Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Supreme Court: Cities May Seize Homes

Rate this topic


unskinned

Recommended Posts

How many people on this forum have heard of Poletown?

This article is a must-read.

In 1981, the City of Detroit decided to clear the Poletown area and give it to GM. The article talks of the resistance: it included a public-relations campaign by the local Catholic church and by Ralph Nader, no less; it included a suit against the city; and, last but not least, you will see a photo of one home owner guarding his house with a gun.

Edited to add: It was sickening to read that Poletown folk were given an early-moving bonus, to entice them into moving without chirping too loudly. However, given the history of what happened, and the futility of resitance, can one blame anyone who would accept such a bonus and move?

Now, time for some good news: see this news story, where the Michigan Supreme court changed its mind about Poletown-type situations.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How many people on this forum have heard of Poletown? . . . Now, time for some good news: see this news story, where the Michigan Supreme court changed its mind about Poletown-type situations.

[waving hand in air] Oo! Ooo! I have! I have!

But seriously, our study of that case in my first-year property class included watching an old video about it. The quote that sticks out in my mind is when some GM bigwig said what they were doing was "free enterprise." My friend and I laughed loudly when he said that, resulting in glances from several students and the teacher.

I, too, was thrilled to read Hathcock when it came out. Maybe the robes in Washington could have given that one a read.

All this eminent domain talk today has me using some serious four-letter words. I'm going to go wash my mouth out with soap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little bit ago, I was watching CNN and saw an interview with someone forced out of his home and he said (and I quote):

"The rights of 25 million do not trump the rights of the one."

Judging by his look, he was no philosophical genius...just an ordinary man uttering the truest statement ever said. It almost brought a tear to my eye. It's comforting to know that people are able to see past the "I'm losing my house" reaction and see the underlying philosophical principles. Hopefully there are a lot more people like that than I previously thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It almost brought a tear to my eye.

I didn't see it, but your account almost brings one to my eye as well.

I'm experiencing such a force of emotions today. When I first heard about this a few hours ago, I was enraged. I cursed, I wanted to hit things. At the moment I'm almost in tears. I have so many questions.

Why would anyone want to do such a thing as take someone else's land? Why would anyone think it okay to get together and get men with guns to run a city the way they want it, come hell or high water? Why do you take someone's home to give it to another? Why, for your God's sake? WHY?

I'm in such disbelief. I can't believe this is happening in my world. The world I know is a wonderful, fantastic place. People work, they trade, they have fun. And they don't think that their bad decisions and misfortunes give them a license to take other people's stuff. Who the hell are you people to do this? Why do you want to do it? Why do you want to take?

I'm quite upset right now. Can somebody explain this to me? What am I missing? Why would the citizens, the legislature, the courts, do this? Where in their trains of thought do they conclude this is a good idea? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groovenstein, I went through the same emotions. The “why” is painfully simple. Because they lack the ability to earn what we have so they resort to taking our property by force. For clarification I suggest you go here, http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf, and read the explanations and dissents from the justices.

Here’s a sample. (All bold print is my own emphasis)

JUSTICE O’CONNOR.

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was

ratified, Justice Chase wrote: “An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority . . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

And this one

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that “the law of the land . . . postponeeven public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property.” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134–135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for “public necessity,” but instead for “public use.” Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a “‘[P]ublic [P]urpose’ ” Clause, ante, at 9–10 (or perhaps the “Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society” Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is “legitimate” and the means “not irrational,” ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”

I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as JUSTICE O’CONNOR powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 2 KELO v. NEW LONDON 1–2, 8–13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In myview, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

… Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. Once one accepts, as the Court at least nominally does, ante, at 6, that the Public Use Clause is a limit on the eminent domain power of the Federal Government and the States, there is no justification for the almost complete deference it grants to legislatures as to what satisfies it.

The dissents helped me regain some composure. All is not lost, at least not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, from a few posts ago:

I implore all of you who read this to email your local, state, and federal leaders now and demand a state and federal constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to own and retain their own property. (This link will give you the names and contact info, but there may be easier sights to use http://www.statelocalgov.net/index.cfm)

I spent much of the night drafting a letter and looking up addresses. Some of you may come up with different rational means to attack this travesty, but follow through with what you know is right! If you do nothing else copy and paste the following letter I have sent to each of my elected representatives and email it with your name and address to your elected representatives, if you agree with my goal. If you disagree then pick and choose the parts you do like and draft your own letter around them. Or come up with something new and let us know what it is. Just don’t lie down and take this without a fight when you know it is evil.

