Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Supreme Court - Eminent Domain


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#51 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 24 June 2005 - 04:45 AM

Apparently one's property is safer in some states. From the Detroit Free Press:

Michigan law aids owner in land use
High court backs state constitution
June 24, 2005
BY JOHN GALLAGHER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

Michigan property owners have nothing to fear from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that allows governments to seize private property against an owner's will in the name of economic development.

Even as the court allowed the City of New London, Conn., to displace homeowners for a new mixed-use waterfront project, it acknowledged that individual states have the right to erect tougher standards than the one applied in the Connecticut case.

It then cited Michigan's Supreme Court ruling of a year ago that barred Wayne County from seizing homes south of Metro Airport for an industrial park. That case, known as Wayne County v. Hathcock after one of the local homeowners, held that the state's 1963 constitution bars such seizures for economic development.

"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Thursday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

It means that Michigan is going to protect private property rights, said Alan Ackerman, a Troy-based attorney who represents landowners. "It gives individuals a little more security in Michigan than in some other states. The big boys can't grab you quite as fast."

"It doesn't mean that, somewhere down the road, some government in Michigan may not try to find a case and take it all the way up to the Supreme Court," Jerry Pesick, a Southfield-based land-use attorney, said Thursday.

But he added, "I think Hathcock is going to be the law here in Michigan for many, many years."

If Michigan property owners enjoy protection under Hathcock against such government seizures, the ruling by a divided Supreme Court permits such takings anywhere else where a state ban is not in place.

The 5-4 ruling -- assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America -- was a defeat for the Connecticut residents.

Among the New London residents the city has tried to force out of their homes was Wilhelmina Dery, who was born in her home in 1918 and has lived there all her life.

The homeowners had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear "public use," such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

For at least two decades, cities have used a broader "public purpose" standard to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project would benefit the community.

Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights.

O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers show up.

"I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for public use.

The City of New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power is critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such as Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

But Patrick Wright, a legal analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, criticized the court's reasoning. "Under this decision," he said, "nearly all American homeowners who lack protection from abusive takings under their state constitutions or state laws are at risk, since their houses will never generate the tax revenue and economic activity that commercial establishments will."

Under the ruling, residents still are entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Contact JOHN GALLAGHER at 313-222-5173 or gallagher@freepress.com.

#52 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 24 June 2005 - 04:55 AM

San Antonio seems to have elected someone worthwhile on this. Go Corte!

June 24, 2005, 1:08AM
Home seizure ruling doesn't play in Texas
After decision, an amendment is quickly proposed to limit powers of eminent domain
By MIKE SNYDER and MATT STILES
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Texas' cultural commitment to private property rights surfaced quickly Thursday as a state legislator moved to blunt the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments may seize land for private development.

Hours after the court's 5-4 ruling came down, Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, said he would seek "to defend the rights of property owners in Texas" by proposing a state constitutional amendment limiting local powers of eminent domain, or condemnation.

Houston Mayor Bill White and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels offered assurances that the city and county do not intend to condemn land for private development projects.

But officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, south of Houston, said they would move aggressively to condemn property owned by two seafood companies to clear the way for an $8 million private marina.

The Supreme Court ruled against a group of property owners in New London, Conn., who challenged a city plan to demolish their riverfront homes to make way for offices, a hotel and other commercial buildings.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the majority opinion, said such projects are within the scope of a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that authorizes condemning property for "public use."

Stevens wrote that promoting economic development, the stated goal of the New London project, "is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized," such as taking land for roads, parks or libraries.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority's interpretation of "public use" was so broad that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Dissenting with O'Connor were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The opinion said states concerned about excessive use of condemnation were free to pass laws restricting it, and Corte said he intended to do just that.

Corte said he would ask Gov. Rick Perry to add the condemnation issue to the agenda of the special legislative session now under way so that the proposed constitutional amendment could appear on the November ballot.

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said the governor would consider requests to add items to the agenda, but probably not until legislators resolve the school finance issue. She said Perry supports property rights and was concerned about the Supreme Court ruling.

Corte said in a news release that his proposed amendment would "limit a local governmental entity's power of eminent domain, preventing them from bulldozing residences in favor of private developers."

White and Eckels said such concerns were unfounded in Houston and Harris County.

"The city of Houston has not, and likely never will, use eminent domain powers as aggressively as some cities simply for the purposes of economic development," White said in a statement. "We do respect property rights, and believe that eminent domain should not be used in a way that might simply benefit one economic interest versus another."

The mayor said, however, that he is pleased the court upheld the use of eminent domain to reduce blight.

