[JerryLove]

I'm sure that helps explain why WalMart puts forth so much effort to get WalMart's suppliers to outsource to China... because of China's pro-Chrstian policy

[JohnM]

... but don't worry, remember, the judiciary is independent and always right, and there's no such thing as judicial activism or anything those right-wing nuts are always going on about

[GORP006]

Ok, time to play the antagonist's role here. I don't see a problem with the ruling. My dad is a City planner, and I've discussed the issue of eminent domain with him in the past. Cities have been doing it for a very long time. Generally, it's done for the creation of a road or public utility of some sort, but as long as the purpose serves the general wellbeing of the community, then it's acceptable.

First off, a lot of the comments here have not been considering that the practice of eminent domain generally is accompanied by just compensation, as determined by an independent appraiser. In most cases, the property owner has the opportunity to have their own appraiser as well, and the City will generally go with the highest appraisal. So people are not losing their property, as much as they are being forced to sell it. They don't lose the net worth, just the asset itself, in favor of cash, which they can turn into more real property at another location.

Second, and especially in the New London case, economic development is generally good for a community. The idea of this situation is that the land being purchased through eminent domain is going to be used for an ecomonic development project. This will result in many jobs, and certainly an economic boost for the community. More jobs in the community means higher population, and more money flowing through the local economy. Part of the job for a city planner is to enhance the economy of the city. One of the tools they have to use is eminent domain. If you weigh the cost/benefit for the community, the destruction of a handfull of homes is not so bad when you consider the economic uptick that will result from the development.

Finally, when a person chooses to live in a city, they are choosing to be subject to the rules and decisions of the city. A city exists for the benefit of its citizens, and is run by elected representatives. If the citizens don't like a decision of the council, they can bring that up with the council directly or through their representatives. They can lobby their council to vote against the use of eminent domain at their property. If they succeed, great! If they are unable to convince the council that the benefit of their property is greater than that of some sort of economic development, then the council will vote accordingly.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by GORP006

Ok, time to play the antagonist's role here. I don't see a problem with the ruling. My dad is a City planner, and I've discussed the issue of eminent domain with him in the past. Cities have been doing it for a very long time.

People have been murdering each other for a long time too. But, of course, that's irrelevant as to what is right.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Generally, it's done for the creation of a road or public utility of some sort, but as long as the purpose serves the general wellbeing of the community, then it's acceptable.

On what basis? Where does Scripture teach that the prohibition on stealing doesn't apply if it "serves the general well-being of the community"?

Originally Posted by GORP006

First off, a lot of the comments here have not been considering that the practice of eminent domain generally is accompanied by just compensation, as determined by an independent appraiser.

Why is that relevant? Can I come and take some of your stuff without your consent as long as I give you what you could make selling it on eBay? If someone doesn't want to sell something, why do you think the government has the right to force them to sell it?

Originally Posted by GORP006

Finally, when a person chooses to live in a city, they are choosing to be subject to the rules and decisions of the city.

If your principle is correct, then local government should be able to do anything they want and never be wrong in doing so. Do you really think that's a legitimate conclusion?

[Art]

I think it sucks. Eminent domain is basically a law that makes freedom null and void at the government's wish. You do not even own your own house when you own your house. Basically. Because the government still controls it completely.

[loriborealis]

Originally Posted by GORP006

First off, a lot of the comments here have not been considering that the practice of eminent domain generally is accompanied by just compensation, as determined by an independent appraiser.

Call me old fashioned, but many would find no "just" compensation for losing a family home built by Grandpa Buck's own hands in the early 1700s...

If someone doesn't want to sell something, they will be hardpressed to find "just" compensation. (For instance, there's no just compensation in the world for my wedding rings.)

And who says building a Wal-Mart on my ranch is good for the community? The local government who's only concerns are making money and bringing in new folks? What about the old folks and the concerns of the people? What if the opinion of the community is that they like their small town feel and local corner stores and lack of city crime? Is the government so wise that they can decide for themselves what is best for the community, and where it is best to set up shop?

Bleh. I just think capitalism is annoying. And unBiblical.

