property rights lost

[chelidon]

Pay attention to this one if you're a property owner, or may be someday. What it essentially says is that your local government can seize your property at any time, for any reason they deem sufficient, including because a developer wants what you have. Aside from the injustice issues (and I agree with O'Conner in her dissent), this makes it all the more important to pick a place to live where you trust your local government, if at all possible.

Full story: High court OKs personal property seizures (subhed: Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

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

Comments

[kitten-goddess.livejournal.com]

I just thought of something sick. That means a corporation with a racist CEO could have a predominently minority neighborhood razed just because he hates dark-skinned folks.

Or a wealthy Christian foundation could have a mosque or synagogue razed out of sheet prejudice against Muslims or Jews.

[chelidon.livejournal.com]

As long as they could convince the local government that what they wanted to do was "in the city's best interest," you are correct. And I've participated in enough zoning battles to know first-hand that a lot of local city councils rubber-stamp the projects of whomever comes to them offering the most money.

[snidegrrl.livejournal.com]

I guess I can count myself lucky due to being in a historical district - very unlikely the city could get away with anything here without an enormous hue and cry. Nevertheless, this is pretty terrifying.

[snidegrrl.livejournal.com]

Also: whoah, never thought I'd side with Scalia on anything, ever.

[chelidon.livejournal.com]

And Thomas ;>

[raqs.livejournal.com]

i find that result, and the way the justices voted, absolutely and totally bizarre.

what are they drinking???

[morrigandaughtr.livejournal.com]

Some of them were drinking Strict Constructionist margaritas, and some of them Loose Construction margaritas. Or was it KoolAid?

[erskine.livejournal.com]

All the "liberal" judges voted for it. Wierd...

[kitten-goddess.livejournal.com]

Gee...all they have to do is say the magic words.."property values."

[phryday.livejournal.com]

oh not good, not good at all. i already figure we lost to eminent domain when we're forced to pay property tax and not doing so will result in the loss of one's house however, we generally knew what the limits were.

in growing areas (austin during the boom, for example) local governments can change on a whim (3-year terms here with a max of 2 or 3 terms; i forgot) so one still may not be safe.

[chelidon.livejournal.com]

Ugh. As you say, not good. I've fought some zoning battles, as a part of very motivated citizens groups, hired good lawyers, the whole shebang (not just as a private citizen, which is even more hopeless), and learned the very clear lesson that the system is already heavily skewed towards the developers and whomever is bringing the most money into the picture for the city or town. In most cases, the zoning boards give whatever the developers want to them, unless you can prove their new development will result in a plague that wipes out all life on earth, and even then, with enough money...

I am reminded of the old Zen saying that the best protection against theft is not an iron rod, but poverty. The best protection against eminent domain issues is to be off the radar (not be in a high-growth area), and, if at all possible (and sometimes it is not), to have a local government which is made up of actual citizens, not politicians.

Property tax and user fees are just about the only sources of government income out here (no state income tax, no state sales tax), so I'm used to paying a hefty property tax, but I can't complain much there -- I still come out way ahead on the overall tax burden, and almost all of that tax money stays local to my small town which is essentially prohibited from having closed-door meetings, so I can have a pretty direct impact on how it's spent -- very different from my time in the D.C. area.

We first ran across one another through Dave and Amy, but you're in Austin? It seems like every third person I meet lately (or old friends I run across from years ago) is in Austin. Nifty! I was out there for a week and a half about 2 months ago, and will be back out there from time to time. Looks like you know Content, too? Small world!

[anthologie.livejournal.com]

I can understand why they voted the way they did, and why cities are so eager to have this ruling on their side. It certainly has a ton of room for abuse, but when I heard the ruling (I was in the newsroom at the time and we were gearing up to write a story based on it) I knew exactly why it was done.

To get eminent domain, cities have to prove that it's for the public good. The trouble, at least in California, is that while property taxes generate HUGE amounts of revenue, that money no longer goes to local municipalities, as it ought to, but to the state to redistribute. I can see the logic in that, too, since some portions of California produce much more in property taxes, and you don't want to have inequities in the things property taxes pay for -- like schools.

