Several years ago a walmart wanted to come into the town where I live . There is busy street that Walmart wanted to build on. They wanted to build at the beginning of the street where there was a housing development ,even though a mile further out was thousands acres of empty land without anything built on it. This put them first on a street with 2 other big stores ( they both eventually went out of business )The town decided to take the 12 homes at the beginning of the st. by emanant domain. After 2 yrs. of fighting .They decided to finally take the land and homes and give it to Walmart. It was cheaper for Walmart in the long run to take the land ,than to buy the empty property. Walmart in now the only department store in town . The nearest one is now an hr. away. This crap should be illegal in my opinion.
Something similar happened to a former coworker of mine, but there was a small twist. The local government took his property under eminent domain ostensibly to build a park. Shortly thereafter they decided not to build the park and sold the land to a private developer. My coworker contended, AFAIK without proof, that the sale to the developer was agreed up front, and that the park development was just a ruse.
I'm not surprised by your last statement. The latest SCOTUS decision that Mr. Lehto's video was referencing will render that dirty underhanded way of doing it obsolete. They can now just take it for economic gain alone. A positively shameful SCOTUS decision.
We had one city claim eminent domain in order to build a Walmart. When a voters group gathered petitions and sought an injunction, city counsel put it on hold. The voters passed a second proposal that prohibits city counsel from using eminent domain without prior voter approval. Hows that for a solution?
I grew up in poverty. My parents had an inexpensive house. Had our home been "taken" by the government, the cash received from the government would not have been sufficient to buy an equivalent house. This must be a common outcome of eminent domain takings.
At the time of this case, my organization filed an amicus opposing this form of eminent domain. Our angle was that 1) affordable housing would never be determined as highest economic use (thus fall prey) and 2) a lot of independence of older persons is wrapped in their home and neighborhood social network. Another organization we interacted with on a variety of issues was the American Planning Association (re: urban planners), and they were totally for New London. Their public statements can still be read. In private, I would hear their members say things like "don't worry, we need this tool to do good things, our code of ethics will prevent abuse" .... it just about made my head explode. After all these years, I am still mad about it.
Conflating "for the public good" with "for public use" is like conflating "immigrants" with "illegal immigrants". The framers were precise in their wording and used "public use" because it has a very limited application. When instead you make the standard "for the public good", you then open Pandora's box.
Excellent point. The Supreme Court has proven that it is not above using verbal sleight of hand and convoluted logic to side with the state. SCOTUS rarely fails to find needed powers lurking somewhere in the language of the Constitution. As I see it, the spirit of the Constitution involves a limitation of government powers for the purpose of securing individual rights, not the creation of a gold mine where the government can extract new or heretofore unseen powers as needed.
"Hire people and pay taxes" I can show you, literally, a dozen empty facilities that were built using eminent domain, tax breaks, and economic development money that now set empty, and are all but useless. Big corporations come into an area, make promise after promise of jobs, which will increase employee spending, build the tax base, yadda, yadda, yadda. The problem is, the corporations get everything at taxpayer expense for, say, ten years, at which time they're supposed to begin paying full property, city, and school taxes. Instead, they simply closed and moved on to the next City, or Village, where they repeated the process of ripping off the taxpayers, with the Courts blessings. Ironically, those Courts are supported 100% by the taxpayers. What a sham.
I can't believe I'm with Clarence Thomas on anything, but I'm with him on this ruling. He states my thoughts exactly. Replacing person A with person B because person B might bring in more money to the state means money is the only value being considered. Since when is life only about money? If that were true why do we have laws against prostitution or buying and selling human beings? Person A has the same rights as person B. Their house isn't just a building, it's their home! Where they sleep and eat and raise children. They work and pay taxes. No doubt they contribute to society in a myriad of ways. Their true value does not boil down to dollars and cents. No compensation would be JUST. How much money would you take for your child's delight at their fifth birthday party? A million dollars?
Judge Clarence Thomas is a brilliant man as evidenced by the opinion you cite here. The public humiliation and slanderous personal attacks he suffered during his confirmation process we're a shameful attempt to destroy a genuinely good and decent man. The same despicable methods we're dusted off and used again in the Kavanaugh nomination process.
In addition to the reasons you stated (correctly), this is an assault on the first amendment. Before this, I could mouth off to the mayor without any fear of consequence. He could talk back if he wanted, but he couldn't harm me. But now I know that if I tick off the mayor, he might decide that my house is the ideal location for a gas station, and force me to sell to an oil company. And knowing this, I am reluctant to be critical of the government.
Randolph, NJ, took undeveloped land from owners whom were sitting on hundreds of acres. They owners fought, and lost. the town sat on the land, not more then 2 years, before selling it. Clearly the compensation was not "just", if their goal was to make a profit.
Could the original complaints now sue the state/city for fraudulent use of Imminent Domain seizure of the property, and get it back in front of SCOTUS to review their previous decision? Thank you.
A series on bad Supreme Count decisions would be interesting. I agree that this case should be on the list however my personal #1 is Wickard v. Filburn. This case vastly increased the power of the federal government and stretched the meaning the commerce clause until it was broken. This ruling stated that the power to regulate interstate commerce included not only the power to regulate local commerce but also activity that does not include any commerce at all. This is insane and ignores the clear and plain meaning of the words that actually appear in the constitution.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.
Great video, as usual. And as usual, I have a story to relate. Years ago, an aquaintence of mine owned a rather large auto salvage yard. You know, a pick-and-pull junk yard, but a large, profitable one, on the rural edge of a mid-sized city. The local school district decided that they needed that land to enlarge the nearby high school and put in a football stadium with track and field area, a baseball diamond, and the parking lots for those. They made ridiculous purchase offers, which my friend declined. More money was offered. Still declined. More money was offered, again, declined. The offers were in the low 6 digit range and were for the land only, NOT the value of the inventory, which was in the MILLIONS! Not to mention the income stream every year. They finally began the legal process of 'iminent domain' or whatever they called it, and started to try to force him to sell. Of course he got a lawyer. A GOOD one. Long story, made a bit longer: Today, you can drive by this old salvage yard, with a BRAND NEW and very nice fence, and just past the fence, is a very nice new high school, large football stadium, with a track and field oval, and baseball diamond, all partially wrapped around the salvage yard. It turns out you CAN 'fight city hall', as it were, IF you have a damn good lawyer.
This is the problem with money in politics (think citizens united), it allows all kinds of dark money to flow to just about every political seat and you get decisions that are not in the best interest of the people but of the corporation.
There was a similar situation a number of years ago near Derry, New Hampshire. A supreme court justice owned some of the land and as I remember, was able to prevent his piece from being taken because of his position. As usual, the elites and politicians always win.
After the decision referenced in this video there was a public outcry to seize the property of one of the justices through imminent domain. There was never any attempt to carry through on it though, so his property was never at risk.
The SCOTUS has reached a new low with this decision. This case and it's disposition is particularly disheartening for me because I have had up close and personal experience dealing with what could have been a heartbreaking eminent domain case. When I was a San Bruno City Councilman, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) threatened to turn part of San Bruno into a parking lot. In the name of progress and business stimulation, BART had a plan to demolish approximately 97 homes in a low income area of San Bruno to build a parking structure to benefit BART commuters and the shopping center through which BART was being built. The was during the 1990s and even back then, San Bruno real estate prices were very high. The people impacted by this decision would have been senior citizens, renters, and other economically diadvantaged groups who would have been uprooted and forced to move out of San Bruno, many miles away to afford to buy or rent a new place to live because this was the poorest area of San Bruno. Today, homes in this area of San Bruno can sell for $1 million or more and these are among the least expensive homes in San Bruno. I received some of the most painful, sad letters from people who had lived in their home for 30 - 50 years and were frightened by the prospect of having to start over in a new home far away from where they had spent all or most of their life. Through months of hard work and the intervention of the US Secretary of HUD, BART scrapped their plan to destroy these homes and the lives of the people living in these homes. BART built the parking lot across the street on shopping center property. This ruling by the SCOTUS, that threatens the private property right's of individual homeowners across the United States, is going to result in the pain and suffering of thousands, maybe millions of Americans who will lose their homes to greedy, scheming developers and government agencies waiting to destroy the homes and lives of vulnerable property owners not able to afford or endure an expensive legal battle to save their homes. In my opinion, the tangential costs associated with this type of greed disguised as progress is too high.
You are right that this was a horrendous decision and the government was to take private property away to give it to another private owner. The city alleged that the plan to build a shopping/restaurant/housing rental development where they can get more taxes. The city alleged the waterfront land was underutilized in that a different use could give more tax money to the city. In essence if you had 3 acres with a view and a small 4 room house, they can take your property and put up 3 mcmansions or 10 condos and get more tax money. BTW, the lady's house was moved to another lot but the lady moved out of town. The town wanted to charge the homeowners rent. They said they should have been allowed to take the property at the beginning of the 5 year process, so the home owners were living on the city's land. Imagine all the graft that can occur as a city takes land and sells it to a developer who happens to be the mayor's friend.