[JerryLove]

... but don't worry, remember, the judiciary is independent and always right, and there's no such thing as judicial activism or anything those right-wing nuts are always going on about

I suspect that the Judiciary is right... The constitution does not specifically forbid it, though I don't think it was the framer's intent. In this case, I believe the US congress should restrict the right by act of law.

Recally, it's not the place of the court to decide if somethign is right or wrong, only legal or illegal.

First off, a lot of the comments here have not been considering that the practice of eminent domain generally is accompanied by just compensation, as determined by an independent appraiser. In most cases, the property owner has the opportunity to have their own appraiser as well, and the City will generally go with the highest appraisal. So people are not losing their property, as much as they are being forced to sell it. They don't lose the net worth, just the asset itself, in favor of cash, which they can turn into more real property at another location.

Ignoring a whole slew of just general "fairness" issues... what about property tax?

Many states, mine included, protect you from a rising property tax. If you retire on a fixed income in what you expect to be your last home, and then there's huge growth and your house value raises ten-fold, you are proteceted from a rise in property tax as long as you live there. Of course, if your house is domained out, when you buy a new property in the area, it is not.

Then there are the incidental charges of moving (which can be severe on fixed incomes).

Finally, there is simply the "forcing people to move for other people". Sometimes it simply needs to be done (Interstates needed to be built), but we are talking about instances where people are getting evicted to make way for other people who will pay more taxes (as is happening in the case that came before the court).

Second, and especially in the New London case, economic development is generally good for a community. The idea of this situation is that the land being purchased through eminent domain is going to be used for an ecomonic development project. This will result in many jobs, and certainly an economic boost for the community. More jobs in the community means higher population, and more money flowing through the local economy. Part of the job for a city planner is to enhance the economy of the city. One of the tools they have to use is eminent domain. If you weigh the cost/benefit for the community, the destruction of a handfull of homes is not so bad when you consider the economic uptick that will result from the development.

So anything which can be seen as "good for the community" is a valid reason to do whatever you want? Would killing Rosa Parks have been good for the communit in AL?

Finally, when a person chooses to live in a city, they are choosing to be subject to the rules and decisions of the city. A city exists for the benefit of its citizens, and is run by elected representatives. If the citizens don't like a decision of the council, they can bring that up with the council directly or through their representatives. They can lobby their council to vote against the use of eminent domain at their property. If they succeed, great! If they are unable to convince the council that the benefit of their property is greater than that of some sort of economic development, then the council will vote accordingly.

Only people with strong lobbies have rights?

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by OneHope

Apparently the CEO of Wal-Mart is a Christian. I was in my local Christian bookstore the other day and I saw a book by him on his life.

Christians sin, OneHope. And by the way, you're talking about Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, who died in 1992. He's not the CEO of anything anymore.

[Andrew]

Call me old fashioned, but many would find no "just" compensation for losing a family home built by Grandpa Buck's own hands in the early 1700s...

I don't know. A few million dollars over market price sounds pretty just to me...

[lyrpcrawn]

Originally Posted by OneHope

Apparently the CEO of Wal-Mart is a Christian. I was in my local Christian bookstore the other day and I saw a book by him on his life.

I work for walmart, store 260, in Waxahachie, Texas. Yes, our former CEO, Sam Walton (also the founder of Walmart, Sam's Club, and Lowe's) was/is a christian but he passed away in about 1998. The book is actually more about how he incorporated his christian beliefs into his buisness practices and created the largest buisness in the world.

[JerryLove]

[qutoe]The book is actually more about how he incorporated his christian beliefs into his buisness practices and created the largest buisness in the world.[/quote] Sounds like propiganda more than anything else. I find WalMart's habits anti-competitive, unenlightened, and to lack a concern for their employees or the economic ramifications.

[GORP006]

Ok, so here's a big long response...

Originally Posted by Travis

People have been murdering each other for a long time too. But, of course, that's irrelevant as to what is right.

On what basis? Where does Scripture teach that the prohibition on stealing doesn't apply if it "serves the general well-being of the community"?

