The Metropulse penned a crap editorial about the Kelo decision. Rich rips Conley a new one for it.

Regarding the bid to take Justice Souter’s home in order to put a hotel there, Kira Zalan reports:

A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the town’s board turned down the proposal.

Governments rarely take homes from rich dudes with political pull.

Update: I will predict her blog will be popular soon. Hopefully, it won’t end with the same result last time I made such a prediction.

Harold Ford, Jr. kinda, sorta almost gets it right:

I support periodic review of any restrictions on the freedoms and rights of Tennesseans and Americans alike. It is unnecessarily intrusive to ask Americans to forfeit rights and freedoms indefinitely. I took the conservative approach and voted against this indefinite and liberal overreach by the federal government into our private lives.

Actually, it is unconstitutional to suspend our rights in general, forget intrusive. He notes he did not support permanently expanding the PATRIOT Act.

Update: Too bad he gets one completely wrong:

The community-rights-trump-individual-rights crowd cheered the [Kelo] decision. “We have a lot of properties in my city [Memphis],” said Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., ” . . . that are crying out for development. . . . I’ve always been one to believe that individual rights is a big thing [but] there is some real value to this

With the fact that those evil libertarian minded people are trying to seize Judge Souter’s home you would feel that the good folks in the town he lives in would rally behind him and try to protect his homestead.

Nope.

Town Clerk Evelyn Connor has had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund. A rival proposal from townspeople would turn Souter’s land into a park commemorating the U.S. Constitution.

You have to know you messed up when your own neighbors turn against you.

The Castle Coalition will keep you up to date on the eminent domain fight with their Hands Off My Home Campaign.

Via Blake, we learn that the state of Connecticut is stepping in to stop eminent domain seizures:

“We need to let the public know we will address the Supreme Court ruling in a way that will produce legislation that ensures fairness and balance,” state Senate president pro tem Donald E. Williams Jr. said in a statement. “In the meantime, municipalities should know that this effort is underway so there is no confusion as we go forward.” House Speaker James Amann said in a separate statement: “One thing is certain — Connecticut’s eminent domain laws will be changing and our municipalities should put any property takeover plans on hold immediately.”

Excellent.

Ford flip-flops on Kelo. Good. In other news, I heard on the radio that a local rep is looking to pass a law that states when a government takes land in an eminent domain case, that the local government should pay three times the market value of that land. Excellent!

Michael Silence reports that Knox County Commission this month will consider an ordinance requiring a two-thirds vote for the 19-member body to condemn land for “economic development.” It’s a start but how about eliminating taking private property from one person to give to another completely?

The House passed a bill that would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall..

At the bottom of the article is this:

In the roll call on the House amendment, 192 Republicans voted for and 31 against, with 39 Democrats voting for and 157 against. The lone independent, Rep. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), voted against.

The Democrats voted overwhelmingly against. This will be another political issue that they will lose on. Smijer is spot on:

This is an issue for Democrats, because the abuse in Kelo abuse represents the benefit of the rich and powerful at the expense of the unempowered.

Let’s all get on the right side of this thing.

Locally, Stacey Campfield notes that many local legislators are drafting their own anti-eminent domain bills. Good.

More states are looking into protections and eight states already have such protections in place:

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

And Senate candidate and local Rep. Beth Harwell has come out against Kelo.

The Lost Liberty Hotel is taking reservations. Many people making such a pledge would definitely contribute to the local economy and promote economic development.

Radley rounds up cities pouncing on the Kelo decision and snatching up the primo property. Of note:

Memphis, Tenn. — The Riverfront Development Corp. is planning a massive, 5-mile development effort, including the use of eminent domain to claim a four-block section from the current owners for a mixed-use development. “[Kelo] definitely gives the city more tools in its tool box for dealing with the legal issues surrounding that piece of property,” RDC president Benny Lendermon told the Commercial Appeal.

Memphis? That might explain something.

Heh.

Weare, New Hampshire (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.

I had hoped that, if nothing else, Kelo would serve as a wake up call to everyone regarding just how too-big-for-their-britches the .gov had become. It seems some are getting the message. However, some are pouncing:

Ravenwood reports that Freeport is already drawing up papers and going shopping and that DC is too.

Radley has a round up of other governments pouncing on other people’s property.

Quite depressing.

And I think this is the right idea.

However, the ray of sunshine is that politicians are waking up and realizing that this issue is important to people. Donald Sensing thinks a draft state constitutional amendment is a good start. I feel obligated to point out that the fifth amendment did not stop the Supreme Court.

First, compliments to Bill Hobbs for getting responses from local politicos. Here’s some:

State Senate Candidate Ed Bryant, in a blog interview at Bill Hobbs blog, responds to Kelo:

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London takes a radical turn on the important issue of private property rights. The ruling is a blow to our Constitution’s 5th Amendment, and I believe it is devastating to private property rights. The court got it wrong!