This should scare the hell out of all property owners. Like you said they use the little phrase it's for the public good you get fair market value and kicked out. We had this in my area with a grocery store it lasted 4 years now for the past 5 years been empty and it was the cause of the longtime grocery to close. They took 3 blocks worth of homes out of the area. Now looks like the local hospital is going to buy the property but guess what they are tax exempt so no property taxes will come into the area. Oh did I mention the city loaned the developer the money on a bond?
Was waiting for the part where it didn't bring in the money the city expected it would...but the corporation didn't even bring the jobs they promised and the city and state got completely hosed. Everybody was worse off after this ruling.
Similar case is happening now in Wisconsin. FOXCONN (a foreign tech company)needed 2,000 acres to build a factory. Government took the private property from homeowners and sold it to FOXCONN. Local govt declared the properties ‘blighted’, even though many homes appeared new, to justify the taking. They used the word ‘blighted’ to mean “any area that...arrests the growth of the community”. What are your thoughts?
Please post more about bad rulings. I followed this case as it was winding its way to the Supreme court. What shocked me the most was they took the land for the view to develop condo's that clearly would have no value to most folks in the community. We here in Indiana had a similar situation when AM general expanded to build H2 and H3. They took houses and a trailer park. Folks in the trailer park got a royal hosing, They didn't own the land just the trailer and were told to move. No trailer park here would take them because their units were more than ten years old. Then AM general folded. No one had the resources to fight it.
the human toll in this fiasco is all we should be focused on. Screw corporations and their tax breaks and preferential treatment. I live in Seattle where we have a stadium called SAFCO FIELD which houses the Mariners franchise. A lot of people know that but did you know that the people of Seattle voted NO, not once but twice not fund a new stadium, and still we have one. Quite frankly politicians cant be trusted. we voted this stadium down TWICE and still our supposed representatives think that maybe we voted it down because we just don't have the facts; and then in special session they past funding for it and taxed us all. The Government has no rights! We the People have rights,and we need to bring that back into focus!
Which is why there should be no tax money whatsoever used for sports stadiums unless the city has a majority ownership stake and thus can control the team. The only reason Green Bay still has a team is that it's owned by the city.
Ct has a long history of taking privately owned land. Ct took land from an old family (Danielson) to build a College on it in Killingly Ct. In this Kelo case, if my memory work well, that land was never used for the reason it was taken.
This very scenario of an existing property owner unwilling to sell to a bigger party that starts placing pressures on them was the basis of many A-Team episodes. Only in this case, instead of fighting off some unscrupulous land baron, the Team would have to take on the US Supreme Court directly. Now that would be a show....
Kind of reminds me of a comment that there is no private property in the United States you just rent it (property taxes) from the government. If the get a better offer they will just kick you off the property, eminent domain
You are so right. I could not believe that _any_ legitimate court in America would interpret eminent domain the way the Supreme Court did a couple of years ago. A spectacular display of judicial incompetence.
This type of thing almost happened in Baltimore, MD around 2000. The county got the state to pass a law allowing the county to condemn a list of properties. The people on the list got a petition together to get the issue on the ballot in the next election. The county tried to get people to vote their way by claiming the properties were blighted. If the properties had been blighted, they wouldn't have needed the new law, existing laws would have covered it. Many of the properties were actually beautiful waterfront properties that developers coveted. Fortunately, the public saw through what was really going on and voted the new law down.
I had family who got their property eminent domained to put through Interstate 10 and they also took a good bit on the property on either side of the proposed freeway. After the freeway was completely through there, they sold the adjacent property to fast food places and make many times more money off of it than they had made my family sell it for.
Wickard V Filburn is still a much worse decision, and has already had much more wide-reaching effect. The opinion that "regulate" means "allowed to regulate to zero (prohibit)" and that "interstate" means "something that MIGHT cross a state line" rather than "something that DOES cross a state line" are the reasons we have so many unconstitutional federal programs and laws today.
Definitely a bad ruling, Mr. Lehto. This is scary that property can be taken for a for-profit corporation. They clearly manipulated the situation to do this. "Be afraid. Be very afraid."
♥♥ True Story: Back in the early 70's, Kodak wanted to expand their operations in Rochester NY - At that time, Kodak WAS, pretty much, "Rochester", with somewhere around 60,000 employees in Rochester, itself. Kodak purchased a HUGE parcel of land which, on its western border, abutted a whole street (Lee Road). They "bought out" all existing businesses and private homes on their side of Lee Road- EXCEPT for one. An elderly woman refused to sell her property to Kodak. Despite the fact that Kodak offered her a very generous price (reported to be 3-times its market value), she said, "NO!" Kodak built their industrial complex - right up to her fence line. The woman eventually couldn't stand the noise. Kodak had RR trains delivering coal for their fuel, all hours of the day and night. They had industrial trucks, with their constant diesel engines and beep-beep-beep backup horns, 24 hours a day. I never heard what she eventually sold the property for, but, she did sell, after a couple years. #wewillgetyourproperty!
I think the worst case was civil forfeiture when there isn't any known crime. At least their is an argument for taking money which could be legal. But how could traveling with money be a crime?
Civil forfeiture as now used is an extension of the law originally used to, in effect, be bail for persons who might leave the jurisdiction (foreign shipowners, for instance).
I have fished Fort Trumble since I was a kid and I remember these houses. After a few years of letting them rot they tore the buildings down and the lot remains empty. If I remember correctly the site was also looked at for a coast guard museum that never happened. It's a really nice property to, it sits on a huge rock that makes up most of the front yards. Back when this was going on a lot of people speculated the government wanted to do this because the buildings overlooked electric boat where submarines are built but I dont think this was the reason.
I know it's an absolutely moot question given this debacle of an opinion, but how does the "public" continue having the inalienable ability to use this property per the SCOTUS majority (Amendments I-X = Bill of Rights = inalienable)? With the advent of the infamous 1791 document which concludes with two amendments specifically declaring all rights listed before it are held by the people and cannot be revoked nor altered, thusly, they too, are in(un)alienable rights set forever in the company of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I remember that after this ruling there was a movement to take one of the majority Justice's property somewhere in New England. Perhaps Souter and New Hampshire. I never heard how it ended. Probably just a fizzle.
Thanks Steve, I remember the case but never knew the rest of the story. If only the politicians could be held responsible for these kind of decisions, even long after they are gone.
I heard about this and it really is the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made. What many people don't realize is that the local government took the home and property, tore the home down, and the developer who was going to use the property to build something and they never came through with the development deal. It was a major black eye for the town. It allowed local governments to use Eminent Domain and gave the property to a private developer. It was the most ridiculous move by a local government and the biggest mistake that the town could ever make.
There was a similar case out of Texas near Port Arthur where a man owned a marina on the bay. It was crappy and run down but they wanted to build a fun park like in Kemah Texas up the coast. Instead of waiting the few years for the old man to pass of natural causes (his children wanted nothing to do with the property) they took his land to sell to the developer. The old man challenged and won. So they took his land any way and signed a 99 year lease to the developer to be a "custodian" of the states property. I've talked to countless people about that incident and I'm shocked at how many people don't have an issue with it. They simply subscribe to the logic that "It's the government and they can do what they want." It's as if we are serfs under a monarch in their mind. I can't understand that mentality - forget legally just at the moral level of taking a man's property and giving it to a third party because they "know better how to use it" and his compensation was less tan 43% of what his property was valued at for tax purposes. At the very least your taxes constitute a mutual agreement between you and the government as to what your property is worth.
When they built Comerica Park in Detroit they took a parking lot near the stadium from the owner and transferred it to the Stadium so they could use it as a .... parking lot. They justified the taking as part of the redevelopment project that benefits the public.
I agree. Here in Minnesota (Richfield, Bloomington etc.) it has become fashionable for communities to threaten to condemn houses out from under their owners and then build office buildings (Best Buy) or townhouses to increase the cities tax base. You think that when you paid off your mortgage, you own you property. In reality you do but only until someone with deep enough pockets to bribe the city takes a liking of "your" land. Isn't that what people fled Europe in the 1700's to get away from?
I remember when I heard about this ruling. They effectively made "public use" so broad as to render it meaningless. Theoretically any government entity could find potential justification (with little to no reasoning and no guarantee it will come to fruition) for a penny difference in "benefit" between your use and someone else's use and just take it. Beyond the fact that it is contrary to the constitution, it is absolutely ripe for abuse - don't like X neighborhood (or someone that resides there), join the local council, convince a few people there is a "better" use, neighborhood X is gone.
