Sometimes the Supremes try…and fail
Yesterday we had a blurb on the Supreme Court getting it right – good for them. People also need to remember that they also get it wrong, and have to reverse themselves. “Well, we phrased the decision poorly and idiots will now try to twist the law to their own benefit” such as Hunter’s defense tried with Bruen, or the following.
As fireworks burst in the sky on Independence Day 2018, Roxanne and Carter Maier were putting in yet another grueling 14-hour day of remodeling a former doctor’s office into a dance studio in Brentwood, a small suburb of St. Louis, Missouri.
But just a few years later, the city declared a strip of businesses — including the Maiers’ — and small industrial buildings blighted. It moved to hand over the land to a private developer in a $436 million deal that seeks to use eminent domain to force out existing property owners and replace them with apartments, a hotel, office space, a microbrewery and stores.
The developer behind the project estimated it would generate more than $266 million in new revenue over the next 25 years.The catalyst for the case happened around the turn of the millennium in Connecticut. After pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant in New London in 1998 — with the added bonus of an 80% tax abatement — the city wanted to revitalize the surrounding area. Officials approved a development plan that required seizing homes and selling the property to developers to build new commercial and residential complexes. The city also agreed to kick in $78 million for the project.The property owners argued seizing their homes to sell to private companies was not a public use.
But in a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure qualified as “public use” because the city was following an economic development plan, not just trying to benefit a certain group of private citizens.
Within a year of the decision, local governments condemned or threatened eminent domain against nearly 6,000 homes, churches, businesses and other private properties, according to Institute for Justice researchers.
The Supreme Court ruling also triggered a nationwide backlash, and soon, 43 state legislatures and eight state supreme courts strengthened protections for property owners, including Missouri, where lawmakers passed a bill in 2006 specifying that property can’t be seized solely for economic development.
But Missouri and other states included a carve-out that would prove critical. Cities could still move to seize blighted areas, defined by Missouri law as having “insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements” or other factors that present “economic or social liability.”
That broad definition can be used to condemn entire neighborhoods, even if individual homes or other properties are in spectacular condition, according to the state. Fox News
So all you need are a few corrupt politicians (as Mark Twain famously said: forgive me, but I repeat myself) to declare any kind of area blighted and they can condemn it for their developer pals to redevelop.
They made a bad call in 2005. Hmm, that damn conservative court – oops, this was when it, and the votes, was 5-4 “liberal”. Hopefully this, and civil asset forfeiture, will get some attention soon. Ain’t it great living in a free country?
Do you ever wonder whether the “Patriot Act” would pass Court muster today?
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Supreme Court
“Eminent domain” is not going the way the Founders intended.
I would just like to point out that three of the The five justices that voted for New London in Kelo v New London, were appointed by Republicans.
Stevens used to call himself hilariously a libertarian. He was of course the closet socialist. As soon as he hit the supreme bench he came out of the closet. He was by far the biggest Republican fuck up appointment to the SCOTUS, ever.
The only reason the Kennedy ended up on the court was because The Democrats demanded a moderate or they were going to follow the Biden rule and not approve anybody until after the 88 election.
I think Souter might have been a closet racist. It seems like he didn’t like anything that Thomas did would oppose him just to do it. In his 2010 speech to Harvard, infamously he glosses over the Civil rights struggles of post civil war US, as well as seeming to support a bunch of really wrong-headed supreme Court decisions.
In the end the New London development deal crashed and never even took place. They leveled almost 100 acres of waterfront property for nothing. Pfizer moved away, The Property then became a junkyard. Recently I heard they may be building some apartments on there now. The whole thing was stupid. And then we ended up getting a stupid precedent.
Taking a lesson from the Russians (scorched earth), if anyone tries to seize my land without fair and mutual recompense, I’m liable to buy 55 gallon barrels of “something” and dump it all over my land before being forced out.
Let Teh Gooberment and the Business Interests see how much profit there is to be made after having to clean up a toxic dump site. What would I care? I won’t be living there. Sue me for damages and cleanup? Suuuuure. Squeeze that turnip for that blood.
I’ve been criticized for making this statement, but it still rings true. The true owner of a property is the one who has the ultimate authority over it. As such. anyone who thinks they actually own their home / business location is in error. They are actually just leasing it. Think I am wrong? Miss a couple property tax payments and watch the true owner sell the property out from under you and do so perfectly legally.
Pretty much the same thing here given the eminent domain theory.
You could always relocate to Fiji.
“You will own nothing and you will be happy.”
The “Patriot Act” shouldn’t have passed muster in ’01.
Imma wid Tox on this one. Their “victory” will be very costly.
Come and take it, mofos!