Eckels said Commissioners Court has shown no inclination to condemn land for private development, and he would not support any move to do so.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority, empowered by the law that created it to condemn property within 1,500 feet of transit stations, is not "currently planning" to use that authority for projects along the Main Street light rail line or elsewhere, spokesman Ken Connaughton said.

Asked if the agency might exercise the authority in the future, Connaughton said, "Who knows what happens tomorrow? But there are no plans to do it."

Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights Association, said he considers Metro's condemnation authority excessive. He said quasi-governmental agencies such as management districts and tax increment reinvestment zones might also try to take advantage of the court ruling.

"I'm sure there are some self-servingly creative people in the leadership of these organizations who will try to find a way to do this," Klein said.

Developer Ed Wulfe of Houston-based Wulfe & Co. said Houston's public entities have long resisted acquiring property through eminent domain unless it was for road improvements or other public uses.

Wulfe said, however, that governments and developers can use the type of condemnation cited in the New London case as a tool to redevelop inner-city neighborhoods that stand to benefit economically.

"I think on a very, very careful and selective basis it could be used to improve neighborhoods," said Wulfe. "Whether it's creating affordable housing or jobs, it could be an interesting way to remove blight."

Matthew Deal of Lewis Realty Advisors, a property appraisal and consulting firm that deals in condemnation, said Houston's new downtown sports arenas offer a good example of the benefits of local governments taking full advantage of their eminent domain powers.

The sports arenas energized parts of downtown that were "ridden with crime, boarded-up buildings and dangerous to be in," said Deal, calling the Supreme Court ruling "a score for governments and their development partners."

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
Chronicle reporters Nancy Sarnoff and Bill Murphy contributed to this report.
mike.snyder@chron.com
matt.stiles@chron.com

#53 Biggins

Biggins

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Location:Austin

Posted 24 June 2005 - 08:07 AM

<sigh> Not completely surprised but very disappointed. I was so cheesed when that email came across. What were they thinking?

I read part of Justice O'Connor's dissent and she, at least, seemed to appreciate the potential consequences.

It seems the courts have historically avoided taking a firm stand on this; they've often seemed to label it a legislative issue rather than a judicial one. The law isn't very specific about what is meant by "public good". Now, and really before this decision, the only way to set limits on the use of eminent domain would be to write explicit limits into the laws. This won't be easy to accomplish at any level of government.

Gives new meaning to the phrase "Mi casa, su casa." I hope my neighbor doesn't come up with a way to increase tax revenues by seizing mi casa.

How many ticks before the R. C. Bowen Estate land is wrested away? I wouldn't be surprised if the wheels were already turning. That should make some of you happy.

View Post


Well, there has never been a more important time to find out where your local officials stand on economic development. The court ruling expressed that it DID matter that there was a publicly debated economic development plan in place. It's not exactly as if Wal-Marts are going to sprout up on residential neighborhoods, because the scope of the project would be to benefit only WM, and not the city as a whole. However, if city officials allow these kind of projects to be railroaded through via ED proceedings, it would be tantamount to political suicide. By and large, most citizens are unclear on who their local politicos are, much less what they do, though... :frown:

I'd also like to add that many cities are already strong-armed into using ED to land big-box retail projects like WM, Sam's, Costco because the companies threaten to locate outside the city's tax base in another jurisdiction. No city can afford to have it's retail base shifted out of town without serious consequences for city services. Obviously, without a regional development agency/plan in place (or honest politicians :lol: ), this will continue unabated, especially in light of yesterday's ruling.

#54 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:15 PM

Agreed. Way to go Corte. It's about time somebody in this state legislation is lookin out for us.

Save Helotes, out Wal-Mart!
Save Scenic Loop, out Wal-Mart!

Crazy decision, but hopefully more constituents are much aware now.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#55 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 24 June 2005 - 05:31 PM

Give them an inch.. and sometime in the future they will take a mile.

State Legislation.. must restrict ED NOW to it original intention.

Dave

Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#56 Biggins

Biggins

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Location:Austin

Posted 24 June 2005 - 08:42 PM

Give them an inch.. and sometime in the future they will take a mile.

State Legislation.. must restrict ED NOW to it original intention.

Dave

View Post


Kelo v. New London (PDF)

The problem, of course, remains... which part of ED needs to be rescinded? According to the ruling, ED has long had a precedent in creating economic development. All this ruling did is reinforce prior ED rulings back to 1876. Of course, the current outrage is due to the fact that no one's apparently read the previous rulings to begin with. The interpretation of ED is not merely areas limited to "public use," but rather, "a public purpose." Courts have long decided (Dayton Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Seawell, 11 Nev. 394, 410, 1876 WL 4573, *11, 1876) not to limit ED in this manner. This ruling was not necessarily a further revocation of property rights, but merely a reaffirmation of using ED as a tool to make an economic development plan come to full fruition.