In my lifetime, Citizens United v FEC, hands down. That ruling sold out democracy to the highest bidder. The Susette Kelo ruling was bad, but the repercussions were far more limited than Citizens United.
A friend of mine who is a third generation industrial electrical engineer/technician had this happen to their family business. They had an large piece of land "industrial electric parts & salvage yard" 150 yds. sq. or so, in the big city. At the time the family acquired the property in the 1920's, the area was rural. Town grew up all around them. Just so happens, a school was built across the street from them as the town was expanding. So after 30 years or so, the school wanted to expand, and they looked right across the street.....so you know what happened. The City got the land/buildings etc. and now he's in a modest tilt-up, and shares a small yard with a sheet metal repair shop, with noise from pounding/riveting/forming the stuff 10 hrs/day. Needless to say, their quality of life on the job went from wonderful to the pits. We're from the Govt. & we're here to help us/I mean you.....
Incidentally, part of the argument in Kelo started in Hawaii because they have so many private property owners that own almost every bit of land because of the way things worked out with the transformation from a island kingdom to a state. Property is very tightly held and this makes it almost impossible to develop certain areas, so certain people sought relief to have the government step in and change this.
So I can go to a major corporation and say, I can get you some prime property but I want a finders fee, then go to the state and tell them that a major corporation wants to move here and I want a finders fee for it but first you’re going to have to get rid of the current owners so that this deal can happen, and the state can do it and I can get rich from it. Talking about a scam on the people who own property, this law is really going to be abused..........
I also do not consent...In 1949 my family moved to a 65 acre farm in N.E. Ohio. I grew up on that farm and learned the value of good work and play. In 1974 The National Park Service decided to form what is now The Cuyahoga Valley National Park. The Park Service used Emanate Domain to take over our homestead so I can no longer enjoy the foresight of my Father in purchasing that beautiful piece of property...the loss "broke my parents heart".. and mine too. I currently live 15 minutes from that farm and drive by periodically... P.S. Steve is it about time to "get your ears lowered"?
That sounds crazy to me, I was called for jury duty and the case was an eminent domain case which I was dismissed from because I believed that they had no right to force someone off their property. I still feel that way today for so many reasons! BE SAFE
I feel that Citizen's United is the worst currently standing Supreme Court decision, but Kelo vs. New London comes in at a very close second. I'm really glad you are talking about this injustice, almost no one does.
A city by me figured out how to get around this back in the mid '90s. They wanted a decades old gas station gone. Said they wanted the land for a public park, a public use. Gas station fought and lost. Land was taken through eminent domain. Park was built. When city decided it had been a public use long enough, the rest of the plan played out and land was developed for bars and restaurants.
Same city forced another landowner to give up his land. Then the city's big plans fell through and they decided to give some of the land back while demanding back $ they had paid. Former land owner was not interested since the land was no longer in its former condition and would still be a prime target for eminent domain in the future. Fortunately court ruled in the old owner's favor. Even better was when the city coughed up more $ because the old owner still had an outstanding case that the city had not paid him enough in the first place. law.justia.com/cases/ohio/third-district-court-of-appeals/2011/2011-ohio-2461.html www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/dublin/news/2011/12/14/dublin-settles-8-25m-land-lawsuit-with-wirchanski.html
I lived through two versions of this scenario. First was Urban Renewal buying multiple properties and fire sale prices, then "improving" the land into a parking lot for an existing business. The second was when a multinational corporation shined the city council with a fantasy that they were coming in permanently. They abandoned the property, after leaving waste behind the same month their tax deferment ended.
Similar events happened in other states.. (Alabama if I remember correctly) -- where the city took a whole block of homes to give to walmart to put in a store and parking area.. which closed 4 years afterwards because that was not the right neighborhood....
I think Dread Scott ranks up there pretty high. It ended in a civil war. In this case, it's my understanding that the land now sits idle, and wasn't developed as it was supposed to be. A total waste.
Dont know the case. Would be the first case that found infringing on the 2nd with permits, rules, of anykind was the worst. It has led us to a point where the word meaning in the constitution can be looked at in ways contray to their obvious intent. Now none of our bill or rights are followed as intended, laws are interpited with twist, and our fredoms and safeguards are being curtailed .
In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre (370,000 m2) waterfront tract of land for $1 per year) was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city.
several years ago the city of Pittsburgh PA tossed dozens of fixed income low renters out of an apartment building as well as several homes to build a new stadium for millionaire football players after they demolish the still yet to be paid for 3-rivers-stadium. So they raised taxes to pay for 3 stadiums now, razed the old one and built two new ones and I believe property and local income tax pays for it all. But those people kicked out on their asses were not compensated because they were renters, the owner of the apartment building was compensated, and those people were really hard pressed to find such low rent in a new location. All so rich people could enjoy a sport built on the backs and with the blood of the locals. so yeah, this sort of thing pisses me off too and I already was aware of the ability of the government to do this to people.
I think the general attitude of funding billionaire's sports teams is coming around. The mayor of Calgary (Canada), told the NHL team to pound sand and later told an Olympic bidding committee that the city would take zero financial liability for that too. And that's in a city with money. They've taken a hit in the last few year, but they're still much better off than most.
I seem to remember reading that one of the plants General Motors recently announced it would be closing in the US was built where a community was razed to make land available. Sure there were jobs for a while, but now those will be gone (as well as the jobs those laid-off workers supported). In the Kelo case I would look to two causes - local bigwigs with pie in the sky vision and/or some back room deals, as in donations to politicians or another form of bribery. Does not bode well for the plain folks who just want to live their lives in the security of their homes.
After this decision - public outcry was huge... So a lot of states - passed laws prohibiting this type of gov't taking. I know Washington State did so... And I heard (at the time) that other states were dong so as well.
Bucks County, PA, around 30 years ago or so, a farm and some homes were eminent domained by the county for a shopping mall. Litigation ensued, the land was taken, the homeowners and farmer SOL. So, not exactly a novel practice. This simply made it to the SCOTUS, who found that a man's castle belongs to whoever the municipality, county or state damned well fells like giving it to to turn a buck. One remaining farm was under threat and matters went slightly different, as residents of multiple counties finally became outraged. It seems, that the general public consensus was that the courts were worthless, but a few remarked how inexpensive lead was and the farm remains there to this day. It would seem that the officers who made the decision to apply eminent domain to benefit private real estate developers decided to not potentially share Louis XVI's fate. Or maybe it was the ghost of Christmas Future... Never underestimate the folks around Philly. To my knowledge, we're the only US city to have artillery used by the populace against other members of the populace and also got away with killing members of the militia sent in to restore order during the Philadelphia Nativist Riots. Although, the Bronx has the distinction of having US Army artillery used against it during Bowery rioting over the Civil War conscription (wealthy bought their way out of conscription, which triggered the rioting). Although, I do wonder about how much of a part whisky played in starting the whiskey rebellion, which took no less than George Washington riding out of the capitol to meet the responding militia from other states to suppress. History is a rather interesting thing! It can be entertaining or downright horrifying.
In this area Wal Mart would patician a manicipality to take the best area off highway and offer to them with tax incentives. They not only took it for Walmart but gave them a 10 yr deal. During those years with tax, and price advantage would completely change the business climate wiping out many small business employing full time employees to replace with multiple employees with part time hours on charity programs. The avilibilty of goods shifted and repair shops followed. After the incentives ran out they closed 2 or 3 smaller stores and replaced with supercenters. The original communities having lost majority of other tax base were then blighted and the citizens now had to drive 30 or more miles for things that were once in their home town. As normal the public interest served the big corperations. It's the USA way.
The "Corporation" the city sold it to used the Long Island Sound real estate to build a multi million dollar housing development.. The argument made was that these homes would pay higher property taxes to the municipality than the older, smaller homes that were taken under public domain. The only jobs created were construction jobs which ceased to exist in the area as soon as the waterfront development was completed..
@@ShiftyLizardStore Yes,. The woman who brought the court cases land is still empty,. However most of the Long Island Sound properties that were public domained and transfered to the developer were in fact used to build million dollar estates.. The people who owned them previously basically had their prime investment realestate stolen,/ confiscated by the State of Connecticut.. People can say they were compensated,. However that is ignoring the fact that prime New England Real Estate has outperformed other assets over the last 20 years
Agreed. The Supreme Court has apparently confused the term, "public use" with the term "public good." It may be that the new owners are using it in a way that improves the economy of the area, but they are PRIVATE OWNERS. The good it does society may be real, but it is clearly NOT public. Wouldn't it be great if the majority justices had their homes taken to put up low income housing? I wonder how they would like that?