Excellent. Also, Hobbs posted Hilleary’s response and he is against it as well. Kurita is also against. Good. SayUncle applauds these three.

Ford, however, has just ended his political career:

“I’ve always believed individual rights are a big thing….. but, I find value in the court’s decision. As long as people are compensated fairly, I can appreciate the decision. Certain areas in our state are crying for development, if this decision helps – it’s a positive.”

I don’t think you believe individual rights are a big thing at all. On the national level, Eugene Volokh notes that Senator Cornyn has a bill that would limit takings, though that limit would be rather modest in that it affects Eminent Domain exercised using federal funds.

Update: Politicos in Alaska are moving to limit Eminent Domain there.

I think, instead of sending lawyers, guns and money; someone needs to head to New London with a truckload of spotted owls, snail darters, and bald eagles . Once you turn them loose, all construction there would stop immediately. Thoughts?

Michael Silence:

Don’t fret, folks. In several decades Congress will apologize for governments taking citizens’ land.

Update: that quote is gone now. I promise, it was there. Never mind.

On Kelo, a reader emails:

this is not the time to be whining about armed insurrection, but a time to use the constitutional, moral tools at our disposal – the political process, and our ability to influence our fellow citizens.

[snip]

The good news is that almost everybody is pissed off about this – even DailyKos is on our side. I think we can see to it that the court’s ruling was a wake-up call rather than a defeat.

Update: Apparently, Kosmonauts are, again, not on the side of freedom.

Some reflections, reactions and fall out.

I went home last night, finished off a bottle of Scotch and had a few beers. I sat in my backyard on my comfortable 0.6 acres in the country, looked at my fence (which is only symbolic at this point), looked at Junior’s play-set, looked at the 12 neighbors’ houses I could see from the backyard, and watched my little girl play in her kiddie pool. And it occurred to me that all mine is only all mine until some bureaucrat decides he wants it for any reason whatsoever. Same for those neighbors. I’ve long held that we don’t actually own property any way, we just have an indefinite lease from the state in the form of property taxes. Now, even that lease agreement is null and void.

Also, taxes used to fund things for public use. Now public use is going to fund taxes. There are many municipalities who were waiting on this ruling. They just got the go ahead from the highest level to take whatever they want for whatever reason they want. (You can peruse many of these cases here).

Now, to address some comments made around the blogs and that I got by email on my emotional state as, just to use one example, impassioned if not analytical:

I’ve been covering Kelo for almost a year. I’ve dedicated a lot pixels and some money to the cause. I’ve also been covering eminent domain for quite a while. I had a lot invested in this subject emotionally and am not some Johnnie come lately on the issue. And I’m angry but mostly sad. It takes a real man to weep for his nation.

Also, to my gunblogger buddies who are stating it’s time to hoist the black flag, quoting Jefferson, and calling for revolution: Put up or shut up. Unless you’re on your way to Connecticut right now, the rhetoric will do more harm than good. Actually, being on your way to Connecticut will probably do more harm than good. That’s not to say I don’t appreciate or understand the sentiment, but the fact is that it’s not going to happen and if it did happen, it wouldn’t work. People will shake their heads, nay-say, and bitch but nothing will be done when the bulldozers level Suzette Kelo’s home. People won’t even defend their dogs when the state comes to take them by force. Sure, I made a half-hearted comment about sending guns to Connecticut but its pointless because I can’t send them balls.

Folks can entertain these fantasies of a group of freedom fighters engaging the bureaucratic machine but you will lose. You will die or be imprisoned. Period. The cause needs you to be alive and free not in jail. The fight isn’t over, it just got local. We need to press local and state officials to pass laws that restrict eminent domain. That’s the way you win this one. And it will be a long haul that will probably take decades. Some bills have already received support of legislators, like this one. Note to The Rep: It’s public use not public good.

This notion kicked around that we need another Constitutional amendment to limit governments’ abilities to seize property is kind of a waste. We had that in the fifth amendment. Fat lot of good it did.

Unfucking the Supreme Court needs to be everyone’s priority. And, since everyone else is politicizing this decision, it’s my turn. The more conservative justices voted correctly on this case (as they did on Raich). Hats off to them. The liberal and supposed moderates shredded the constitution. Consider this my official withdrawal from the Coalition of the Chillin’. No, the world didn’t end on May 23, 2005 but exactly one month later property rights did. The US needs judges who follow the Constitution, not judges who act like it’s a minor inconvenience. We have a lot to do to fix this and this isn’t the time to be fucking around.

Update: On further reflection, it appears to be generally a bad policy to challenge any law with which we libertarianish folks disagree, even though we are right. We keep getting shot down when we take it all the way to the highest court in the land. Act locally.

