"Kelo was wrong then, and it's wrong now"
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2021, 11:47 last edited by
Today, the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in a new case that would have put the Kelo precedent on the judicial chopping block. Dissenting from that refusal to hear the new case, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, faulted the Court for keeping the 16-year-old precedent alive. "This petition [Eychaner v. Chicago] provides us the opportunity to correct the mistake the Court made in Kelo," Thomas wrote. "That decision was wrong the day it was decided. And it remains wrong today."
Thomas should know. He dissented in Kelo and accurately predicted the decision's destructive aftermath. "The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause," Thomas wrote in his Kelo dissent, is "deeply perverse."
Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, came out swinging against the Kelo perversity again today. "The Constitution's text, the common-law background, and the early practice of eminent domain all indicate 'that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking,'" Thomas wrote. "The majority in Kelo strayed from the Constitution to diminish the right to be free from private takings."
Thomas concluded by reminding the Court of Kelo's pernicious real-world impact. "Failure to step in today not only disserves the Constitution and our precedent," he observed, "but also leaves in place a legal regime that benefits 'those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.'"
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2021, 13:18 last edited by
For a person that The Big Guy tried to torpedo, Thomas has turned out to be a pretty good conservative thinker...
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2021, 13:22 last edited by
I'm really torn on the subject. I agree with Gorsuch and Thomas in principle, but I see the alternative being urban blight.
-
I'm really torn on the subject. I agree with Gorsuch and Thomas in principle, but I see the alternative being urban blight.
wrote on 3 Jul 2021, 13:29 last edited by@mik said in "Kelo was wrong then, and it's wrong now":
the alternative being urban blight
You mean like this?
https://www.wnpr.org/post/little-pink-house-hits-big-screen-reviving-new-london-eminent-domain-saga
"In the end, she lost the battle as the historic neighborhood was razed. Then again, it’s not clear who actually won because now, almost 20 years since the first eminent domain notices went out, nothing has replaced those homes, and Fort Trumbull remains a vacant parcel of land."
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2021, 13:40 last edited by
That is an extremely one sided story. It doesn't have any detail of WHY that land is still vacant.
I've seen the vast improvements this has made in Cincinnati, as well as having watched my birth town, Detroit, crumble over the course of my life.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2021, 13:52 last edited by
"The Constitution's text, the common-law background, and the early practice of eminent domain all indicate 'that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking,'" Thomas wrote. "The majority in Kelo strayed from the Constitution to diminish the right to be free from private takings."
Thomas is right. Urban blight can be addressed in other ways, besides seizure under eminent domain.
For instance, on a small scale...The small town closest to where I live does not have overgrown, nasty vacant lots. There is a city ordinance specifying how high the grass can get, before the town sends the property owner notice that they have seven days to get it cut, Failure to cut the lot, means the city will mow it for you. And send you a bill. Not a cheap bill.
What happens? Vacant lots get cut pretty regularly or the city will pile up enough charges and will seize the property for monies owed. Works pretty well...Property owners don't want to keep sinking money into something that makes them no money, but costs them money. Property either gets developed or sold.
If the city seizes a piece of property for monies owed, they either try to sell it to a developer with the clause that it must be developed within a certain time frame, or for several parcels in the poorer part of town, they have partnered up with Habitat and built houses on those lots.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2021, 13:52 last edited by
There are no eminent domain statistics. It would be extremely useful to have some cold hard facts about the subject, to be able to pull up a list of times that communities have used eminent domain and the addresses involved, but there isn’t any list. No database that I can find, either local or national. That bothers me a lot.
Also, while I get your point, Mik, it goes against the very grain of what land ownership is supposed to mean. A bad thing for a good reason is still a bad thing. Kind of like the vaccine argument. Getting a COVID vaccination is a smart and good decision personally and for the community. Forcing vaccinations on the public is a horrible infringement on our freedoms and is a worse public danger than COVID-19. Any time “the greater good” starts getting tossed around, the hair in the back of my neck stand up…
-
"The Constitution's text, the common-law background, and the early practice of eminent domain all indicate 'that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking,'" Thomas wrote. "The majority in Kelo strayed from the Constitution to diminish the right to be free from private takings."
Thomas is right. Urban blight can be addressed in other ways, besides seizure under eminent domain.
For instance, on a small scale...The small town closest to where I live does not have overgrown, nasty vacant lots. There is a city ordinance specifying how high the grass can get, before the town sends the property owner notice that they have seven days to get it cut, Failure to cut the lot, means the city will mow it for you. And send you a bill. Not a cheap bill.
What happens? Vacant lots get cut pretty regularly or the city will pile up enough charges and will seize the property for monies owed. Works pretty well...Property owners don't want to keep sinking money into something that makes them no money, but costs them money. Property either gets developed or sold.
If the city seizes a piece of property for monies owed, they either try to sell it to a developer with the clause that it must be developed within a certain time frame, or for several parcels in the poorer part of town, they have partnered up with Habitat and built houses on those lots.
wrote on 3 Jul 2021, 22:35 last edited by@jolly said in "Kelo was wrong then, and it's wrong now":
"The Constitution's text, the common-law background, and the early practice of eminent domain all indicate 'that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking,'" Thomas wrote. "The majority in Kelo strayed from the Constitution to diminish the right to be free from private takings."
Thomas is right. Urban blight can be addressed in other ways, besides seizure under eminent domain.
For instance, on a small scale...The small town closest to where I live does not have overgrown, nasty vacant lots. There is a city ordinance specifying how high the grass can get, before the town sends the property owner notice that they have seven days to get it cut, Failure to cut the lot, means the city will mow it for you. And send you a bill. Not a cheap bill.
What happens? Vacant lots get cut pretty regularly or the city will pile up enough charges and will seize the property for monies owed. Works pretty well...Property owners don't want to keep sinking money into something that makes them no money, but costs them money. Property either gets developed or sold.
If the city seizes a piece of property for monies owed, they either try to sell it to a developer with the clause that it must be developed within a certain time frame, or for several parcels in the poorer part of town, they have partnered up with Habitat and built houses on those lots.
+1. In this case I agree with Thomas and the system Jolly described works for me.