Private property rights no `jump ball' in Michigan

MLive.com ^ | June 29, 2005 | Rick Haglund

[GreenFreeper]

FYI

[coloradan]

But some say the decision could lead to challenges of Michigan's law, or efforts to amend the state constitution by government officials hungry for more jobs and economic development.

Government officials are never hungry for more jobs or economic development. They are hungry for higher tax revenues ... the so-called "public benefit" that is at the heart of the SCOTUS decision.

[cripplecreek]

I saw a story on FOX this morning about a Detroit area cabinet maker who fought and won against the city and developers. It seems that the state supreme court overturned lower court rulings against him.

[wmichgrad]

MI eminent domain ping!

[Visioneer]

After Souter, I'd like to suggest Teddy Kennedy's ocean-front property at Martha's Vineyard...One of the few places where no oil rigs can be seen towering over the waves...Great place for a convention center...on the other hand... I am sure lots of money would roll into public coffers far in excess of any taxes paid by the Kennedy Estate....

Political Correctness also compels me to suggest that, "in fairness," Teddy's property could also be used to construct Section 8 Public Housing Projects on the site so that the less affluent can enjoy some of the same scenic benefits as the Well-to-do....

[GreenFreeper]

Political Correctness also compels me to suggest that, "in fairness," Teddy's property could also be used to construct Section 8 Public Housing Projects on the site so that the less affluent can enjoy some of the same scenic benefits as the Well-to-do....

I'm sure the champions of multiculturalism and diversity would welcome with open arms new mixed development /sarcasm!

[calex59]

Economic developers say eminent domain often is necessary to acquire the final pieces of property for large developments from owners who refuse to sell or make unreasonable price demands.

What part of no don't these people understand? If someone doesn't want to sell their property and you force them against their will, this is extortion, or stealing, however you want to look at it.

What makes these developers think they have the right to finish their developments at any cost to other people?

Good for MI. I would say when the next elections for state senator come about for any state, the ones against banning eminent domain for private gain will not be re-elected.

[Dan from Michigan]

Markman, Taylor, Young, and Corrigan for SCOTUS.

[An.American.Expatriate]

I can easily foresee that such State Supreme Court decisions could very quickly be overturned based on the USSC's recent decision.

The ONLY way that the individual's right is protected now is IF the State Constitution specifically bans such practices. If "Public Use" is the wording, with no further restrictions, your rights are toast.

[Boston Blackie]

[editor-surveyor]

Government officials are never hungry for more jobs or economic development. They are hungry for higher tax revenues ... the so-called "public benefit" that is at the heart of the SCOTUS decision.

I am afraid that you've hit the nail on the head. Eminent domain has reached the end of it's legitimate usefulness. When the country was young, much infrastructure was needed, but now no such need exists. Government must be completely removed from the land use planning question, and replaced with open market land acquision by those interested in development, and sufficiently experienced to plan their own investments.

The thuggish power of government has no legitimate place in this.

[auntyfemenist]

While the court said it was OK for New London, Conn., to seize homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices, it also ruled that states can set their own laws regarding the use of ``eminent domain,'' or property condemnation.

How generous of them! Good to know that they will allow states to set their own laws as to what property rights their residents get. Did any of these justices actually READ the constitution before their confirmation???

[andyk]

it also ruled that states can set their own laws regarding the use of ``eminent domain,'' or property condemnation.

Irrelevant. We had the supreme law to protect us. Now that the SCOTUS has changed the constitution (again), state laws are irrelevant. They only provide protection until society "progresses" far enough to change these archaic notions. Judicial review is a joke, and the 5th amendment means very little now.

[andyk]

Did any of these justices actually READ the constitution before their confirmation???

Only a select few, unfortunately.

[HKMk23]

If CA State Senator Tom McClintock gets his way, there will be an amendment to the California Constitution that will nullify the deleterious effects of the SCOTUS decision.

From his blog:
I am today announcing my intention to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights. This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.

[Mikey_1962]

So... Is GM giving back Poletown?

[doug from upland]

In fairness to the Kennedys, from that property probably at least $5 million is paid each year in liquor taxes. You have to give them credit for that.

[rawcatslyentist]

Great, just the state we NEED to grab land in. There is a huge market in hog processing plants, for tax purposes of course. There are plenty of mosques and terror institutes that should be replaced with hog farms that will pay a lot more money than the slaves of satan are right now.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!