mama
Feb 2016
#24
If I am fairly compensated for property I am not intensly attatched to, and for the public good -
Kali
Feb 2016
#21
In NJ, a Pizza Shop EDed a neighbor's backyard for a parking lot. Reason, move cars off the street!
TheBlackAdder
Feb 2016
#38
I guess it makes me sort of right-wing-ish, but no, I don't support the concept.
begin_within
Feb 2016
#25
Yes, if they are paid equal to or more than market value and the purpose is for urban renewal.
ErikJ
Feb 2016
#26
It's in the constitution. Until it is amended. . .gotta support the constitution.
Feeling the Bern
Feb 2016
#28
You are absolutely right. They must be fairly compensated, and go through due process as you stated
still_one
Feb 2016
#35
And as long as the state doesn't mess with 'fair value' by saying the property is devalued..
X_Digger
Feb 2016
#36