I feel that the visceral reaction to restrict ED to a supposed "correct intent" is perhaps a little myopic. Like I keep repeating, we need to turn a closer eye to city politics and make sure these officials are held accountable for developing well-thought economic development plans with tons of public input. We need to quit abrogating our civic duties & actually figure out what the hell is going on with our cities. I would hate to think that the TRV wouldn't come to fruition because Joe Slumlord won't sell his shacks & abandoned warehouses to the city. By the same token, I would hate to think that hundreds of people would lose homes to a new Wal-Mart.

#57 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 24 June 2005 - 10:13 PM

Biggins, you hit the nail on the head with

We need to quit abrogating our civic duties & actually figure out what the hell is going on with our cities.

but the realpolitik of the situation is that people won't.

If everyone took as much interest in local affairs as the several hundred members of this forum, there would be no problem. But we need strict coverage by the Constitution due to the sad fact that hardly anyone pays attention to local issues until it's too late. It's great to talk about holding local officials accountable and all, but local politics are generally dominated by certain interests while the general populace, led by the media, think that only the "big leagues" (i.e. national politics) matter.

Our "supreme court" has abdicated.... it's a sad day in America.

#58 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 03:54 PM

I'm just now reading this thread, and I'm surprised at the tone.

Many of the posters here support Big Brother regulating land use or seizing property for the "public good" when it's a historic property they want to "preserve."

Yet it's wrong for the government to seize property for public-private redevelopment projects?

#59 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2005 - 08:36 PM

I'm just now reading this thread, and I'm surprised at the tone.

Many of the posters here support Big Brother regulating land use or seizing property for the "public good" when it's a historic property they want to "preserve."

View Post

Seizing property for historic preservation? Who exactly has supported that? In particular, of the eight who have posted an opinion about the court's ruling (excluding yourself), who has ever suggested that the government should consider seizing property to protect a historic structure? That strikes me as a ridiculous exaggeration in an attempt to create the impression of an intellectual inconsistency where none exists.

As for regulating land use to protect historic structures, the forum as a whole is a pretty mixed bag on that subject. Of the eight who've responded to the ruling, I'd imagine that they (we) are no more preservationist than the forum as a whole. In any case, there is a big difference between wanting to protect historic properties by delaying permits or denying government financial assistance and thinking it's acceptable for the city to take the property of individual tax-paying law-abiding citizens so a developer can build another shopping center.

Yet it's wrong for the government to seize property for public-private redevelopment projects?

View Post

Yes, many people actually think that it is wrong for someone (even the government) to take the property of another and give it to someone else for their own use and profit – even if the original owner was given some compensation for the taking.

Of the eight who have given opinions so far, I'm betting we would not all agree where to draw the line on ED. I think what we have in common is a concern that there is no line being drawn at all. The judicial branch has declined to set any sort of limit on the interpretation of "public good" and the legislative branch seems unlikely to do so. We are left with an unchecked power that has, in the minds of many, already been abused.

By the way, we used to consider the protection of personal property rights as a fairly important public good.

#60 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 26 June 2005 - 08:58 AM

Im kinda shocked at the fact that you think we want to just save historic buildings and that we would say to hell with everything else. I think is totaly insane. I do not want to see anyone loose their home I dont care if another company wants to "build something great for public use". It has to do with our rights as a whole..do you want your rights taken from you so that a big business can profit?? I think not. We cannot save every "old" building but we can try to save some so that our children have something to look at that is 1. historic 2. significate and 3. that tells them a story of where we have been as a human race and where we are going....PRESERVATION not PROGRESS....RESTORE and REUSE.... IMHO....

#61 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 10:11 PM

If I own a historic building, and the government says I can't demolish it, then the government has taken away my rights.

I'm not trying to argue against preservation, but the truth is that eminent domain and preservation restrictions are similar issues involving the curtailment of private property rights for a public purpose.

Does that make eminent domain or preservation wrong? No. But both can be misused.

#62 Biggins

Biggins

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Location:Austin

Posted 27 June 2005 - 07:39 AM

If I own a historic building, and the government says I can't demolish it, then the government has taken away my rights.

I'm not trying to argue against preservation, but the truth is that eminent domain and preservation restrictions are similar issues involving the curtailment of private property rights for a public purpose.

Does that make eminent domain or preservation wrong? No. But both can be misused.