Mr./Mrs._____,

    I am deeply disturbed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London court case.  As Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissent, “Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.”  The Declaration of Independence clearly states that everyone has the right to “life” and “liberty.”  Only the right to property, the right to retain that which one earns, enables these rights. 

    When a government can take personal property by force for the greater good, even when they pay fair market value, then individual rights die because those who pay the “fair market value” are also those who decide what dollar amount is “fair,” as well as deciding who in society comprises the “greater good.”  This is not capitalism.  It is not even communism.  It is the very definition and practice of fascism. 

    I did not write that last sentence lightly, but there is no denying what we became today as a nation when the Supreme Court announced the property of everyone can be taken away at any time to be given to anyone by governmental whim. 

    To counteract this grievous act I propose both a state and federal constitutional amendment guaranteeing everyone the right to their own property.    With the Fifth Amendment now officially ignored by the federal government (“nor shall any person be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”) a new federal constitutional amendmedment, as well as a state amendment, are needed imediately. 

    As daunting a task as this may seem, in Arkansas we recently added a new amendment with relative ease in a short period of time.  The question is not if amending the state constitution is possible, but if we value our right to the product of our labor.  Or do we prefer state imposed slavery where nothing we earn is ours by right, but ours by governmental permesion.  And then only until the government decides to remove that permision, as it did in New London.

    In his dissent Justice O’Connor cited the words of Justice Chase shortly after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

“An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority . . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A]law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” 

     

Justice Chase was right.  Such an ACT would be irrational, and we the people have not given the government such powers.  It was taken against our will.  Only a constitutional amendment that makes a person’s right to personal property sacrosanct is the answer. 

Thank you for your time and I look foreword to your response,

(Edited to add Quote Tags)

Edited by Samoht
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt this a collectivist attitude. Some people need to sacrifice they're homes for the "Greater Good" (Just as long as its not mine). I fully understand the government saying, ok we need to build a road and your house is in the path of it. Most cases putting a road in a area thats already heavily populated, there is sometimes really no other option then putting it on someones property, but a mall or something of that nature dosent have to be dropped right on someones house. If the place is so populated and their is not one open space that is unoccupied, then why do you need to expand it in the first place?

Tomorrow I think im going to get blue prints so I can open a Mega Mall on all the Supreme Court Justices houses. Whos with me?

Edited by Geoff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully understand the government saying, ok we need to build a road and your house is in the path of it. Most cases putting a road in a area thats already heavily populated, there is sometimes really no other option ...
How would you formulate the principle? How would it be different from the principle behind the court's ruling: which is that the rationality and necessity of such government action is best left to the other branches of government -- i.e. to vote?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand how the government can decide the market value of a home? Isn't this a conflict of interest?

I've often wondered how anyone other than the owner can decide "fair market value." In legal terms (someone may correct me if I'm mistaken) any plot of land is considered a unique entity. If one agrees to buy a particular plot, the seller cannot substitute another piece of ground. Furthermore, "fair market value" is based on a mutual agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller. There is no "fair market value" on something that isn't for sale. What's "fair market value" on the Mona Lisa, for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no "fair market value" on something that isn't for sale.  What's "fair market value" on the Mona Lisa, for example?

Exactly, exactly, exactly! Fair market value is what the buyer and seller both willingly decide. If one of the parties does not like the terms, he can refuse the contract.

But one of the parties - the private citizen - in this situation cannot refuse the contract. Do you know why? I ask you do you know why?!

Because the government is holding a gun to his head.

One more question: When does this collectivist trend end? I can see more and more socialist tendencies in America each day.

Edited by studentofobjectivism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people on this forum have heard of Poletown?

This article is a must-read.

In 1981, the City of Detroit decided to clear the Poletown area and give it to GM. The article talks of the resistance: it included a public-relations campaign by the local Catholic church and by Ralph Nader, no less; it included a suit against the city; and, last but not least, you will see a photo of one home owner guarding his house with a gun.

Edited to add: It was sickening to read that Poletown folk were given an early-moving bonus, to entice them into moving without chirping too loudly. However, given the history of what happened, and the futility of resitance, can one blame anyone who would accept such a bonus and move?

Now, time for some good news: see this news story, where the Michigan Supreme court changed its mind about Poletown-type situations.