Travis- I think you an I have already established that the US system of Government is not based on Scriptural principle. So the scriptural argument doesn’t apply if we are discussing constitutional issues.

Why is that relevant? Can I come and take some of your stuff without your consent as long as I give you what you could make selling it on eBay? If someone doesn't want to sell something, why do you think the government has the right to force them to sell it?

The government is not a person, and thus cannot be treated as if it were a person. If a person lives in a city, they are choosing to live by that city’s rules. One of those rules is that the city can buy your property from you for certain reasons, including the general prosperity and welfare of the community.

If your principle is correct, then local government should be able to do anything they want and never be wrong in doing so. Do you really think that's a legitimate conclusion?

You read too much into what I say, I’m talking about eminent domain here, and that is all. In the case of eminent domain, there is a fair amount of leeway for what is considered an acceptable reason to seize property.

Originally Posted by loriborealis

Call me old fashioned, but many would find no "just" compensation for losing a family home built by Grandpa Buck's own hands in the early 1700s...

If someone doesn't want to sell something, they will be hardpressed to find "just" compensation. (For instance, there's no just compensation in the world for my wedding rings.)

This is not an equivalent argument. Your wedding ring is personal property, not real property. By choosing to purchase property inside a city, you are choosing the rules of that city too. You are choosing to pay taxes to that city, and you have the right to elect representatives to that city’s council. Your wedding ring is different…very different. Think on a smaller scale, such as a condominium property. If one unit owner wanted to paint the outside of their unit pink, the rest of the owners can stop that person from doing so. This is the reason that condos set up rules that you agree to follow when you buy a condo in that property. Cities work in a similar manner, just on a much larger scale.

And who says building a Wal-Mart on my ranch is good for the community? The local government who's only concerns are making money and bringing in new folks? What about the old folks and the concerns of the people? What if the opinion of the community is that they like their small town feel and local corner stores and lack of city crime? Is the government so wise that they can decide for themselves what is best for the community, and where it is best to set up shop?

These are all the emotional arguments, but don’t line up with constitutional law. For starters, this isn’t an argument about wal-mart. Wal-Mart is being used as an example, because people hate Wal-Mart. This is a discussion about whether a city can use its power of eminent domain for economic development.

Which then brings up the question of your impression of the motivation of local government. You are separating the local government from the citizens of the city. The two are one in the same. If the people of a city felt that the local government were overstepping its bounds, they can push for an ordinance banning eminent domain usage for economic development. The government consists of the elected representatives that the citizens choose, and the citizens have the power to remove those representatives when they don’t meet their needs. If a city wanted to keep their small town feel as you said, they will elect representatives that promise to keep the city small. Simple as that. If the people in the city want to grow and prosper, they will elect progressive representatives. That’s how a representative democracy works.

Bleh. I just think capitalism is annoying. And unBiblical.

Good call, bring on socialism!

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I suspect that the Judiciary is right... The constitution does not specifically forbid it, though I don't think it was the framer's intent. In this case, I believe the US congress should restrict the right by act of law.

Recally, it's not the place of the court to decide if somethign is right or wrong, only legal or illegal.

Exactly

Ignoring a whole slew of just general "fairness" issues... what about property tax?

Many states, mine included, protect you from a rising property tax. If you retire on a fixed income in what you expect to be your last home, and then there's huge growth and your house value raises ten-fold, you are proteceted from a rise in property tax as long as you live there. Of course, if your house is domained out, when you buy a new property in the area, it is not.

Yeah, this is admittedly a problem with the system as-is. I don’t know what exactly a city does to compensate for increased taxes, if anything at all. But generally, the reason the property value increased is because of nearby economic development making the land that the house sits on a lot more valuable. So in those cases, a lot of the time, a person is going to get a very large sum of money for their property, and they can move to a different area of town, where the land value isn’t as highly appreciated, thus remaining at a lower tax rate. Ok, it’s not a perfect argument against the property tax problem, but I had to try.

Then there are the incidental charges of moving (which can be severe on fixed incomes).

I would guess that a person might be able to work this into any deal with the city. The city wants to avoid problems at all expenses when they use eminent domain, so they generally will be willing to give the owner some concessions.

