[Man50D]

The people of New London aren't going to take the USSC decision lying down. Anyone want to join the rally?

[sushiman]

If I were within 200 miles of New London I'd be there ...Unfortunately , CT yankee I am 9000 miles away in the sushiland ...

[tiger-one]

Why not take those casinos on the State line instead?

[Roccus]

I wonder what political luminary will arise from this event. In NYC, the Fighting 69 from Corona, Queens (another ED battle) gave us the wonderful Mario Cuomo.
Note; That fight was about 69 families who were going to lose their homes for the athletic field of a then not built high school. A compromise was struck and only half were to lose there homes. Forty years later and the HS and field have not been built.

[Fierce Allegiance]

CT ping

[camle]

on teh hartford news this morning I got a laugh when they told of New London city officials whining about being so short on cash that they're selling off surplus city land.
not a bad idea - they know they can always get it back should they need it.

bet they get a lot of interested buyers...

[Mr. Nobody]

bump

[jwalsh07]

Me and mine will be there.

[commonerX]

(0)

[nutmeg]

The people of New London aren't going to take the USSC decision lying down. Anyone want to join the rally?

Yes, my husband and I will be there, as will a few other CT Freepers. Did you see this thread posted on 6/26? July 5th Protest Rally in New London,CT to support Kelo plaintiffs

[nutmeg]

ping

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping! (Thanks for the heads up, Fierce Allegiance)

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

[mr_hammer]

Has Bill O'Reily had anything to say about the SC decision on eminent domain? He's suppose to be looking out for the people and all. All we get is this Halloway dribble stuff. It is terrible that she disappeared, but I think there are much larger issues that must be covered.

[OESY]

The Kelo Floodgates, Ct'd...

From an Institute for Justice press release:

Lake Zurich, Ill. -- Five property owners facing condemnation for private development had asked Lake Zurich officials to hold off until the Kelo decision. The Chicago Tribune reports that City officials are now moving to condemn.


Arnold, Mo. -- "Arnold Mayor Mark Powell applauded the decision," reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The City of Arnold wants to raze 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold VFW, for a Lowe's Home Improvement store and a strip mall--a $55 million project for which developer THF Realty will receive $21 million in tax-increment financing. Powell said that for "cash-strapped" cities like Arnold, enticing commercial development is just as important as other public improvements.


Baltimore, Md. (West Side) -- The City of Baltimore is moving to acquire shops on the city's west side for private development. Ronald M. Kreitner, executive director of Westside Renaissance, Inc., a private organization coordinating the project with the city's development corporation, told the Baltimore Sun, "If there was any hesitation because of the Supreme Court case, any question is removed, and we should expect to see things proceeding in a timely fashion."


Baltimore, Md. (East Side) -- Baltimore's redevelopment agency, the Baltimore Development Corp., is exercising eminent domain to acquire more than 2,000 properties in East Baltimore for a biotech park and new residences. BDC Executive Vice President Andrew B. Frank told the Daily Record the Kelo decision "is very good news. It means many of the projects on which we've been working for the last several years can continue."


Newark, N.J. -- Newark officials want to raze 14 downtown acres in the Mulberry Street area to build 2,000 upscale condo units and retail space. The Municipal Council voted against the plan in 2003, but then reversed its decision eight months later following re-election campaigns in which developers donated thousands of dollars. Officials told the Associated Press that the Mulberry Street project could have been killed if the U.S. Supreme Court had sided with the homeowners in Kelo.


Lodi, N.J. -- Save Our Homes, a coalition of 200 residents in a Lodi trailer park targeted by the City for private retail development and a senior-living community, goes to court on July 18 to try to prevent a private developer from taking their homes. Lodi Mayor Gary Paparozzi called the Kelo ruling a "shot in the arm" for the town. He told the Bergen County Record, "The trailer park is like a poster child for redevelopment. That's the best-case scenario for using eminent domain."


Cleveland, Ohio -- Developer Scott Wolstein has planned a $225 million residential and retail development in the Flats district. Wolstein has most of the property he needs, but is pleased that Kelo cleared the way for the City to acquire land from any unwilling sellers. If eminent domain is "necessary," he told the Plain Dealer, "we think this makes it clear that there won't be any legal impediments." Previously, city leaders publicly supported Wolstein’s call for eminent domain.


Dania, Fla. -- The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that Dania Beach City Manager Ivan Pato "expressed joy" over the ruling in Kelo. Dania plans to buy a block of properties for a private development project, and Pato said the city will use eminent domain to oust unwilling sellers. "Unless we expand the city's tax base . . .our residents are facing rising taxes on their property," Pato said. "Redevelopment is the only way we will be able to make ends meet."


Memphis, Tenn. -- The Riverfront Development Corp. is planning a massive, 5-mile development effort, including the use of eminent domain to claim a four-block section from the current owners for a mixed-use development. "[Kelo] definitely gives the city more tools in its tool box for dealing with the legal issues surrounding that piece of property," RDC president Benny Lendermon told the Commercial Appeal.


Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale and Miramar, Fla. -- Broward County officials yesterday cleared the way for new condo and retail development in these three cities. Hollywood residents in the targeted area fear their homes may now be taken for economic development following the Kelo decision. Mayor Mara Giulianti said the City would use eminent domain on a "case-by-case basis" to remove homeowners unwilling to sell.
What a great quote from New Jersey.

"The trailer park is like a poster child for redevelopment. That's the best-case scenario for using eminent domain."

Telling of how the left's lust for government power really affects the poor, isn' it?

-- Radley Balko, theagitator.com/archives/022207.php#022207

[OESY]

Jonathan Adler on Takings, in National Review Online.


Kelo and Regulatory Takings: A post by Mark Tushnet on a lawprofs' discussion list led me to wonder how the Kelo dissents' theory would deal with regulatory takings.

Two background items: First, under the Takings Clause, there are two kinds of takings, (1) "physical takings" in which the title to the property is actually taken, and (2) "regulatory takings," in which the owner keeps the formal title but loses the right to use the property in certain ways, the right to exclude people, the right to sell the property, the right to leave it in a will, or what have you. Generally speaking it takes a lot of interference with the owner's rights to make regulation qualify as a "regulatory taking" (at least outside the special context of regulations that require landowners to let people onto their property, which are on the way to being physical takings, and which I will set aside for purposes of this post). Still, the Court has held that, for instance, banning virtually all development on a parcel, and thus rendering its value nearly nil, would qualify as a taking even if the owner still owns the parcel. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992).

Conservatives are generally bigger fans of the regulatory takings doctrine than are liberals; Lucas, for instance, was written by Scalia, and joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas; libertarians tend to like it, too. Some liberals believe that regulatory takings should almost never be found, or even that the doctrine shouldn't exist, and that no regulation short of taking of title (or possibly interference with the right to exclude) should be considered a "taking."

Second, the debate in Kelo can be seen as pitting two different interpretations of "public use" in "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation": (1) "Public use" means "continuous public ownership or access," for instance if the government keeps the property or sells it to a common carrier (and access simply means the ability to go on the property, as for instance when the government takes land and sells it to a private railroad, but the railroad is required to let the public ride). (2) "Public use" means "public benefit," which may be derived by the government's selling it to a private developer whose development will (the government thinks) help the public.

So here's the question: Which reading of "public use" is most consistent with the generally conservative-libertarian notion that regulation can become a "regulatory taking"? When regulations deny you all right to use your land, for instance, and you claim that the government has "taken your property" -- in the sense of taken your right to exploit the property, which is part of your property rights -- "for public use," which meaning of "public use" would you be using?

It seems to me that the answer is not "public ownership or access." The government, after all, isn't taking the property so that the public can own it or access it. Nor is it taking it so that some private third parties can own it or access it. The only person who owns it or can access it is still you. Under the "continuous ownership or access" model, the regulation is neither a taking for public use nor a taking for private use. It sounds like it's not a taking at all, and you're thus entitled to no compensation.

But the "public benefit" model fits regulatory takings well. If the government stops you from developing your parcel in order to serve public environmental or aesthetic goals, then it's taking your right to exploit the property in order to provide a public benefit, and thus you're entitled to compensation. Lucas in fact took this very view: Such regulations should be seen as takings because they "carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service" (emphasis added).

So it seems to me that if the regulatory takings theory is sound, and regulations that make land nearly worthless should be treated as similar to physical takings, "public use" in the Takings Clause needs to be read as "public benefit." The question then becomes: Is it proper to read "public use" as "public benefit" for one kind of takings, and "continuous public ownership or access" for another?

Perhaps the answer is yes: Maybe the regulatory takings theory isn't really a textual interpretation of the Takings Clause, but rather a necessary backstop developed in order to avoid end-runs around the Clause; since its role is functional rather than textual, then some of the textual limitations on the Clause may be dispensed with. Or perhaps the answer is that the critics of regulatory takings doctrine (mostly liberal, I think) are right, and regulation should never be seen as a taking (again, perhaps unless it interferes with the right to exclude the public), even if it strips the owner of nearly all the value of his land.

Or perhaps there's some other explanation still. But it seems to me that if one does support the regulatory takings doctrine as part of the broader takings doctrine, and one thinks that it should be read consistently with the text of the clause -- which is to say that the text of the clause should be read consistently for regulatory takings and possessory takings -- then it seems to me that the Kelo majority's "public benefit" model is stronger than the dissents' "continuous public ownership or access" model.


Related Posts:

Jonathan Adler on Takings,
Kelo and Regulatory Takings:
Let's Have a Bit of Perspective Here:
A Taking for an Excellent Public Purpose:
Thomas Kelo Dissent T-Shirts & Mugs:
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) Proposes Limits on Eminent Domain:
"Something has gone seriously awry":
Somin on Kelo and Original Understanding:
More on Kelo:
Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition:
"The Great Equalizer":
Kelo Topic Page:
Perspectives on Kelo:
Kelo:
Kelo Discussion at SCOTUSblog:
Kelo Opinions:
Takings and Privatization:
Big Government for Its Own Sake:

-- David Kopel, The Volokh Conspiracy, Volokh.com

[OESY]

The Kelo House in New London, Ct.