In my opinion, the Poletown condemnation was a disaster for the City of Hamtramck, MI. It was really the final nail in the coffin of a city that was already in deep trouble. Since that time, Hamtramck continued to decline and has either been financially insolvent or flirting with insolvency for several years. The government's and GM's promises of prosperity ring pretty hollow, in my opinion.

I'm proud to say that I have a connection with the litigation that surrounded the taking of private property in the Poletown matter. My former boss (who is an Objectivist) acted as an appraiser in connection with the condemnation of a business known at the time as the Hospital Drug Co. This business was essentially a drug store in Hamtramck with a unique location that allowed it to earn very nice profits for its owners. When the Poletown project moved forward and the owner of the Hospital Drug Co. was told that his property would be taken, he sued for just compensation.

Up until the time of this case, in a government condemnation action a business owner in Michigan could only receive moving expenses along with the appraised value of the tangible assets of the business that could not be moved. By tangible assets, I mean those physical assets that you can actually see and touch that cannot be moved. This was usually the value of the building occupied by the business. However in many cases, the building was leased, so very little money was paid to business owners in these matters.

In the Hospital Drug litigation, my former boss argued that the owner was also entitled to the intangible or Goodwill value of his business, which was substantially more than just the value of its tangible assets. His appraised value of the Hospital Drug Co. was accepted by the court and this case opened the door for other business owners in Michigan to receive full compensation for the value of their businesses when the government takes the land on which the business is located. It also lead to Michigan business owners receiving compensation for lost profits, business interrruption and other damages related to the taking of private property by the government.

The Hospital Drug litigation was a real blow for freedom and something of a landmark case in these matters in Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often wondered how anyone other than the owner can decide "fair market value."  In legal terms (someone may correct me if I'm mistaken) any plot of land is considered a unique entity.  If one agrees to buy a particular plot, the seller cannot substitute another piece of ground.  Furthermore, "fair market value" is based on a mutual agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller.  There is no "fair market value" on something that isn't for sale.  What's "fair market value" on the Mona Lisa, for example?

The IRS defined the term "Fair Market Value" in Revenue Ruling 59/60 as follows:

"a net amount which a willing purchaser, whether an individual or a corporation, would pay for the interest to a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts."

This is the accepted definition used by the courts in these matters. The problem is that the government ignores the " neither being under any compulsion" part of the definition and assumes a "hypothetical" willing buyer and willing seller. So in other words, both parties are assumed to be willing to come to a deal.

That being the case, real estate is appraised for these types of condemnation actions using three approaches. They are: the Income Approach (based on the value of the cash income that a property can be expected to generate) the Market Approach (based on actual sales of similar or comparable properties), and the Cost Approach (based on the cost to reproduce the item being appraised).

Even though each piece of real estate is by definition a unique piece of property, it is assumed that a substitute of equal value can be found for the property being appraised. When such a substitute cannot be found, positive adjustments are made to the value of a similar or comparable property in order to take into consideration the characteristics that make the appraised property unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people in the Revolution fought and died knowing they had a chance of winning their war with arms.  Can you say the same of yourself in the situation of defending your house from 5 SWAT teams?

An excellent point, Felipe!

I will say this- that the Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain wreaks of gangsterism, pure and simple. It opens the floodgates of every looter power-monger who wants to expand his facility into a neighborhood, knowing he can partner with the government because his project will bring more tax revenue for the municipality involved.

It's Atlas Shrugged in real life!

Idea: Congress ought to pass a law weakening eminent domain, either severely limiting it, or even eliminating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this also serves for some interesting talk in our circles of what kind of justices we should individually support for the SCOTUS in the future (assuming there will be a vacancy one day :D ). I was very supportive of Justice Janice Rogers Brown who defended propety rights even though she was a "woman of faith" and a conservative. It's no consequence that the conservative bloc was in the dissent on this case.

Does it all come down to priorites? Is the striking down of a Texas sodomy (which has no effect on me personally) really a more important issue than this eniment domain case? My reasoning says it's not, as the so-called "social" issues the court will decide on will have little bearing on my life since I peronally lead one of self-interest where I wouldn't be on death row, transporting drugs, growing medical pot or getting an abortion (nor would be associated with anyone that did/does). I will/do, though, earn a steady paycheck, own a house, own a gun.. etc and decisions like yesterday's case may have a profound effect on my life.