Update 2: Dear Lord, do we really need to fear challenging the law of the land. Quite depressing.

I’m so angry about Kelo I can hardly see straight. I’ll try to write something more coherent down the road. But I’m looking out on my backyard — a good .15 acres of weeds (since my house is pretty far up on the .31 acre lot) — and I can’t help but thinking:

What’s to stop a city from deciding that my 1949 house, built on 1/3 acre lots, wouldn’t be better turned into townhomes at 9-to-an-acre? If public use is served simply by raising tax revenue, what’s better for society? One $575K house with a backyard which is mostly weeds right now? Or three $500K townhouses, making sure it gets put to “public” use in the form of cranking out property taxes?

What’s to stop these bastards?

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Oh. That’s right. Nothing.

Bastards. Complete Fucking Bastards.

Update: Today, I am ashamed of my country, my government, and the legal system (we don’t have a justice system). This is some scary stuff, folks. Freedom died a bit more. I honestly went to the parking lot, sat in the car and wiped tears from my eyes. Anger turned to sadness.

Property rights (like states’ rights) are officially dead in this country. SCOTUS blog:

Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a “public use” under the Constitution.

While the opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens said that a local government could not take homeowners’ property “simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party,” the New London. Conn., project involved in this case was “a carefully considered development plan.” While the resulting project would not be open for use by the general public, the Court said, there is no literal requirement of that outcome.

Well, my copy of the fifth amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How a private development could possibly be justified as public use is beyond me. Worth noting that the conservative judges came down on the right side of things.

Fuckers.

Update: I am seriously pissed off about this. Apologies in advance for the obscenities you’ll see out of me for the next few days.

Fuckers.

Update 2: The AP story is here:

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Update 3: Blake has some reactions. It is a national tragedy.

Update: Another quote:

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: ”A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result.”

Simply got it wrong is a bit of an understatement. How about willfully disregarded?

Fuckers.

Here’s the opinion, which I have not read yet due to the threat of having a conniption.

Update: Kevin:

Bill Von Winkle now has three choices: Submit, go to jail, or die. His legal options are finished.

And still this isn’t the straw that will break the camel’s back.

But it ought to be.

There’s a blog that deals with Eminent Domain in Ardmore, PA. Give it a read. I do find it odd that the blog generally opposes eminent domain but is all for historic preservation. In my mind, property rights are property rights and they include the power to keep or dispose of. After all, if we wait long enough, all property will be historic.

Another case of abusing eminent domain to take property from one private party to transfer to another:

A developer wants to buy a downtown Hollywood building that he says is critical to his multimillion Young Circle project, but the owner doesn’t want to sell.

Now, Hollywood leaders are considering using their legal muscle to take the property on behalf of Southern Facilities Development, which has a deal with the city to build retail space and about 200 condos above the historic Great Southern Hotel.

It’s not uncommon for the powers that be to forget the public use portion of the fifth amendment but when they claim that the benefit is considered just compensation, they’re really reaching:

Kruses didn’t take $5,000 offered; now city says project benefits will be only payment

The city took the property to install a sewer:

Even though [city officials] offered the Kruses $5,000 for the property late last year hoping to avoid an expensive condemnation process – an offer the Kruses rejected – Water Resources Program Manager Ted Nitza said a cash payment now would be “inappropriate because we feel the benefits of the project (to the Kruses) exceeds the value of what was taken.”

Now normally in a movie I root for the good guys. It is the base nature of myself that I want good to win and evil to lose. Sometimes what is defined as evil is vague and hard to define.

An example is the movie “Wall Street” with Martin Sheen and Michael Douglas. Michael Douglas played the character of “Gordon Gekko”. Now I like the subtle usage of a cold blooded lizard as his last name. In it he gives a speech that I consider one of the best several lines in a movie ever spoken.

“The point is, ladies and gentlemen, greed–for the lack of a better word–is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all its forms–greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge–has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed–you mark my words– will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.”

Greed creates profit and direction, and yet today it is used as a four letter word by so many. Ones who are oblivious to the fact that they normally work for companies whose greed for profits keep them in a job with all of the benefits that come with it.

So after watching that movie I came to the conclusion that it was a simply sad attempt to attack something that works so well for this country, capitalism and the greed.

So when I was reading this post on The Free Liberal about the pirate like nature of Brazil and pharmaceutical drugs one thing jumped out at me and like so often today I ended up mad at our own government.

Brazil – endeavoring to become a socialist paradise under its current president, former union leader and avowed communist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva – provides a HillaryCare-type of system in which the government provides free HIV treatments to all its citizens. And socialized health care of that kind is, naturally, expensive.

So on June 1st, Brazil’s lower house approved a bill suspending patents on AIDS-fighting drugs. The bill’s sponsor declared, “Constitutional protection for patents is not absolute, but subordinate to social interests.” And a deputy for the Workers’ (of the World, Unite!) Party added, “Patents have to be suspended if they’re harming public health.” Both lines could easily have been lifted right off the pages of “Atlas Shrugged.”