What logic would a company have for using this space after such general outrage? The bad PR alone would be a nightmare, thus negating the plan entirely. Good luck selling a property after it is PR blighted. The real cherry on top would be if the property eventually just got taken by a developer that just put up more homes instead.
The could have put up some khrushchyovkas, that is prefab apartment blocks owned by the housing authority. But that would simply be too communist, even for the Democratic People's Republic of Connecticut
Hey Steve, take a look at the history of what everyone now calls Helltown, OH.! In the 70's the state of Ohio took properties of individuals within 3 towns total ( if my memory is correct) all for the sake of a state park. They eventually sent in the national guard to remove families from their homes. Currently most of those homes are boarded up still, and deteriorating, and nothing has ever been done with all of those properties. The strange thing is it is still watched over to this day and made sure of that nobody goes into those areas.
@Robert Grubbs This happened in 1974 around the areas of Boston, OH and Peninsula, OH. Gerald Ford signed a bill allowing seizure of properties for the sake of a national park. Alot of the properties are still sitting abandoned and people are, generally, not aloud into certain areas.
I remember when this happened, there was also an eminent domain case in Bristol. There they redefined blighted property as a house with less than 2 bathrooms. Those houses were taken and also the mall never happened. I really hate eminent domain cases, my great grandfather's land in Newington, Connecticut was taken under it and the highway there never happened either.
The longer I listened to this the more disgusted I got. You always hope that reasonable rational people who believe in the constitution will be appointed to the supreme court. This was a horrible decision and needs to be overturned immediately. This is the kind of abuse you could have gotten from king George.
In contrast, Vera Coking of Atlantic City held out on selling her property. In Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, a public corporate body of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Raymond Coking and Vera Coking, his wife; Et. Al. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could not be used to take her home for Trump Tower to make a parking lot. That house was finally sold and destroyed.
There was a similar situation in Lubbock TX. The mayor's father was purchasing properties in the "Overton North" neighborhood, demolishing them, and either putting up condominiums, or selling the property at a profit to other developers. 2 property owners would not sell at the developer's offered price. The owner of one vacant lot was willing to sell it for $250,000 but McDougal wanted to take it for only $20,000. The city council held a meeting and unanimously elected to seize the properties under Eminent Domain, to turn over to the Mayor's father. After all, just like the game Monopoly, if the Mayor's father doesn't own every property on each block, he can't put hotels (condominiums) on such block, and charge high rents to everybody landing on such properties. A wise citizen anonymously sent copies of the newspaper clipping concerning the council's seizure, to the FBI, the state police special crimes division, and the attorney general. The city charter mandated municipal use for Eminent Domain seized properties. The letters to the government offices were asking them to call the mayor and council members, and ask them to explain how the Mayor's father's profiteering is considered municipal use. 2 days after the letters were postmarked, the local media gave news about the council's emergency meeting, for which they unanimously (except for the mayor who recused himself from the vote) elected to withdraw their seizure under Eminent Domain, and advised McDougal to re-negotiate with the property owners. On a side note, the FBI, at a later time, raided city hall, and seized documents, computers, etc, concerning abuse on, what the city claims was an unrelated issue. The only 2 neighborhood additions in Lubbock, in which people from the main part of the campus do not have to cross a U.S. highway, to get to, are the Overton North, and Overton South additions. It has been a few years since the demolition and reconstruction of the Overton North addition. It can handle 10 times the population as before (from 1500 to 15,000. Each single family house averaged about 2.5 bedrooms, with an average taxable value of 30k . Each lot now averages about 5 condominium units with a taxable value of about 150k each ). However the population of the University, has also increased, and plans to grow even more. The university was proposing revamping Overton South. I have Two houses (One 4 bedroom, and one 3 bedroom) in that neighborhood. I've been receiving letters and calls almost every week, offering to "relieve me of the burden of dealing with the tenants". But they are not yet offering active development price. I assume such calls are from "front companies", trying to obtain as many of the properties in the neighborhood, before going public with the "Vision of the future - joint venture development with the city of Lubbock" as he McDougal in Overton North. Since Overton South is protected as a historical neighborhood, the front companies will probably need about 50% of the land, to have enough interest to eliminate the historical area protection, forthe city's "vision of the future"
I agree with the assessment that this SCOTUS ruling is a bad decision. The process, however was not completely waisted. The corporations once again got what they wanted. Now they have established precedent. So next time this situation arises there will be less of a fight and the corporation can take over private property more quickly.
President George W. Bush issued an executive order instructing the federal government to restrict the use of eminent domain, a year after this ruling. For the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. Also a dozen states passed laws protecting the taking of property by the states for private use including my former state of Michigan, and my current state of Arizona. With the other states people are subjected to this ruling. Most of the judges voting for it were considered liberal, big government, advocates.
@15:15--"No one can make you sell your house" Perhaps the Gov't should force the sale of the Congress, since it is a Worthless Blighted Area, and put up a parking lot for the millions of tourist who visit Wash DC(the Greater Good). Sell the original Constitution because it will be worthless in 4 years! Do it Now, while it may have value to someone, as a historical document, to help pay off the Nat'l Debt.
Wow that is one frightening ruleing with terrifying potential repercussions for any landowner who happens to run afoul of their town or city council...
Basically, the government just needs to come up with any grandiose positive financial or economic projections for the new use of private property to take it. However, the failed financial results seems to gut that decision IMHO. It would seem to open the door to overturning that decision since it hinged on the financial impact as the basis for taking the property.
Years ago the government decided to build a dam on the Duck River in Columbia, TN. Millions of dollars were spent dispossessing people of their family farms and houses. Construction on the dam started, only to be abandoned because "environmentalists" discovered the river contained a previously unheard of minnow called the Snail Darter. Family farm gone. No benefit to the citizens.
More egregious was Hawaii vs Midkiff (1984) where they found that public use is the same as public good. Taking the land from a small number of land owners and redistributing it to a larger number because it was not good for democracy. Approximately 47% of the land in Hawaii was owned by seven families. The government took the land and redistributed it to former renters. Though you might argue the definition of "public use", to equate it with "public good" clearly falls outside the definition and intent of the constitution. This was a simple land grab that opened the door for any two bit city council to take land and give it to a private entity for the "public good", whatever the hell that is.
It was one island in Hawaii, not all of Hawaii. Although pretty much everything regarding the history of Hawaii in the United States has been a string of, frankly, criminal actions. It was robbed of its nationhood for the benefit of a private corporation.
I remember being surprised when I heard this ruling in the news several years back. And as a liberal, I especially remember being shocked that it was the liberals on the court who ruled in favor of it.
The final cost to the city and state for the purchase and bulldozing of the formerly privately held property was $78 million.[23] The promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. As of 2018 the area remains an empty lot. And the lot is still empty!
I mostly agree--this was outrageous. A perverted implementation of "the public use"/eminent domain. Also, I hope those local/municipal New London politicians were voted out; their "optimistic projections" about the tax/jobs benefits were clearly out of line with reality.
It has to be one of the many re interpretations of the commerce clause. The modern interpretation of the commerce clause is so patently ridiculous while at the same time allowing so much federal over reach. How could it be anything else?
Several years ago a walmart wanted to come into the town where I live . There is busy street that Walmart wanted to build on. They wanted to build at the beginning of the street where there was a housing development ,even though a mile further out was thousands acres of empty land without anything built on it. This put them first on a street with 2 other big stores ( they both eventually went out of business )The town decided to take the 12 homes at the beginning of the st. by emanant domain. After 2 yrs. of fighting .They decided to finally take the land and homes and give it to Walmart. It was cheaper for Walmart in the long run to take the land ,than to buy the empty property. Walmart in now the only department store in town . The nearest one is now an hr. away.
This crap should be illegal in my opinion.
RIGHT ON, frog knees! You can see the corporate manipulation of the public. Kudos!
Something similar happened to a former coworker of mine, but there was a small twist. The local government took his property under eminent domain ostensibly to build a park. Shortly thereafter they decided not to build the park and sold the land to a private developer.
My coworker contended, AFAIK without proof, that the sale to the developer was agreed up front, and that the park development was just a ruse.
I'm not surprised by your last statement. The latest SCOTUS decision that Mr. Lehto's video was referencing will render that dirty underhanded way of doing it obsolete. They can now just take it for economic gain alone. A positively shameful SCOTUS decision.
We had one city claim eminent domain in order to build a Walmart. When a voters group gathered petitions and sought an injunction, city counsel put it on hold. The voters passed a second proposal that prohibits city counsel from using eminent domain without prior voter approval. Hows that for a solution?
I grew up in poverty. My parents had an inexpensive house.
Had our home been "taken" by the government, the cash received from the government would not have been sufficient to buy an equivalent house. This must be a common outcome of eminent domain takings.