Anyone else have these questions, or perhaps am I being short-sighted or too pragmatic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else have these questions, or perhaps am I being short-sighted or too pragmatic?
I do, and I assume that most people do -- not just Objectivists -- if framed broadly as: how to decide between the lesser evils.

Ideally, my approach would not to focus merely on the type of evil: restricting drug-dealing, restricting abortion, taking someone's home...

Some laws appear fine only because we ignore the principle and "buy" the Executive's promise that they will only use it against "real bad guys". The RICO (Racketeer Influenced Criminal Organisations) laws are an example. I suspect that the "Patriot Act": is another such example.

I'd also want to add in an estimate as to the degree of a nominee's commitment to a position. So, for instance, if a new nominee, like Justice Brown, seemed a bit conservative, and (say) anti-abortion in her beliefs, but if I also had reason to beleive she was inclined to let Roe vs. Wade alone, then I would feel differently compared to a nominee who appeared to be waiting for an opportunity to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Personally, no judge who was seriously anti-abortion would get my support. On the other hand, if a judge wanted to put all the 10-commandment displays back in courtrooms, I could live with that.

Since SCOTUS judges are not elected, the whole thing becomes even more complicated. The "lesser evil decision" becomes more difficult because one does not know what type of person the President will appoint. A whole extra layer of guesswork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism TUI by Ayn Rand is a moral defense of Capitalism.  But it also implies that Cap. is efficient because it is moral.  There is nothing efficient about what I have described above.  In this case it is inefficient because it is moral.

Capitalism does not gaurantee that every actor in the economy make the most efficient economic decisions that he can, but it does gaurantee the most efficient system for an economy to work--mutual cooperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I offer you a letter to the editor from today's paper, available for viewing at http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/0...c7894842669.txt.

"Property, human rights

Two parallel articles in the Friday, June 24, Lincoln Journal Star caught my attention. The front page was devoted largely to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that local governments can seize people's homes and businesses for private development through eminent domain.

On page 11A, the paper printed an article about the Zimbabwe government bulldozing homes and shops in the name of 'urban renewal.' In that case, it was deemed 'a grave violation of international human rights law and a disturbing affront to human dignity.'

Interesting!

Dick Raecke, Lincoln"

Interesting indeed, Mr. Raecke. Interesting indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent point, Felipe!

I will say this- that the Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain wreaks of gangsterism, pure and simple.  It opens the floodgates of every looter power-monger who wants to expand his facility into a neighborhood, knowing he can partner with the government because his project will bring more tax revenue for the municipality involved.

It's Atlas Shrugged in real life!

Idea:  Congress ought to pass a law weakening eminent domain, either severely limiting it, or even  eliminating it.

Never trust a bought and paid for lobbyist acting as a politician to pass a law to protect you from the same entities that fund their campaign.

The way I see it this decision entitles the landowners in the dispute to do what they deem necessary for the protection of their assets. Any Unconstitiutional law is to be considered "null and void", so therefore the decision of the Lords has no merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious if WalMart uses clout of cities to take property from people. I sent them a letter to ask. If they respond, I will share the response here.

In light of the recent SCOTUS decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, I am doing research into corporations that benefit from eminent domain laws.

In the Kelo case, Pfizer issued a statement that they were not interested in the outcome. I was wondering if Wal-Mart was involved in any development where a city was using eminent domain to move existing property owners in order to make way for a Wal-Mart facility.

Some articles on the web seem to indicate that this may be so, but these are not major news sources, so I wanted to know the facts "from the horses mouth".

Thank you for your time.

The recent "spoof" letter about wanting to turn Justice Souter's house into a hotel got me thinking about another spoof: what if property owners all over the City of New London received notices telling them that a proposal was underway to kick them out of their homes for some reason or the other. Wouldn't that be funny.

The pro-Kelo folk are still active. They are going to rally in New London on Tuesday, July 5th. The same site also has a list of success stories of people who fought against eminent domain. Also follow the link to the "Institute of Justice", where Dana Berliner is a member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidently, I was not the first to write to WalMart, asking about eminent domain. They replied within a couple of hours. Here is their reply.

Eminent Domain is a tool used by cities for economic development. It is at the discretion of the municipality, not Wal-Mart. Where it makes sense for our business, Wal-Mart has located stores on these sites designated for economic development efforts. Cities recognize that Wal-Mart is an engine that helps them drive such economic revitalization.

Thank you for your question.

- Wal-Mart Corporate Communications

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...