Kelo was an eminent domain question concerning private entities.
Quote:
Plaintiffs are a group of homeowners in the Fort Trumbull area of New London. In an effort to stimulate economic development, the City of New London had created the New London Development Corporation ("the development corporation") that, in 1998, had prepared a development plan for the Fort Trumbull area. A major component of the plan, which included condominiums, hotels, and a conference center, was for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer to build a new plant in Fort Trumbull. The development corporation stated its goals for the development plan were to complement other facilities built in the area, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront and eventually "build momentum" for the revitalization of the rest of the city. The city council approved the development corporation's plan in 2000 and authorized the corporation to acquire properties within the development area. After initial offers to the landowners, the development corporation voted to use the power of eminent domain to acquire properties within the development area whose owners had been unwilling to sell.
The current situation, however, hasn't panned out like New London had hoped: Pfizer is closing its research facility in NL and a large portion of the land taken sits completely empty. This raises an elementary, yet exceedingly relevant, question: to what extent is the government justified in taking private property? When the government is justified, how reasonable does the perceived outcome need to be? These questions are important, especially with the current health care debate, because it really sets a framework for the limitations of the government.
Thought, ST: P?
__________________ Black Emperor Just like liquor stores, mailboxes and payphones: whenever you need them, they are impossible to find.
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
I think it bothers everyone (especially those who own property). On one hand you are being forced to move, and on the other you are getting fair market value for your home/property. I think it is another example of government overstepping its boundaries, or at the very least us citizens loosening our grips on the reigns.
I think to legally claim it (eminent domain) all that has to be done is present a plan, and however your local gov. works (mayor only, mayor and city counsel, city counsel only, etc etc etc.) it get approved or disapproved. (It is) kind of why it is important to go to those city counsel/town counsel/town hall meetings.
Side note - doesn't the New England area local government run differently than the norm? I remember something special about them, but can't put my finger on it now.
__________________
“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government” - Thomas Jefferson
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein
Closed-bolt, because I can.
Repetition and Ridicule, the biggest tools of the Liberal.
Last edited by barrel roll : 11-11-2009 at 08:48 PM.
I think it bothers everyone (especially those who own property). On one hand you are being forced to move, and on the other you are getting fair market value for your home/property. I think it is another example of government overstepping its boundaries, or at the very least us citizens loosening our grips on the reigns.
There's also the problem where "fair market value" isn't exactly a set definition IIRC
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
If I bought a thousand acres of land to house a single car, is that not my prerogative? Does it matter how productive or unproductive the land is? Property is property, it's as black and white as you can get. What if the person is investing in the real estate, and are holding onto the land waiting for it to spike? What if it was kept in the family? How does 'fair market value' calculate into the equation when someone is holding onto land to later sell it for multiple times it's current worth?
Eminent domain in general or this specific instance?
Eminent domain is an absolutely necessary tool for the government to use, but it must be used sparingly and with caution.
In general, but this is a shining example against. I don't understand how (or is why a better word?) a board of elected officials should be allowed to vote me out of my hard earned home.
__________________
“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government” - Thomas Jefferson
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein
Closed-bolt, because I can.
Repetition and Ridicule, the biggest tools of the Liberal.
We've talked about eminent domain in my Law And Economics class. Economically speaking, if there are "high transaction costs" (ex: the government has to buy an area of land thats owned by dozens of different people) then because of the inefficiencies in dealing with a large number of parties, its more efficient to use eminent domain (efficient does not mean fair). If the transaction costs are low then its more efficient to not use eminent domain.
Its a very tough area. I think that communities need the power to be able to clear the way for improvements and progress which individual landowners might impede for their own unfair benefit.
__________________
University of Wisconsin-Madison 2010