So they have decided that international laws are in the way so to heck with them. If a company knows that whatever it makes will be stolen by other governments then why will it invest in it? It wouldn’t waste it’s time, and because of that greed people are alive.

Now piracy aside it is what our government did that bothers me so much.

Of course, like every good crook, the Brazilians have found a way to justify and rationalize their piracy. See, there’s a clause in the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, which both Brazil and the U.S. have signed, commonly known as TRIPS. As Drug Industry Daily explains, TRIPS “allows a developing country to temporarily ignore drug patents to bring affordable drugs to its population in times of health emergencies.”

So what does it say in the TRIPS section of the WTO charter that allows that? I went and found this about the rights that a patent holder has and international eminent domain.

Article 31
Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder

Where the law of a Member allows for other use (7) of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder, including use by the government or third parties authorized by the government, the following provisions shall be respected:
……
(b) such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time.

Sounds like eminent domain. They will make some proposals, and if you do not like it they take it anyways. Our government has just opened the door for foreign countries to have eminent domain over our patents, our ideas. Mental theft using the power of the state.

So why should a company invest years and millions into something earth shaking when the WTO laws would allow other countries to “borrow” it if the social need exists? Greed is movement even if you do not like the word, legal theft by a government is a death sentence for everyone not saved by items not invented because of TRIPS

The Mountain Press:

A government’s right of eminent domain was never intended to give local officials an absolute, unlimited power to take somebody’s property for virtually anything. It is supposed to be used primarily to permit government to pay fair market value for land needed for public improvements, such as roads or utilities. Yet in recent years some governments have sought to use their eminent domain authority to obtain land for other purposes, from a new Wal-Mart Supercenter to a shopping complex. While those developments would serve the public good, they are private enterprise efforts.

Yup. At issue is the city of Pigeon Forge (where Dollywood is for you non-locals) is trying to take private property to build a parking complex.

Haven’t posted here in awhile, few things lately have been driving me to write. But this cavalier attitude by the school board just hit a nerve today:

“They haven’t said ‘no,'” Tiller said. “They understand we have the right to take (their land). They’re not unwilling to negotiate.”

But the owners have retained an attorney, Tiller said, and are in the process of getting their own appraisal of the property. Tiller said he offered them the same deal – $45,500 per acre. The second appraisal should be done by the end of June, Tiller said.

At that point, the school board will either enter into a contract with the owners or condemn the land.

“The site will be available in any event,” Tiller told the members of the Knox County Board of Education during their meeting Wednesday, when the site was announced.

Besides the facts that I’ll have to drive past this mess every day now on my way to work, and that they’re turning a perfectly lovely piece of farmland into an eyesore, no doubt, it’s the attitude that really annoyed me. “The site will be available in any event.” What country are we in again?

Eminent domain is not limited to just the US and super store sites.

Those evicted who feel that they have not been compensated adequately may have little redress. M Becquelin said that last year the courts received instructions not to take up any case seeking compensation. And residents who lose homes or businesses face the combined might of city authorities and wealthy developers eager to profit.

“In a system so opaque there are huge avenues for corruption for anyone with a lead about an area to be developed,” M Becquelin said.

The bigger the government program or plan, the more people that will shoved aside. China has only reached the 300,000 mark. All in the name of progress and the Olympic spirit.

The Wall Street Journal has a back and forth on the eminent domain.

In Sunset Hills, there are plans to take private property and turn it into a shopping center by abusing eminent domain. The plan would displace 254 residents and all but two adjacent businesses. Displace is a nice term for kicking people out under the threat of a gun.

And more abuse in Albany:

In March, the city declared the area blighted under state law, which gives the city the power of eminent domain. That means the city can seize private property for public use — or even for private development, if it benefits the public.

Actually, that private development bit is unconstitutional even though it is common practice.

I like the term sports welfare. It seems whenever a sports team needs a new facility, the taxpayers get stuck with it and someone loses their land.

The WaPo has a piece on fighting eminent domain. One I find interesting (and by interesting I mean made up):

About 90 percent of condemnations, however, involve properties acquired for purely public purposes, and they make up most eminent domain actions, said James L. Thompson, a Rockville real estate lawyer whose firm has handled more than 200 eminent domain actions over 25 years.

I don’t think that’s hardly the case. I follow the issue and read about it quite a bit. Most cases I see (at least in the press) involve taking from one private party to transfer to another. Like this one:

In March, airport officials said they wanted to take over Cramer’s Airport Parking, a neighboring business, and develop the land for privately run, airport-related operations, such as a cargo base or maintenance facility. The Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority, which owns HIA, has offered to pay about $1.57 million for the property.