Finally, there is simply the "forcing people to move for other people". Sometimes it simply needs to be done (Interstates needed to be built), but we are talking about instances where people are getting evicted to make way for other people who will pay more taxes (as is happening in the case that came before the court).

I don’t think the sole justification for this usage of Eminent Domain is simply for property tax reasons. However, that is definitely a side effect of this. The biggest purpose is for economic development. Economic Development is important if a city wishes to have progress. In my city recently, there was a large section of land that was redeveloped from single family homes into light commercial development. It’s about 2 blocks from my property. Most of the homes sold without even a question. The homes that were targeted for destruction were below average size, quality and upkeep. The amount they received in return for their property was at times double what they could have sold them for a year earlier. Those people came away with more value than their property was originally worth, simply because the land increased greatly in value. A few of the homes held out, and eminent domain was used to purchase the properties. In the end, everyone is going to benefit from this. The homes that were demolished were in bad shape, they brought down the property values for the rest of the homes in the area. Now the development that is going in will increase values for all properties nearby due to the added convenience of the shopping and restaurants being built. The city as a whole will benefit from the out-of-town money that will come into the shopping and eating places that were built, since this is near a major highway exit.

So anything which can be seen as "good for the community" is a valid reason to do whatever you want? Would killing Rosa Parks have been good for the communit in AL?

No, not at all, but the use of Eminent domain for the good of the community is a valid reason. Eminent domain cannot be compared to other actions, because eminent domain is a constitutional right of the government.

Only people with strong lobbies have rights?

Maybe the word Lobby brings up too much of an image of Lobbyists. What I mean by lobby is to make your argument to the council and try to convince them to see things your way. If enough people come together to tell the council why they think something shouldn’t happen, they will at least get the council thinking. That was all I meant by Lobbying.

[Travis]

I'll just respond to your answers to me and let others do their own work.

Travis- I think you an I have already established that the US system of Government is not based on Scriptural principle. So the scriptural argument doesn’t apply if we are discussing constitutional issues.

Yes, but we are not talking about the way things are, but rather the way things ought to be. I am making an ethical claim, asserting that what the government has declared on this issue is morally wrong as it is theft. So unless you’re committing the naturalistic fallacy and assuming that whatever is the case ought to be the case, the fact that the government doesn’t operate according to Christian principles is irrelevant to my claim and wholly misses the mark as a response. The government should operate according to Christian principles. And it ought not to make theft (aka: eminent domain) legal.

The government is not a person, and thus cannot be treated as if it were a person. If a person lives in a city, they are choosing to live by that city’s rules. One of those rules is that the city can buy your property from you for certain reasons, including the general prosperity and welfare of the community.

First, I am not assuming that the government is a person. But since individuals cannot simply take things that belong to others without their consent, on what basis do you believe that a collection of people—a government—can do so?

Second, I’ve already addressed your argument that people living in a city have to obey its rules. This principle would entail that whatever a local government does is necessarily morally permissible. Do you believe that? (I’ll address your answer to my original statement of this below.)

You read too much into what I say, I’m talking about eminent domain here, and that is all. In the case of eminent domain, there is a fair amount of leeway for what is considered an acceptable reason to seize property.

I’m not reading into what you are saying; I realize that you are talking about eminent domain. But one principle you offered to justify eminent domain which I was addressing—namely, that people have to obey the rules of the cities in which they live and that they can just leave—does logically entail that whatever a local government does is right. Let’s say a city council decides that abortion is mandatory. Your answer can be used to justify this law: People have to abide by the rules of a city; they can just leave. Let’s say a city declares that random murder is permissible. Again, your answer can be used to justify this law: People have to abide by the rules of a city; they can just leave. Your principle justifies all laws passed by local governments. Isn’t that just plainly an absurd conclusion? I submit that it is, and that, therefore, your principle is flawed and ought to be rejected, and hence cannot be used to justify eminent domain.