At the time of this case, my organization filed an amicus opposing this form of eminent domain. Our angle was that 1) affordable housing would never be determined as highest economic use (thus fall prey) and 2) a lot of independence of older persons is wrapped in their home and neighborhood social network. Another organization we interacted with on a variety of issues was the American Planning Association (re: urban planners), and they were totally for New London. Their public statements can still be read. In private, I would hear their members say things like "don't worry, we need this tool to do good things, our code of ethics will prevent abuse" .... it just about made my head explode. After all these years, I am still mad about it.
Conflating "for the public good" with "for public use" is like conflating "immigrants" with "illegal immigrants". The framers were precise in their wording and used "public use" because it has a very limited application. When instead you make the standard "for the public good", you then open Pandora's box.
Excellent point. The Supreme Court has proven that it is not above using verbal sleight of hand and convoluted logic to side with the state. SCOTUS rarely fails to find needed powers lurking somewhere in the language of the Constitution. As I see it, the spirit of the Constitution involves a limitation of government powers for the purpose of securing individual rights, not the creation of a gold mine where the government can extract new or heretofore unseen powers as needed.
I am thinking there is a ton of ocean view property in Malibu CA that could be better used for commercial purposes.
"Hire people and pay taxes" I can show you, literally, a dozen empty facilities that were built using eminent domain, tax breaks, and economic development money that now set empty, and are all but useless.
Big corporations come into an area, make promise after promise of jobs, which will increase employee spending, build the tax base, yadda, yadda, yadda. The problem is, the corporations get everything at taxpayer expense for, say, ten years, at which time they're supposed to begin paying full property, city, and school taxes. Instead, they simply closed and moved on to the next City, or Village, where they repeated the process of ripping off the taxpayers, with the Courts blessings. Ironically, those Courts are supported 100% by the taxpayers. What a sham.
Ronald Reagan was supposed to have said: "The most frightening words you can ever hear are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"
I was thinking of this exact quote when i watched this.
reagan was gay
Especially if those words are uttered by a police officer. You know something bad is going down!
I can't believe I'm with Clarence Thomas on anything, but I'm with him on this ruling. He states my thoughts exactly. Replacing person A with person B because person B might bring in more money to the state means money is the only value being considered. Since when is life only about money? If that were true why do we have laws against prostitution or buying and selling human beings? Person A has the same rights as person B. Their house isn't just a building, it's their home! Where they sleep and eat and raise children. They work and pay taxes. No doubt they contribute to society in a myriad of ways. Their true value does not boil down to dollars and cents. No compensation would be JUST. How much money would you take for your child's delight at their fifth birthday party? A million dollars?
Judge Clarence Thomas is a brilliant man as evidenced by the opinion you cite here.
The public humiliation and slanderous personal attacks he suffered during his confirmation process we're a shameful attempt to destroy a genuinely good and decent man. The same despicable methods we're dusted off and used again in the Kavanaugh nomination process.
In addition to the reasons you stated (correctly), this is an assault on the first amendment. Before this, I could mouth off to the mayor without any fear of consequence. He could talk back if he wanted, but he couldn't harm me. But now I know that if I tick off the mayor, he might decide that my house is the ideal location for a gas station, and force me to sell to an oil company. And knowing this, I am reluctant to be critical of the government.
I still mouth off. Especially about crap without science-based under a microscope proof without LIEING.
Randolph, NJ, took undeveloped land from owners whom were sitting on hundreds of acres. They owners fought, and lost. the town sat on the land, not more then 2 years, before selling it. Clearly the compensation was not "just", if their goal was to make a profit.
Could the original complaints now sue the state/city for fraudulent use of Imminent Domain seizure of the property, and get it back in front of SCOTUS to review their previous decision?
Thank you.
A series on bad Supreme Count decisions would be interesting. I agree that this case should be on the list however my personal #1 is Wickard v. Filburn. This case vastly increased the power of the federal government and stretched the meaning the commerce clause until it was broken. This ruling stated that the power to regulate interstate commerce included not only the power to regulate local commerce but also activity that does not include any commerce at all. This is insane and ignores the clear and plain meaning of the words that actually appear in the constitution.
I did Wickard.
@@stevelehto Just watched your Wickard video and totally agree.
Hi Steve. Diego, lawyer from Argentina.
The founding fathers of your country would be ashamed. They would have done another revolution.
Wickard v. Filburn should be up there somewhere. A guy can't grow wheat for his own use?
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.
Great video, as usual. And as usual, I have a story to relate. Years ago, an aquaintence of mine owned a rather large auto salvage yard. You know, a pick-and-pull junk yard, but a large, profitable one, on the rural edge of a mid-sized city. The local school district decided that they needed that land to enlarge the nearby high school and put in a football stadium with track and field area, a baseball diamond, and the parking lots for those.
They made ridiculous purchase offers, which my friend declined. More money was offered. Still declined. More money was offered, again, declined. The offers were in the low 6 digit range and were for the land only, NOT the value of the inventory, which was in the MILLIONS! Not to mention the income stream every year. They finally began the legal process of 'iminent domain' or whatever they called it, and started to try to force him to sell. Of course he got a lawyer. A GOOD one. Long story, made a bit longer:
Today, you can drive by this old salvage yard, with a BRAND NEW and very nice fence, and just past the fence, is a very nice new high school, large football stadium, with a track and field oval, and baseball diamond, all partially wrapped around the salvage yard. It turns out you CAN 'fight city hall', as it were, IF you have a damn good lawyer.
This is the problem with money in politics (think citizens united), it allows all kinds of dark money to flow to just about every political seat and you get decisions that are not in the best interest of the people but of the corporation.
There was a similar situation a number of years ago near Derry, New Hampshire. A supreme court justice owned some of the land and as I remember, was able to prevent his piece from being taken because of his position. As usual, the elites and politicians always win.
After the decision referenced in this video there was a public outcry to seize the property of one of the justices through imminent domain. There was never any attempt to carry through on it though, so his property was never at risk.
The SCOTUS has reached a new low with this decision. This case and it's disposition is particularly disheartening for me because I have had up close and personal experience dealing with what could have been a heartbreaking eminent domain case. When I was a San Bruno City Councilman, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) threatened to turn part of San Bruno into a parking lot. In the name of progress and business stimulation, BART had a plan to demolish approximately 97 homes in a low income area of San Bruno to build a parking structure to benefit BART commuters and the shopping center through which BART was being built. The was during the 1990s and even back then, San Bruno real estate prices were very high. The people impacted by this decision would have been senior citizens, renters, and other economically diadvantaged groups who would have been uprooted and forced to move out of San Bruno, many miles away to afford to buy or rent a new place to live because this was the poorest area of San Bruno. Today, homes in this area of San Bruno can sell for $1 million or more and these are among the least expensive homes in San Bruno. I received some of the most painful, sad letters from people who had lived in their home for 30 - 50 years and were frightened by the prospect of having to start over in a new home far away from where they had spent all or most of their life. Through months of hard work and the intervention of the US Secretary of HUD, BART scrapped their plan to destroy these homes and the lives of the people living in these homes. BART built the parking lot across the street on shopping center property.
This ruling by the SCOTUS, that threatens the private property right's of individual homeowners across the United States, is going to result in the pain and suffering of thousands, maybe millions of Americans who will lose their homes to greedy, scheming developers and government agencies waiting to destroy the homes and lives of vulnerable property owners not able to afford or endure an expensive legal battle to save their homes. In my opinion, the tangential costs associated with this type of greed disguised as progress is too high.
You are right that this was a horrendous decision and the government was to take private property away to give it to another private owner. The city alleged that the plan to build a shopping/restaurant/housing rental development where they can get more taxes. The city alleged the waterfront land was underutilized in that a different use could give more tax money to the city. In essence if you had 3 acres with a view and a small 4 room house, they can take your property and put up 3 mcmansions or 10 condos and get more tax money.
BTW, the lady's house was moved to another lot but the lady moved out of town. The town wanted to charge the homeowners rent. They said they should have been allowed to take the property at the beginning of the 5 year process, so the home owners were living on the city's land. Imagine all the graft that can occur as a city takes land and sells it to a developer who happens to be the mayor's friend.
This should scare the hell out of all property owners. Like you said they use the little phrase it's for the public good you get fair market value and kicked out. We had this in my area with a grocery store it lasted 4 years now for the past 5 years been empty and it was the cause of the longtime grocery to close. They took 3 blocks worth of homes out of the area. Now looks like the local hospital is going to buy the property but guess what they are tax exempt so no property taxes will come into the area. Oh did I mention the city loaned the developer the money on a bond?
Was waiting for the part where it didn't bring in the money the city expected it would...but the corporation didn't even bring the jobs they promised and the city and state got completely hosed. Everybody was worse off after this ruling.
