Heh, wow, that's definitely not going to bode well with a lot of people. Corruption is going to run rampant and we're all going to face the end, very, very, shortly.
Land expropriation has tended to allow community development products, at the expense of larger corporate projects.
As the only bona fide lawyer on my Friends list, you've got the weight of knowledge of legal precedent on your shoulders. I wasn't aware that this was the case; living in Boston, I've heard stories about the use of eminent domain to destroy the West End in Boston (there is only one original building remaining - the rest is office buildings and hospitals) and to spearhead the Big Dig. Such bulldozings have rarely benefitted the displaced, although the benefits have been substantial
( ... )
it is very much a power struggle between the cities and the courts. every city government in the country had their fingers crossed waiting for this ruling. granting powers that didn't exist before the ruling--not exactly. city and state governments have been defining public use more and more broadly and using eminent domain for economic development for years, and no one has stopped them. granting powers that don't exist under the Constitution? yeah, seems that way. the majority opinion relied almost entirely on precedent rather than constitutional arguments, and admitted abandoning the literal "public use" standard for a broader "public purpose." take a look at thomas's dissent, which actually takes a close look at the wording of the amendment (and even uses latin!)
Eminent domain has been a legal practice since the passage of the Fifth Amendment in 1791, and in theory it's a very useful thing. How else are you going to build roads, or put down schools, or install the infrastructure we all rely on? It can be a very powerful tool for the public good.
And the argument can even be made that expropriation for private interests can serve the public good. (For example, land expropriated for a factory or an office building might revitalize an area's economy and create jobs.) What this decision does, however, is give local authorities, which can most certainly be bribed and pressured, the undisputed final word on forced property sales. It's really got the potential to be abused.
At the time when you were posting on it I was a bit distracted. Eminent domain actually really fascinates me because it seems to run so counter to everything that private property stands for, and I'm just a bit chagrined that it's now that much easier for the average person to get assraped by wealthy interests (corporate [and/]or academic) rather than having to be conciliated, which to me seems the ethical thing to do.
Comments 14
Reply
Reply
Reply
As the only bona fide lawyer on my Friends list, you've got the weight of knowledge of legal precedent on your shoulders. I wasn't aware that this was the case; living in Boston, I've heard stories about the use of eminent domain to destroy the West End in Boston (there is only one original building remaining - the rest is office buildings and hospitals) and to spearhead the Big Dig. Such bulldozings have rarely benefitted the displaced, although the benefits have been substantial ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And the argument can even be made that expropriation for private interests can serve the public good. (For example, land expropriated for a factory or an office building might revitalize an area's economy and create jobs.) What this decision does, however, is give local authorities, which can most certainly be bribed and pressured, the undisputed final word on forced property sales. It's really got the potential to be abused.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment