Skip to comments.Statement of the U.S. Conference of Mayors on Supreme Court in New London v Kelo Case
Posted on 06/25/2005 8:17:22 AM PDT by snowsislander
Contact: Rhonda Spears, 202-861-6766 or firstname.lastname@example.org; Elena Temple, 202-861-6719 or email@example.com, both of the United States Conference of Mayors
WASHINGTON, June 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement of the United States Conference of Mayors Executive Director Tom Cochran on Supreme Court ruling on City of New London Vs. Kelo case:
"The United States Conference of Mayors policy states that the nation's mayors support the right of local governments to retain eminent domain to promote economic development in their individual cities.
"City officials continue to act in a most judicious manner as they exercise fair and balanced judgment in protecting the rights of property owners while planning for the city's overall economic viability.
"The Supreme Court joins with The United States Conference of Mayors, as well as the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the National Council of State Legislators, the Council of State Governments, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association in recognizing that without the use of eminent domain, cities cannot make the changes necessary to sustain healthy economic and demographic growth.
"The power of eminent domain provides elected officials at all levels of governments one of the basic tools they need to ensure the growth and well-being of their communities."
Nope. I was foolishly hoping that locals would have some sense of decency... Silly FReeper that I am.
Not to worry! He consulted Mugabwe first!
Nope. Sure didn't.
I'm not torn at all. The US Constitution says "don't do that!" and again, the USSC says "Eh? You say sumptin'"?
Correctamundo. See my post from yesterday (front page of the Blight For All.
Article is at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1429855/posts
The U.S. Conference of Mayor on Supreme Court decision
"Great idea! Thanks Supremes! Hot damn, more power! Okay... now, who wants to take Joe and Charlene's Fruit Stand and turn it into a nice, new waste-product processing plant... You! You with your hand up! Think of all the nice new money flowing into our bank accounts... um, I mean, into the local treasuries from all that new tax revenue. Now, next up... remember that guy who challenged me in the last election? Heh, heh, well, he's gonna be living in a used trailer next to the town dump. And just to make sure of it, we're gonna raize his house and BUILD a new town dump right next to it... Heh, heh... ain't this fun!"
To me, the Constitution is using plain language to prohibit exactly: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I agree with Justice Thomas that "public use" means public use, not private use. From page 40 of this pdf compilation from the Supreme Court:
This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use." I cannot agree. If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as JUSTICE O'CONNOR powerfully argues in dissent.
And, implicit in that is, why should the matter turn on a Federal constitutional provision dealing with eminent domain? The feds didn't take anything. So we are asking, how much of the rights contained in the federal constitution restrict the states, and if only some of them, who says which ones? And if only some of them, are they all applied with the same exactitude? Who says?
What do the amendments passed (or forced through) after the civil war have to do with any of this? If the Supremes are deciding all these things since Reconstruction, have they been consistent? Could one say the Supremes have changed political agendas over the decades?
Are the intentions of the founding fathers considered? How about the intentions of the Radical Republicans who crafted the Reconstruction amendments? Or the states which ratified them? Or the Scalawags and Carpetbaggers who ratified them? Did these people intend that the Supremes could apply federal constitutional rights against the states as they saw fit?
Welcome to the bizarre world of con law 101 which was clearly not misnamed.
Yep. That's pretty much my take. I don't normally do the Chicken Little thing, but the sky does look a might shaky this morning...
This is only my personal opinion, but I believe this statement is in fact an operational fallacy- the primary result of this will be economic insecurity; when the risk of owning a home or a business has been increased by the implicit threat of eminent domain, fewer individuals are likely to dedicate their time toward creating a business or saving to own a home, and this will result in a downward spiral in economic development.
The attack on families, the increase in welfare dependents, the increase in apartment and home renting as opposed to ownership, the many burdens and costs imposed on businesses- this appears to be just another step on the way to institutionalized socialism.
"The Socialist Activist Network: Working to Improve the Ultimate Police State" (in partnership with F.A.G.)
Perhaps for domestic investors, but as the poster Vicomte13 astutely pointed out yesterday, this will likely spur at least some international investors to give more consideration to such investments since obviously there is now a large advantage given to investors over small owners of property.
I guess my main concern is allowing a federal court to decide what constitutes private use vs. public use. Do you know how many "economic development" initiatives cities do that amount to little more than handing money to private developers, in the hopes that jobs will materialize? That's so commonly justified as being in the public interest that, though I disagree with it, I wonder whether shmucks in black robes can say "No, none of that was for a public purpose after all."
Then again, if the courts aren't going to draw that line between public and private, what's to keep cities from routinely violating our rights?
Like I said, I'm a bit torn.
Looks like we have our work cut out.
GOP Official Response: [insert cricket sound].