From what I've seen from others... Nothing ever happened with the land..
Similar case is happening now in Wisconsin. FOXCONN (a foreign tech company)needed 2,000 acres to build a factory. Government took the private property from homeowners and sold it to FOXCONN. Local govt declared the properties ‘blighted’, even though many homes appeared new, to justify the taking. They used the word ‘blighted’ to mean “any area that...arrests the growth of the community”.
What are your thoughts?
And literally across the street from a Fort built to defend us from tyranny...
DMC spent a lot of time in that Fort
Please post more about bad rulings. I followed this case as it was winding its way to the Supreme court. What shocked me the most was they took the land for the view to develop condo's that clearly would have no value to most folks in the community. We here in Indiana had a similar situation when AM general expanded to build H2 and H3. They took houses and a trailer park. Folks in the trailer park got a royal hosing, They didn't own the land just the trailer and were told to move. No trailer park here would take them because their units were more than ten years old. Then AM general folded. No one had the resources to fight it.
the human toll in this fiasco is all we should be focused on.
Screw corporations and their tax breaks and preferential treatment.
I live in Seattle where we have a stadium called SAFCO FIELD which houses the Mariners franchise. A lot of people know that but did you know that the people of Seattle voted NO, not once but twice not fund a new stadium, and still we have one.
Quite frankly politicians cant be trusted. we voted this stadium down TWICE and still our supposed representatives think that maybe we voted it down because we just don't have the facts; and then in special session they past funding for it and taxed us all.
The Government has no rights! We the People have rights,and we need to bring that back into focus!
That happened here in St. Louis when the built the dome here. The Rams came, The Rams left, and the city got stuck with the bill.
Which is why there should be no tax money whatsoever used for sports stadiums unless the city has a majority ownership stake and thus can control the team. The only reason Green Bay still has a team is that it's owned by the city.
Ct has a long history of taking privately owned land. Ct took land from an old family (Danielson) to build a College on it in Killingly Ct. In this Kelo case, if my memory work well, that land was never used for the reason it was taken.
This very scenario of an existing property owner unwilling to sell to a bigger party that starts placing pressures on them was the basis of many A-Team episodes. Only in this case, instead of fighting off some unscrupulous land baron, the Team would have to take on the US Supreme Court directly. Now that would be a show....
Kind of reminds me of a comment that there is no private property in the United States you just rent it (property taxes) from the government. If the get a better offer they will just kick you off the property, eminent domain
You are so right. I could not believe that _any_ legitimate court in America would interpret eminent domain the way the Supreme Court did a couple of years ago. A spectacular display of judicial incompetence.
This type of thing almost happened in Baltimore, MD around 2000. The county got the state to pass a law allowing the county to condemn a list of properties. The people on the list got a petition together to get the issue on the ballot in the next election. The county tried to get people to vote their way by claiming the properties were blighted. If the properties had been blighted, they wouldn't have needed the new law, existing laws would have covered it. Many of the properties were actually beautiful waterfront properties that developers coveted. Fortunately, the public saw through what was really going on and voted the new law down.
I had family who got their property eminent domained to put through Interstate 10 and they also took a good bit on the property on either side of the proposed freeway. After the freeway was completely through there, they sold the adjacent property to fast food places and make many times more money off of it than they had made my family sell it for.
Wickard V Filburn is still a much worse decision, and has already had much more wide-reaching effect. The opinion that "regulate" means "allowed to regulate to zero (prohibit)" and that "interstate" means "something that MIGHT cross a state line" rather than "something that DOES cross a state line" are the reasons we have so many unconstitutional federal programs and laws today.
Definitely a bad ruling, Mr. Lehto. This is scary that property can be taken for a for-profit corporation. They clearly manipulated the situation to do this. "Be afraid. Be very afraid."
♥♥ True Story: Back in the early 70's, Kodak wanted to expand their operations in Rochester NY - At that time, Kodak WAS, pretty much, "Rochester", with somewhere around 60,000 employees in Rochester, itself.
Kodak purchased a HUGE parcel of land which, on its western border, abutted a whole street (Lee Road).
They "bought out" all existing businesses and private homes on their side of Lee Road- EXCEPT for one.
An elderly woman refused to sell her property to Kodak. Despite the fact that Kodak offered her a very generous price (reported to be 3-times its market value), she said, "NO!"
Kodak built their industrial complex - right up to her fence line.
The woman eventually couldn't stand the noise. Kodak had RR trains delivering coal for their fuel, all hours of the day and night. They had industrial trucks, with their constant diesel engines and beep-beep-beep backup horns, 24 hours a day.
I never heard what she eventually sold the property for, but, she did sell, after a couple years.
#wewillgetyourproperty!
And you wonder why, people take matters into their own hands, and bulldoze the town.
I seen it on RUclips video.
I think the worst case was civil forfeiture when there isn't any known crime. At least their is an argument for taking money which could be legal. But how could traveling with money be a crime?
Civil forfeiture as now used is an extension of the law originally used to, in effect, be bail for persons who might leave the jurisdiction (foreign shipowners, for instance).
I have fished Fort Trumble since I was a kid and I remember these houses. After a few years of letting them rot they tore the buildings down and the lot remains empty. If I remember correctly the site was also looked at for a coast guard museum that never happened. It's a really nice property to, it sits on a huge rock that makes up most of the front yards. Back when this was going on a lot of people speculated the government wanted to do this because the buildings overlooked electric boat where submarines are built but I dont think this was the reason.
Truth, absolutely horrible as it overturned the concept of public use.
I know it's an absolutely moot question given this debacle of an opinion, but how does the "public" continue having the inalienable ability to use this property per the SCOTUS majority (Amendments I-X = Bill of Rights = inalienable)? With the advent of the infamous 1791 document which concludes with two amendments specifically declaring all rights listed before it are held by the people and cannot be revoked nor altered, thusly, they too, are in(un)alienable rights set forever in the company of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
LL&PofH is from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution actually says Life Liberty and Property (which makes your argument even better).
I remember that after this ruling there was a movement to take one of the majority Justice's property somewhere in New England. Perhaps Souter and New Hampshire. I never heard how it ended. Probably just a fizzle.
Thanks Steve, I remember the case but never knew the rest of the story. If only the politicians could be held responsible for these kind of decisions, even long after they are gone.
I heard about this and it really is the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made. What many people don't realize is that the local government took the home and property, tore the home down, and the developer who was going to use the property to build something and they never came through with the development deal. It was a major black eye for the town. It allowed local governments to use Eminent Domain and gave the property to a private developer. It was the most ridiculous move by a local government and the biggest mistake that the town could ever make.
There was a similar case out of Texas near Port Arthur where a man owned a marina on the bay. It was crappy and run down but they wanted to build a fun park like in Kemah Texas up the coast. Instead of waiting the few years for the old man to pass of natural causes (his children wanted nothing to do with the property) they took his land to sell to the developer. The old man challenged and won. So they took his land any way and signed a 99 year lease to the developer to be a "custodian" of the states property.
I've talked to countless people about that incident and I'm shocked at how many people don't have an issue with it. They simply subscribe to the logic that "It's the government and they can do what they want." It's as if we are serfs under a monarch in their mind. I can't understand that mentality - forget legally just at the moral level of taking a man's property and giving it to a third party because they "know better how to use it" and his compensation was less tan 43% of what his property was valued at for tax purposes. At the very least your taxes constitute a mutual agreement between you and the government as to what your property is worth.
When they built Comerica Park in Detroit they took a parking lot near the stadium from the owner and transferred it to the Stadium so they could use it as a .... parking lot. They justified the taking as part of the redevelopment project that benefits the public.
I agree. Here in Minnesota (Richfield, Bloomington etc.) it has become fashionable for communities to threaten to condemn houses out from under their owners and then build office buildings (Best Buy) or townhouses to increase the cities tax base. You think that when you paid off your mortgage, you own you property. In reality you do but only until someone with deep enough pockets to bribe the city takes a liking of "your" land. Isn't that what people fled Europe in the 1700's to get away from?
I remember when I heard about this ruling. They effectively made "public use" so broad as to render it meaningless. Theoretically any government entity could find potential justification (with little to no reasoning and no guarantee it will come to fruition) for a penny difference in "benefit" between your use and someone else's use and just take it. Beyond the fact that it is contrary to the constitution, it is absolutely ripe for abuse - don't like X neighborhood (or someone that resides there), join the local council, convince a few people there is a "better" use, neighborhood X is gone.
In my lifetime, Citizens United v FEC, hands down. That ruling sold out democracy to the highest bidder. The Susette Kelo ruling was bad, but the repercussions were far more limited than Citizens United.