Except that in lean years, the state KEEPS the majority of the money and doesn't distribute it, meaning local economies have to sustain themselves on sales taxes to pay for things like fire and paramedic services, police, libraries, community facilities, public parks and so on. Which means they begin courting things that generate sales taxes.

This is of course how they can claim that taking someone's property and building a shopping center on it can be considered "for the public benefit." I can see the point of that argument, but I also know from seeing it happen to people in cities I've covered that it's really no fun to have your home or business siezed for this purpose. It can feel incredibly unfair. I'm not sure which side I agree with, though.

[chelidon.livejournal.com]

I can understand why the Supremes ruled the way they did, from a legal viewpoint, but pragmatically, I think it's all wrong. Local governments already had as much power as they should have under eminent domain, they didn't need to be given more by a very loose definition of "public" -- revenue generation isn't sufficient rationale, in my mind (and by my personal interpretation of Constitutional law in this case) , to take closely-held personal property, such as home or primary business.

I've had my perspective perhaps somewhat skewed by living the last couple of years in a place with very little in the way of State or County services (and no state income or sales tax, either, for that matter), and so almost all services (and revenue-generation) are local/town-based. Now this type of system probably doesn't scale very well to more population-dense regions, but either way, I think you hit the nail on the head above. The biggest injustices seem to come in when the key decisions are made by people with insufficient connection to the people whose lives are affected by those decisions. In that case, decisions get made more based on abstract principles (maximize local revenue) than upon actual impacts on actual lives.

We're actually dealing with a big issue in New Hampshire right now having to do with education funding and equity, related to exactly what you say above. The State constitution guarantees an adequate education to all children -- what about those towns that choose to chronically underfund education? Tough choices. The first cut at it, redistributing money from affluent "donor" towns to less affluent "recipient" towns, hasn't worked well -- a number of the "recipient" towns who chronically underfunded their schools just reduced their local taxes by the same amount they received from "donor" towns. Insane, by my accounting of it, but they're making a point about local control. Whatever. I made a point of moving into an area that consciously chooses to fund great schools, but then again, I have the mobility to make that choice.

[anthologie.livejournal.com]

I did want to say that one of the benefits of giving cities this right is that, in many cases, people living in a given city (with the exception of perhaps the very biggest) do have access to their public officials, to say, "Hey, I live here. I don't want you to go forward with this project because I will lose my home/business." I've seen city councils be responsive to those kinds of requests in many cases. (Though not all.) Local democracy is one of the few places left where you can have that kind of personal interaction with the people who represent you (or, hopefully, the people you elected to office).

Actually, there are some times I think city officials should listen to their constituents, and some times when I think they should do things that are in the best interest of their constituents, but that's probably a rant for another time.

[chelidon.livejournal.com]

Yeah, in a very broad sense, it has to do with whose rights are preeminent -- individuals or governments (supposedly composed of citizens, so inherently reflecting the needs of individuals, but...) My own opinion is that it's largely circumstantial (who does get to decide what is the "greater good"), but that in general, economic development, no matter how much potential tax revenue it brings in, shouldn't factor into whether a proposed eminent domain property taking falls under the Constitutionally-allowed "public" clause) But, hey, what do I know, I'm no Constitutional scholar -- then again, 4 out of 9 of the Supremes agrees with me ;>

[phryday.livejournal.com]

Once when I got in trouble in the military a friend was asking how I took it so well and all I could come up with is they can't take away my birthday. When I was homeless once they couldn't take away my ambition, pride, or anything else. Still, I'd rather not ever be homeless again so sadly the best protection against theft is poverty, but they don't deserve it.

As much as I gripe about any taxes, I'll pay 'em although I just don't like the concept of the "public" taking away my house if I need to protest in that respect (we'll have 6 different property taxing bodies when the new law we passed takes effect). Add the factor of "public" good for a private company and I wonder when we'll start seeing businesses start pushing more for the land grabs.

Yep, through Amy and Dave and I had to do a double-take when you posted a response in Content's journal. Hopefully we can hook up when you're down here again!