View Post


You're very correct in your assumption that both can be misused. I still don't think this was a landmark decision for the SC, though. Refer to the Dayton Mining Co. v. Seawell case that the SC cited in the Kelo v. New London case. In that case, dating back to 1876, the SC decided in favor that Dayton could run overhead tramways over private property because of the aggregate economic benefit that the mining company (and industry) provided the local citizens at the time. This was most certainly an incursion on the private property owner's rights to develop his own property, but it was voted through for a "public purpose." IMHO, the case decided last week doesn't depart dramatically from the 130 year old case. Had the Dayton company had no choice but to condemn the owner's house for the tram, the case would've most likely still stood on principle.

#63 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2005 - 09:01 PM

The cases cited in justification of the Dayton Mining Co. v. Seawell decision were a collection of small-time separate rulings in which courts found for a relatively powerful industrial effort over individuals who was being "unreasonable." This was in the time of rapid industrialization and was prior to the "liberal" Theodore Roosevelt bustin' the trusts. Between the lines I read judges being influenced by the well-connected and who, in general, were enamored by the progressive industrial movements of the time.

The legislature of Nevada had written: “...the production and reduction of ores are of vitalnecessity to the people of this state; are pursuits in which all are interested and from which all derive a benefit; so the mining, milling, smelting, or other reduction of ores are hereby declared to be for the public use, and the right of eminent domain may be exercised therefor.” That was a basis for declaring for the right to move stuff over someone else's land to facilitate the operation of a mine. Strong stuff. First, looks like it was written by mining executives. Second, where is comparable language by the Connecticut legislature declaring condos and other development to be for public use?

And no offense to my Nevada friends, but citing the judgement of the legislature of an (at the time) ten-year-old state is not standing on much precedence.

There has been a huge amount of progress made in our understanding of individual rights over the past 150 years. Is this judgement just a throwback, or does it portend a trend? Do we really long for the good old days of child labor and company towns?

#64 Biggins

Biggins

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Location:Austin

Posted 28 June 2005 - 08:09 AM

The cases cited in justification of the Dayton Mining Co. v. Seawell decision were a collection of small-time separate rulings in which courts found for a relatively powerful industrial effort over individuals who was being "unreasonable." This was in the time of rapid industrialization and was prior to the "liberal" Theodore Roosevelt bustin' the trusts. Between the lines I read judges being influenced by the well-connected and who, in general, were enamored by the progressive industrial movements of the time.

The legislature of Nevada had written: “...the production and reduction of ores are of vitalnecessity to the people of this state; are pursuits in which all are interested and from which all derive a benefit; so the mining, milling, smelting, or other reduction of ores are hereby declared to be for the public use, and the right of eminent domain may be exercised therefor.” That was a basis for declaring for the right to move stuff over someone else's land to facilitate the operation of a mine. Strong stuff. First, looks like it was written by mining executives. Second, where is comparable language by the Connecticut legislature declaring condos and other development to be for public use?

And no offense to my Nevada friends, but citing the judgement of the legislature of an (at the time) ten-year-old state is not standing on much precedence.

There has been a huge amount of progress made in our understanding of individual rights over the past 150 years. Is this judgement just a throwback, or does it portend a trend? Do we really long for the good old days of child labor and company towns?

View Post


The assessment that the New London project is merely about "condos" is remarkably unfair. The court's assessment that the New London Development Council, under the scrutiny of the public eye, sufficiently proposed a workable economic development plan designed to maximize the potential of the area is key to this issue. This plan called for many "public areas" to be constructed and/or revitalized, such as the Thames waterfront and several streetscapes. However, the court doesn't narrow the meaning of "public use" to merely "public access," and hasn't narrowly defined it that way in many years.

In lower court rulings that stood, such as the 99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency case, it was ruled that there could not be an eminent domain "taking" because there was no "reasoned" explanation for the taking, assumably because there was no justified, scrutinized neighborhood economic development plan in place. Out of the watchful public eye, the affirmation of this particular case, in effect, prevents condos from being built on the lots of single-family dwellings, because of its isolated, subversive nature. Or, in essence, the case prevents Wal-Mart from building where your house now stands.

The Berman (1937) case also plays quite well into this case because of the department store owner that claimed his store "was not blighted" and should not be subject to ED. The court decided that, while the area was not blighted, it was well within the scope of the local authorities to create an economic development plan which essentially prevented a reversion to blighted conditions, which very well could be applicable in the Kelo case because of the cyclical boom-bust nature of sole-purpose neighborhoods.

Also, bear in mind that the Kelo ruling merely upholds a CT state statute with respect to eminent domain. The fifth amendment is only a baseline, and other states can (and have) enacted tougher restrictions on ED.