A friend of mine who is a third generation industrial electrical engineer/technician had this happen to their family business. They had an large piece of land "industrial electric parts & salvage yard" 150 yds. sq. or so, in the big city. At the time the family acquired the property in the 1920's, the area was rural. Town grew up all around them. Just so happens, a school was built across the street from them as the town was expanding. So after 30 years or so, the school wanted to expand, and they looked right across the street.....so you know what happened. The City got the land/buildings etc. and now he's in a modest tilt-up, and shares a small yard with a sheet metal repair shop, with noise from pounding/riveting/forming the stuff 10 hrs/day. Needless to say, their quality of life on the job went from wonderful to the pits. We're from the Govt. & we're here to help us/I mean you.....
Question... If this happens and they end up not developing it into "public use," does that open grounds for a class action suit?
No, because you got paid the fair value for your property. Presumably means you have not suffered a loss.
Incidentally, part of the argument in Kelo started in Hawaii because they have so many private property owners that own almost every bit of land because of the way things worked out with the transformation from a island kingdom to a state. Property is very tightly held and this makes it almost impossible to develop certain areas, so certain people sought relief to have the government step in and change this.
So I can go to a major corporation and say, I can get you some prime property but I want a finders fee, then go to the state and tell them that a major corporation wants to move here and I want a finders fee for it but first you’re going to have to get rid of the current owners so that this deal can happen, and the state can do it and I can get rich from it. Talking about a scam on the people who own property, this law is really going to be abused..........
I also do not consent...In 1949 my family moved to a 65 acre farm in N.E. Ohio. I grew up on that farm and learned the value of good work and play. In 1974 The National Park Service decided to form what is now The Cuyahoga Valley National Park. The Park Service used Emanate Domain to take over our homestead so I can no longer enjoy the foresight of my Father in purchasing that beautiful piece of property...the loss "broke my parents heart"..
and mine too. I currently live 15 minutes from that farm and drive by periodically...
P.S. Steve is it about time to "get your ears lowered"?
That sounds crazy to me, I was called for jury duty and the case was an eminent domain case which I was dismissed from because I believed that they had no right to force someone off their property.
I still feel that way today for so many reasons! BE SAFE
I feel that Citizen's United is the worst currently standing Supreme Court decision, but Kelo vs. New London comes in at a very close second. I'm really glad you are talking about this injustice, almost no one does.
They had one in the Dallas area where they took people homes to be a parking lot for an expanded shopping mall.
IMO, Citizens United is much more important to our nation. Terrible decision.
Citizens United is a win for freedom. What? You actually think it's A-OK for the government to ban documentaries?
A city by me figured out how to get around this back in the mid '90s. They wanted a decades old gas station gone. Said they wanted the land for a public park, a public use. Gas station fought and lost. Land was taken through eminent domain. Park was built. When city decided it had been a public use long enough, the rest of the plan played out and land was developed for bars and restaurants.
Same city forced another landowner to give up his land. Then the city's big plans fell through and they decided to give some of the land back while demanding back $ they had paid. Former land owner was not interested since the land was no longer in its former condition and would still be a prime target for eminent domain in the future. Fortunately court ruled in the old owner's favor. Even better was when the city coughed up more $ because the old owner still had an outstanding case that the city had not paid him enough in the first place.
law.justia.com/cases/ohio/third-district-court-of-appeals/2011/2011-ohio-2461.html
www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/dublin/news/2011/12/14/dublin-settles-8-25m-land-lawsuit-with-wirchanski.html
I lived through two versions of this scenario. First was Urban Renewal buying multiple properties and fire sale prices, then "improving" the land into a parking lot for an existing business. The second was when a multinational corporation shined the city council with a fantasy that they were coming in permanently. They abandoned the property, after leaving waste behind the same month their tax deferment ended.
Similar events happened in other states.. (Alabama if I remember correctly) -- where the city took a whole block of homes to give to walmart to put in a store and parking area.. which closed 4 years afterwards because that was not the right neighborhood....
I think Dread Scott ranks up there pretty high. It ended in a civil war. In this case, it's my understanding that the land now sits idle, and wasn't developed as it was supposed to be. A total waste.
Dont know the case. Would be the first case that found infringing on the 2nd with permits, rules, of anykind was the worst. It has led us to a point where the word meaning in the constitution can be looked at in ways contray to their obvious intent. Now none of our bill or rights are followed as intended, laws are interpited with twist, and our fredoms and safeguards are being curtailed .
Mr. Lehto is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. EVEN I, A NON LAWYER, CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE AND THE INJUSTICE OF THIS DECISION.
They can take your property for not having city water, not paying taxes and any other violation they want to make up, and not give any compensation.
In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre (370,000 m2) waterfront tract of land for $1 per year) was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city.
several years ago the city of Pittsburgh PA tossed dozens of fixed income low renters out of an apartment building as well as several homes to build a new stadium for millionaire football players after they demolish the still yet to be paid for 3-rivers-stadium. So they raised taxes to pay for 3 stadiums now, razed the old one and built two new ones and I believe property and local income tax pays for it all. But those people kicked out on their asses were not compensated because they were renters, the owner of the apartment building was compensated, and those people were really hard pressed to find such low rent in a new location. All so rich people could enjoy a sport built on the backs and with the blood of the locals. so yeah, this sort of thing pisses me off too and I already was aware of the ability of the government to do this to people.
I think the general attitude of funding billionaire's sports teams is coming around. The mayor of Calgary (Canada), told the NHL team to pound sand and later told an Olympic bidding committee that the city would take zero financial liability for that too. And that's in a city with money. They've taken a hit in the last few year, but they're still much better off than most.
I seem to remember reading that one of the plants General Motors recently announced it would be closing in the US was built where a community was razed to make land available. Sure there were jobs for a while, but now those will be gone (as well as the jobs those laid-off workers supported). In the Kelo case I would look to two causes - local bigwigs with pie in the sky vision and/or some back room deals, as in donations to politicians or another form of bribery. Does not bode well for the plain folks who just want to live their lives in the security of their homes.
You are absolutely correct; GM built there plant on land of an old Polish neighborhood. Now it will be another eyesore in Detroit--
After this decision - public outcry was huge... So a lot of states - passed laws prohibiting this type of gov't taking. I know Washington State did so... And I heard (at the time) that other states were dong so as well.
Similar thing happened here in Ypsilanti just across the river from the city building. Still sits empty.
Sounds like they conflated public benefit with public use. Not necessarily the same. Bad decision.
I've learned more about the law then I ever thought what a great man and a great personality to get the point across
Bucks County, PA, around 30 years ago or so, a farm and some homes were eminent domained by the county for a shopping mall. Litigation ensued, the land was taken, the homeowners and farmer SOL.
So, not exactly a novel practice. This simply made it to the SCOTUS, who found that a man's castle belongs to whoever the municipality, county or state damned well fells like giving it to to turn a buck.
One remaining farm was under threat and matters went slightly different, as residents of multiple counties finally became outraged. It seems, that the general public consensus was that the courts were worthless, but a few remarked how inexpensive lead was and the farm remains there to this day. It would seem that the officers who made the decision to apply eminent domain to benefit private real estate developers decided to not potentially share Louis XVI's fate.
Or maybe it was the ghost of Christmas Future...
Never underestimate the folks around Philly. To my knowledge, we're the only US city to have artillery used by the populace against other members of the populace and also got away with killing members of the militia sent in to restore order during the Philadelphia Nativist Riots.
Although, the Bronx has the distinction of having US Army artillery used against it during Bowery rioting over the Civil War conscription (wealthy bought their way out of conscription, which triggered the rioting).
Although, I do wonder about how much of a part whisky played in starting the whiskey rebellion, which took no less than George Washington riding out of the capitol to meet the responding militia from other states to suppress.
History is a rather interesting thing! It can be entertaining or downright horrifying.
In this area Wal Mart would patician a manicipality to take the best area off highway and offer to them with tax incentives. They not only took it for Walmart but gave them a 10 yr deal. During those years with tax, and price advantage would completely change the business climate wiping out many small business employing full time employees to replace with multiple employees with part time hours on charity programs. The avilibilty of goods shifted and repair shops followed. After the incentives ran out they closed 2 or 3 smaller stores and replaced with supercenters. The original communities having lost majority of other tax base were then blighted and the citizens now had to drive 30 or more miles for things that were once in their home town. As normal the public interest served the big corperations. It's the USA way.
The "Corporation" the city sold it to used the Long Island Sound real estate to build a multi million dollar housing development.. The argument made was that these homes would pay higher property taxes to the municipality than the older, smaller homes that were taken under public domain. The only jobs created were construction jobs which ceased to exist in the area as soon as the waterfront development was completed..
I may be wrong, but the land Steve is talking about is still vacant.
