Rachel Maddow - Alarmed churches fear 'Hobby Lobby' fallout

[freshwest]

5. He got the point... The reason for the First is to protect those with less power, not the powerful.

This decision, like so many since 2000, is all upside down. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v New London:

The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed.

NOW let's look at the series of events, as this was a complicated case that was unlike most other eminent domain cases in the past:

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.”

However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a temporary dump...[2]

That's disgusting and shows it was not a viable plan to help the city. And I doubt the corporation failed to avail itself of tax funded incentive from the city, waivers, low cost loans, whatever. Just like WALMART.

“Kelo” was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court since 1984. In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent domain, frequently to include economic development purposes.

In the Kelo case, Connecticut had a statute allowing eminent domain for “economic development” even in the absence of blight.

I'll note here that I've seen cases where cities conspired with private developers to make sure an area was blighted in advance. Minority areas for the most part, with city services denied and corporations or city run utilities conspiring to make neighborhoods less desireable. I saw this process carried out for decades at a time as areas near downtown areas were neglected because the city and the corporations envisioned more skyscrapers.

But I was also pleased and loved to see little old houses with widows living in them, like little oasises of green sitting on their front porch. It stood, bravely defying the high rise commerical buildings that were built right up to the property line, casting a shadow from all sides, unable to deny her beloved plants all the sunshine needed.

Or one time, a very lovely, well maintained old style hotel that was in nice shape that the big corporations wanted removed to build more of their district on, but the woman who owned it resisted and could not be moved, her poor tenants were safe from removal. And like the company in Kelo, the fortunes of the company that wanted all those blocks of city land, hit hard times and ended up moving away. That is how business works, it can be like a theft in the night that strongarms its way into a place, takes all that's not nailed down by law, and sails off like a pirate.

At that time, eminent domain was not abused like it can be now.

Overall, though, most of the cases I observed were pure, in your face racial discrimination. It was also done in more well off minority areas, even with mansions, well, just because...

There are cases where zoning was changed to assert that perfectly good housing, well maintained and the result of years of work and money put in by homeworkers to have a home to retire in, were changed to boot them out for more wealthy people to build their McMansons on. No blight at all, nothing unsafe or unsanitary. And nothing about economic development, as the city wasn't going to profit from it, neither were the citizens there. They were land grabs in the truest sense of the word, just like this one was.

There was also an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity; thus the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, if the government was simply doing so because the repossession would put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.

I've found with the tax breaks and incentives given, especially in terms of land given for homes for the wealthy, this is not at all true. There is no net benefit to cities. But there are rewards for the well-connected.

Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners.[6]

Susette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead attorneys on the case) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services.

The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.

The case was argued on February 22, 2005. The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision.

During arguments, several of the Justices asked questions that forecast their ultimate positions on the case. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, suggested that a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use," asserting that a private use which provided merely incidental benefits to the state was "not enough to justify use of the condemnation power."[7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

The Supreme Court of the United States: ruling for the powerful with only a few decades of the spirit of the ideals of the Constitution allowed to surface and change the world for the better.

Never forget Dred Scott.