[JerryLove]

Yeah, this is admittedly a problem with the system as-is. I don’t know what exactly a city does to compensate for increased taxes, if anything at all. But generally, the reason the property value increased is because of nearby economic development making the land that the house sits on a lot more valuable. So in those cases, a lot of the time, a person is going to get a very large sum of money for their property, and they can move to a different area of town, where the land value isn’t as highly appreciated, thus remaining at a lower tax rate. Ok, it’s not a perfect argument against the property tax problem, but I had to try.

I could give you a dozen hypotheticals, for example about someone with no vehicle living near their work in a city where the property values increase too much for them to remain, but I'd rather tell you about a woman in Atlantic City.

Seems she and her husband retired many years ago and baught a small house near the bech to live out the rest of their lives in. Her husband died and she is alone and very old. This woud be fine, except that Donald Trump built a casino next-door and wanted to use her house as a parking lot.

So, the city raised her property taxes (simple enough, reasses her land) and kicked a 90-year-old woman out of the house she and her husband retired to. She has no use for the money. She had what she wanted and it's been taken away for one reason and one reason alone... because it was convienent to someone with more money.

In this case in CT, that's what it boils down to. The "common good" is a developer who can make a mint off the land, and the excuse is that the tax revenue will be better.

Guess what, *anyone* who has a house that they have grandfathered a few years on the taxes is in a position that kicking them out would raise taxes.

I would guess that a person might be able to work this into any deal with the city. The city wants to avoid problems at all expenses when they use eminent domain, so they generally will be willing to give the owner some concessions.

How would such a deal be worked? There's no legal requirement, they have nothing to offer the city back.

I don’t think the sole justification for this usage of Eminent Domain is simply for property tax reasons. However, that is definitely a side effect of this. The biggest purpose is for economic development.

From a governmental point of view, that *is* economic development. That is the argument in this particulat case (CT).

The homes that were demolished were in bad shape, they brought down the property values for the rest of the homes in the area.

So any and every home everywhere could be grabbed by anyone with the money. All I have to do is start by targeting te cheapes house in your neighborhood, and point out that it lowers the land value. Replace it with a mansion and every other house now lowers the land value. Alternately, if I really want my mansion on the waterfront; I just find some nice waterfront and point out that I will pay more in taxes.

Heck, I'll likely spend more too, so it's for the "greater good".

Now the development that is going in will increase values for all properties nearby due to the added convenience of the shopping and restaurants being built. The city as a whole will benefit from the out-of-town money that will come into the shopping and eating places that were built, since this is near a major highway exit.

Everyone still in the city will.

Now the development that is going in will increase values for all properties nearby due to the added convenience of the shopping and restaurants being built. The city as a whole will benefit from the out-of-town money that will come into the shopping and eating places that were built, since this is near a major highway exit.

The debate here is what represents a legetimate "public good". It's traditionally used to build highways, schools, etc. These are things which "need building", and some way must be found to do so.

A condiminium complex does not "need building", a WalMart does not "need building". These may indeed bring more money in, but that's not something I would consider a valid "public good" to warrant the seizure of private property.

Fortunately, I live in a state that agrees; FL is one of eight states which outlasw the use of emminant domain for private development except in cases of urban blight.

Maybe the word Lobby brings up too much of an image of Lobbyists. What I mean by lobby is to make your argument to the council and try to convince them to see things your way. If enough people come together to tell the council why they think something shouldn’t happen, they will at least get the council thinking. That was all I meant by Lobbying.

But the reality remains that, even if politicians don't directly take bribes, money wins elections. The people with the funds pull the strings of the elected (or get elected someone they can), and so you've given the wealthy the power to take your house because they want to... better still, they get to use your tax dollars to do it.

[GORP006]

Originally Posted by Travis

Yes, but we are not talking about the way things are, but rather the way things ought to be. I am making an ethical claim, asserting that what the government has declared on this issue is morally wrong as it is theft. So unless you’re committing the naturalistic fallacy and assuming that whatever is the case ought to be the case, the fact that the government doesn’t operate according to Christian principles is irrelevant to my claim and wholly misses the mark as a response. The government should operate according to Christian principles. And it ought not to make theft (aka: eminent domain) legal.