Latest GOP Headlines and Important issues (from GOP.com on June 25 at 11:56 AM EST)...
June 24, 2005 : Dems Vs. Dems: House Leader Nancy Pelosi Vs. House Leader Nancy PelosiI'm not sure what I'm more disappointed in: the SCOTUS decision to strip the last vestiges of personal property rights that we had or the GOP's non-existent reaction to it. Maybe the last headline ("A Party Without Ideas") was about the GOP itself? Maybe it should have been titled "A Party without a Clue" or "A Party without Gonads" or "A Party without concern for individual rights".
June 24, 2005 : Meet MoveOn.org
June 24, 2005 : In Case You Missed It: A Party Without Ideas
I'm very depressed about this.
And, just yesterday in my hometown, the City Council voted on an eminent domain issue where the city will take over about 40 acres right near downtown, which is currently occupied by working class people. Eminent domained them right out of there.
Only 1 vote against it. Coincidentally, the guy who voted against it is about the only person on the entire council that's worth anything.
I would like to pretend that city governments aren't frothing at the mouth over this decision, but apparently it took less than 24 hours in my hometown for them to starting using their new-found powers.
So much for "judicious use" and other rhetorical allusions to being fair with this new power.
[mattdono shakes head] I just never thought that our country would come to this. If a man's own home isn't sacred, then what is?
If I don't have purview of my own home, then by their logic, neither do I have purview over the things in it. And, next, they will use (twist) this power into telling us that we can't own guns. Then, the local sherriff is at your door telling you to get out or they will have to use force.
Then what will happen?
It has always been apocolyptic to consider our own military turning on it's own citizens. And, it probably wasn't fathomable because of the honor of the American solider. And, I mean no disrespect to law enforcement, but it certainly a lot easier to see a local sherrif and SWAT team have a showdown with a homeowner that ends in armed conflict, then it would be to have F-16 fire on a homeowner. All citizens in the country would massively revolt if the military power were turned on its own citizens. Most citizens wouldn't even notice if a local sherrif "took out" a homeowner, his family, whatever. And, no doubt, the local sherrif, local government, local and national media would paint the homeowners as...you ready?... a whacko gun nut. (Sound familiar? Call it a watered down Ruby Ridge or whatever, but that's where we
will are headed.
If someone in the federal government is going to say that cities can do this (SCOTUS), then someone in the federal government needs to say that they can't (President? Congress?). Because it seems like all of the other local and state levels have already taken side (see the list above).
Needless to say, my "collection" is getting a very through cleaning this weekend. And, yes, I will be adding to the collection soon.
I guess this is where we are in this country. I'm not in Boston and I'm not pissed off about tea tax. I'm just a regular guy who wants liberty and freedom. What's so hard to understand about that?
They don't have the right. They have the DUTY and the POWER to prevent it by virtue of the founding documents.
This is a tragedy! I thought we lived in a FREE country where government cannot take that which is hard fought and sweat is the show of true work. Now the libs and the welfare groups can use "eminent domain" to justify their support for the illegals that are taking over our country. Makes me wonder if I should work at all!
Absentee ownership, absentee landlords- do you want someone halfway around the globe making decisions that will have long-term effects on your local community?
It is another operational fallacy that a rising economic tide lifts all boats- it only lifts yachts.
It is a major conceit, or gamble, of the proponents of economic globalization that by removing economic control from the places where it has traditionally resided- in nations, states, subregions, communities, or indigenous socities- and placing that control into absentee authorities that operate globally via giant corporations and bureaucracies, all levels of society will benefit. But this is not true. They are operating on a macroscale removed from the everyday realities of local conditions or awareness.
They lobby for their ideas and theories as though they were viable and cogent, as if they themselves were expert visionaries and managers of their new centralized global architecture. They continue to praise their formulas despite the numerous spectacular breakdowns they have caused: the Asian financial crisis, the Russian financial crisis, the near economic meltdown of Brazil, the collapse of the Argentine economy, along with the global increase in poverty, hunger, inequity, dependency and powerlessness.
The main beneficiaries are global corporations and the economic elites who have instituted these processes- not you, not me, not the small or medium sized business owner, and not the average home buyer.
And to top it off, putting the US at the mercy of foreign investment puts the US at risk of foreign capital flight.
With all due respect to Vicomte13, I believe the needs of the domestic investor outweigh the needs of the international investor- and further, why are international investors investing intetrnationally? They should be investing in their own communities.
This is also a coup because two branches of government have conspired, and succeeded with impunity, to dis-enfranchise the people.
Why did this court do it? After all, this gang of five are not renown for their restraint. If you are as cynical as I am, you will look no further than the class which is empowered by the ruling: Intra city municipal politicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.