@@ShiftyLizardStore Yes,. The woman who brought the court cases land is still empty,. However most of the Long Island Sound properties that were public domained and transfered to the developer were in fact used to build million dollar estates.. The people who owned them previously basically had their prime investment realestate stolen,/ confiscated by the State of Connecticut.. People can say they were compensated,. However that is ignoring the fact that prime New England Real Estate has outperformed other assets over the last 20 years
Agreed. The Supreme Court has apparently confused the term, "public use" with the term "public good." It may be that the new owners are using it in a way that improves the economy of the area, but they are PRIVATE OWNERS. The good it does society may be real, but it is clearly NOT public. Wouldn't it be great if the majority justices had their homes taken to put up low income housing? I wonder how they would like that?
What logic would a company have for using this space after such general outrage? The bad PR alone would be a nightmare, thus negating the plan entirely. Good luck selling a property after it is PR blighted. The real cherry on top would be if the property eventually just got taken by a developer that just put up more homes instead.
no... that would be like... soviet or something.
thats never going to happen in the ussa...
The could have put up some khrushchyovkas, that is prefab apartment blocks owned by the housing authority. But that would simply be too communist, even for the Democratic People's Republic of Connecticut
Hey Steve, take a look at the history of what everyone now calls Helltown, OH.! In the 70's the state of Ohio took properties of individuals within 3 towns total ( if my memory is correct) all for the sake of a state park. They eventually sent in the national guard to remove families from their homes. Currently most of those homes are boarded up still, and deteriorating, and nothing has ever been done with all of those properties. The strange thing is it is still watched over to this day and made sure of that nobody goes into those areas.
@Robert Grubbs This happened in 1974 around the areas of Boston, OH and Peninsula, OH. Gerald Ford signed a bill allowing seizure of properties for the sake of a national park. Alot of the properties are still sitting abandoned and people are, generally, not aloud into certain areas.
I recently learned that the pre-Amble is not federal law.
I remember when this happened, there was also an eminent domain case in Bristol. There they redefined blighted property as a house with less than 2 bathrooms. Those houses were taken and also the mall never happened. I really hate eminent domain cases, my great grandfather's land in Newington, Connecticut was taken under it and the highway there never happened either.
The longer I listened to this the more disgusted I got. You always hope that reasonable rational people who believe in the constitution will be appointed to the supreme court. This was a horrible decision and needs to be overturned immediately. This is the kind of abuse you could have gotten from king George.
In contrast, Vera Coking of Atlantic City held out on selling her property. In Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, a public corporate body of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Raymond Coking and Vera Coking, his wife; Et. Al. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could not be used to take her home for Trump Tower to make a parking lot. That house was finally sold and destroyed.
The property of the majority justices should be seized and razed (preferably with them still in them) for the improvement of humankind.
There was a similar situation in Lubbock TX. The mayor's father was purchasing properties in the "Overton North" neighborhood, demolishing them, and either putting up condominiums, or selling the property at a profit to other developers. 2 property owners would not sell at the developer's offered price. The owner of one vacant lot was willing to sell it for $250,000 but McDougal wanted to take it for only $20,000. The city council held a meeting and unanimously elected to seize the properties under Eminent Domain, to turn over to the Mayor's father. After all, just like the game Monopoly, if the Mayor's father doesn't own every property on each block, he can't put hotels (condominiums) on such block, and charge high rents to everybody landing on such properties. A wise citizen anonymously sent copies of the newspaper clipping concerning the council's seizure, to the FBI, the state police special crimes division, and the attorney general. The city charter mandated municipal use for Eminent Domain seized properties. The letters to the government offices were asking them to call the mayor and council members, and ask them to explain how the Mayor's father's profiteering is considered municipal use. 2 days after the letters were postmarked, the local media gave news about the council's emergency meeting, for which they unanimously (except for the mayor who recused himself from the vote) elected to withdraw their seizure under Eminent Domain, and advised McDougal to re-negotiate with the property owners. On a side note, the FBI, at a later time, raided city hall, and seized documents, computers, etc, concerning abuse on, what the city claims was an unrelated issue. The only 2 neighborhood additions in Lubbock, in which people from the main part of the campus do not have to cross a U.S. highway, to get to, are the Overton North, and Overton South additions. It has been a few years since the demolition and reconstruction of the Overton North addition. It can handle 10 times the population as before (from 1500 to 15,000. Each single family house averaged about 2.5 bedrooms, with an average taxable value of 30k . Each lot now averages about 5 condominium units with a taxable value of about 150k each ). However the population of the University, has also increased, and plans to grow even more. The university was proposing revamping Overton South. I have Two houses (One 4 bedroom, and one 3 bedroom) in that neighborhood. I've been receiving letters and calls almost every week, offering to "relieve me of the burden of dealing with the tenants". But they are not yet offering active development price. I assume such calls are from "front companies", trying to obtain as many of the properties in the neighborhood, before going public with the "Vision of the future - joint venture development with the city of Lubbock" as he McDougal in Overton North. Since Overton South is protected as a historical neighborhood, the front companies will probably need about 50% of the land, to have enough interest to eliminate the historical area protection, forthe city's "vision of the future"
I agree with the assessment that this SCOTUS ruling is a bad decision. The process, however was not completely waisted. The corporations once again got what they wanted. Now they have established precedent. So next time this situation arises there will be less of a fight and the corporation can take over private property more quickly.
President George W. Bush issued an executive order instructing the federal government to restrict the use of eminent domain, a year after this ruling.
For the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.
Also a dozen states passed laws protecting the taking of property by the states for private use including my former state of Michigan, and my current state of Arizona. With the other states people are subjected to this ruling.
Most of the judges voting for it were considered liberal, big government, advocates.
@15:15--"No one can make you sell your house"
Perhaps the Gov't should force the sale of the Congress, since it is a Worthless Blighted Area, and put up a parking lot for the millions of tourist who visit Wash DC(the Greater Good).
Sell the original Constitution because it will be worthless in 4 years! Do it Now, while it may have value to someone, as a historical document, to help pay off the Nat'l Debt.
The irony of Kelo is the big business that wanted the land changed their mind and all that land ended up a vacant lot!
Replay in progress in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin with Foxconn.
I would say Citizens United is the worst decision in modern time...
Citizens United is a win for freedom. What? You actually think it's A-OK for the government to ban documentaries?
Wow that is one frightening ruleing with terrifying potential repercussions for any landowner who happens to run afoul of their town or city council...
Basically, the government just needs to come up with any grandiose positive financial or economic projections for the new use of private property to take it.
However, the failed financial results seems to gut that decision IMHO. It would seem to open the door to overturning that decision since it hinged on the financial impact as the basis for taking the property.
Years ago the government decided to build a dam on the Duck River in Columbia, TN. Millions of dollars were spent dispossessing people of their family farms and houses. Construction on the dam started, only to be abandoned because "environmentalists" discovered the river contained a previously unheard of minnow called the Snail Darter. Family farm gone. No benefit to the citizens.
Delta smelt is California’s snail darter.
More egregious was Hawaii vs Midkiff (1984) where they found that public use is the same as public good. Taking the land from a small number of land owners and redistributing it to a larger number because it was not good for democracy. Approximately 47% of the land in Hawaii was owned by seven families. The government took the land and redistributed it to former renters. Though you might argue the definition of "public use", to equate it with "public good" clearly falls outside the definition and intent of the constitution. This was a simple land grab that opened the door for any two bit city council to take land and give it to a private entity for the "public good", whatever the hell that is.
George Rishell .it IS Hawaii. Socialism/Communism at its worst.
It was one island in Hawaii, not all of Hawaii. Although pretty much everything regarding the history of Hawaii in the United States has been a string of, frankly, criminal actions. It was robbed of its nationhood for the benefit of a private corporation.
I remember being surprised when I heard this ruling in the news several years back. And as a liberal, I especially remember being shocked that it was the liberals on the court who ruled in favor of it.
a friend lost a family business that was 100 years old in L.A. for a car dealership. 9th circuit rules it was in Public interest.
The final cost to the city and state for the purchase and bulldozing of the formerly privately held property was $78 million.[23] The promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. As of 2018 the area remains an empty lot.
And the lot is still empty!
I mostly agree--this was outrageous. A perverted implementation of "the public use"/eminent domain. Also, I hope those local/municipal New London politicians were voted out; their "optimistic projections" about the tax/jobs benefits were clearly out of line with reality.
It has to be one of the many re interpretations of the commerce clause. The modern interpretation of the commerce clause is so patently ridiculous while at the same time allowing so much federal over reach. How could it be anything else?
That's a part of the Constitution - not an actual case.
@@stevelehto Okay for a specific case how about Wickard v. Filburn.