#65 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 12:05 PM

Biggins:

Are you in law school or perhaps have taken some Con Law classes down there in Austin?

#66 Biggins

Biggins

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Location:Austin

Posted 28 June 2005 - 12:17 PM

Biggins:

Are you in law school or perhaps have taken some Con Law classes down there in Austin?

View Post


Actually, no.
I am currently in the architectural field and my experience with law is only incidental (well, this side of a couple of consumer law classes back in college). I sure hope that nobody takes my word as the gospel! :D

Seriously, this is just my interpretation of the ruling using the available legal references provided in the ruling.

Don't even get me started on the Solomonesque Ten Commandments ruling... :blink:

#67 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2005 - 11:01 PM

Buck, I didn't mean to ignore you on this one. I've been meaning to reply, but told myself the next time I had time for a response that required a bit of thinking I'd respond to some of the nonsense in the WiFi thread and then head over to the smokestack thread and then this one. Getting the opportunity to accomplish any of this has been more difficult than I imagined. By the time I get home from work, I'm too tired to negotiate with my 3-year old for Internet time. Little brat.

Tonight, however, I see that cberen1 has started a thread that ties in really well with what you've stated in your last post in this thread and little Molly seems momentarily distracted by other things, so here goes...

If I own a historic building, and the government says I can't demolish it, then the government has taken away my rights.

I'm not trying to argue against preservation, but the truth is that eminent domain and preservation restrictions are similar issues involving the curtailment of private property rights for a public purpose.

Does that make eminent domain or preservation wrong? No. But both can be misused.

View Post


You raise some valid points and this is a topic that I hope will lead to a rich discussion - either here or on cberen's thread.

My own opinion is that while there may be similarities - that both represent restrictions in property rights - they are enormously different in scale. My own feeling is that there is a pretty big and heavy line being crossed somewhere between "you can't tear down your house/building" and "pack your things and get out!" We won't all agree on where that line is, but it's there.

I would also argue that they differ in the degree to which they are likely to be "abused" (acknowledging that we won't all agree on what actions would be considered abuse). Governments in general have shown little hesitation in using the power of Eminent Domain to confiscate that which they cannot acquire by other means even before the Supreme Court's ruling. I think we can all expect that any reservations some governments may have had for fear of costly litigation have just been reduced significantly and we may consequently expect that the potential for abuse has risen accordingly. Historic properties, on the other hand, are razed throughout the land with alarming frequency and little notice. Much of the "protection" amounts to little more than the pitifully unfair "we won't subsidize it" or the unimaginably burdensome "wait 90 days". The City of Fort Worth, in particular, has demonstrated no great enthusiasm for enforcing the few weak restrictions it does have.

Put another way, there are practical and legal restrictions to a governments ability to prevent you from demolishing a property you own. We've just been told by little more than half of the Supreme Court Justices that there is little to prevent a government from seizing your property. There is reason to hope that legislatures will impose restrictions (at least on governments beneath them). Until then, it is an unchecked power. I believe that in the hands of your average city council (if not your particular city council), that can be a dangerous thing.

I support property rights and I support preservation of things I subjectively feel are worthy of preservation (not to be confused with things I subjectively find appealing); there is sometimes a need to reconcile these two views, and perhaps I do so subjectively. I'm human. I do have a sort-of rough framework for it that I'll try to put into words. Looks like my computer time is about up, though, so I'll pick that up at another time. This thread or the other - depending on where the discussion is hottest.

Before I go: my problem with your earlier response (in which you were "surprised by the tone") was that you seemed to imply a bit of hypocrisy on our part for supporting "regulating land use or seizing property" for purposes of preservation on the one hand and the use of ED for public-private partnerships on the other. Of the approximately eight who have voiced an opinion about ED on this thread, I'm not aware of any of us supporting seizure of property in the name of preservation (although perhaps some do) and I'm sure we aren't all in agreement as to what level of land use regulation we would support for that purpose.

Given the distinct and divergent opinions expressed in this forum on any number of subjects, including preservation, I don't see how the tone of any handful of members could be particularly surprising. This left me with the impression that you were attempting to discredit those who would speak out against the use of eminent domain by making their logic seem inconsistent. But, then, I always look for things like that. I'm weird that way. :-)

Tóg bog é!
Donnie

#68 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 19 July 2005 - 05:14 PM

If I own a historic building, and the government says I can't demolish it, then the government has taken away my rights.

View Post


Buck, I'm simplifying this greatly, but preservation regulation on all levels can allow demolition if proper procedures are followed and a compelling case is made to justify the demolition.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users