But actually, I was talking about the way things are. I’m arguing for the constitutionality of eminent domain. If we try to get into the moral/biblical argument, there are a lot of constitutional principles we’re going to have to argue as well, including abolition of slavery, and probably the right of women to vote. Man, we could even argue about the morality of owning property at all, since the apostles all gave up all their belongings to follow Jesus, and in Acts, the believers formed a community without individual ownership. If we were to embrace the Acts form of government, then the property belongs to the collective, not the individual, and the city has no problem commandeering the property for their use.

First, I am not assuming that the government is a person. But since individuals cannot simply take things that belong to others without their consent, on what basis do you believe that a collection of people—a government—can do so?

When that collection of people includes the person from whom the property is taken, then it sorta changes things a bit.

Second, I’ve already addressed your argument that people living in a city have to obey its rules. This principle would entail that whatever a local government does is necessarily morally permissible. Do you believe that? (I’ll address your answer to my original statement of this below.)

I accept that the decisions made by government do not generally agree with the morals of all parties affected. However, the majority of government decisions conform to the morals of the majority of the people, or at least the majority of the voting population. This isn’t always the case of course, as can be seen by many polls in the recent years. But for the most part, the layout of our system is such that the majority’s morals are represented. If they are not, the leaders are removed from office.

I’m not reading into what you are saying; I realize that you are talking about eminent domain. But one principle you offered to justify eminent domain which I was addressing—namely, that people have to obey the rules of the cities in which they live and that they can just leave—does logically entail that whatever a local government does is right. Let’s say a city council decides that abortion is mandatory. Your answer can be used to justify this law: People have to abide by the rules of a city; they can just leave. Let’s say a city declares that random murder is permissible. Again, your answer can be used to justify this law: People have to abide by the rules of a city; they can just leave. Your principle justifies all laws passed by local governments. Isn’t that just plainly an absurd conclusion? I submit that it is, and that, therefore, your principle is flawed and ought to be rejected, and hence cannot be used to justify eminent domain.

You’re misinterpreting my argument. I don’t argue that anything a local government does is right. I argue that anything a local government does is either the will of the people, or the legislators will be removed from office. Maybe I’m an optimist when it comes to government in my assumption that the voters are aware of the issues and where the candidates stand. I know that’s not always the case. But the more local the government, the more informed the voters generally are. So if the local government commits a gross breach of the trust between voters and representatives, then they will be removed from the government. The Local government also has the ability to run referendums very easily.

Take, for example, a smoking ban. If a city wishes to ban smoking in restaurants, the city generally runs a referendum to allow the citizens to give their opinion. Based on the results of the referendum, the council will pass or not pass the ban. There are those who feel it is wrong to ban smoking, whether for moral or economic reasons. But since the majority want to ban smoking, they ban smoking.

Now, there is also the chance for the citizens of a city to run a petition in order to force a referendum. If the citizens of a city wanted to ban eminent domain, they could get signatures, bring them to the council, and have them bring it up for referendum. If that referendum passes, then we know that the majority of people (voters) want to end the practice of eminent domain, and thus, the city could write that into law.

This is how local government works in America. As long as we maintain our representative democracy form of government, the city will continue to operate in this manner. Bringing up extreme situations does not make your argument stronger. City governments are still subject to state and federal and in some cases county laws. The city cannot generally make something legal that is illegal in the state or country. So Murder, forced abortion, and other extreme examples you can think of are not good examples, and your argument fails.

Allow me to add two additional clauses to your depiction of my argument, because yours wasn’t totally accurate. “If there is not an existing state or federal law and the majority is in favor of this law; citizens must abide by the laws of the city; you can leave if you disagree.” So, The city wants to make a law forcing abortion? If there is not an existing state or federal law and the majority is in favor of this law; citizens must abide by the laws of the city; you can leave if you disagree. Want to make random murder legal? If there is not an existing state or federal law and the majority is in favor of this law; citizens must abide by the laws of the city; you can leave if you disagree. Want to outlaw smoking in all public eating establishments? If there is not an existing state or federal law and the majority is in favor of this law; citizens must abide by the laws of the city; you can leave if you disagree.

That’s how it works in America.