the demolition has begun...

armchair_warrior

escap wrote: [quote=armchair_warrior]using eminent domain to take private property to give to private companies is wrong. Too bad some activist fail at trying to take the house of Justice David Souter. He try to build a hotel in place of the justice's house . he missed by a large number of votes.

In general this seems to make sense. However, I think the line between public and private is very blurred. Why is it okay for the state to use eminent domain for its own purposes but not for private development? The obvious answer is that eminent domain should only be used for the "public good". But the public good is often served by private initiative, and in fact the public good is often harmed by public initiatives. I fail to see, for example, why it's morally acceptable to use eminent domain to build a public university but not to build a private university. Because one is cheaper than the other? Since when does "cheap" equate with "public"? Is Walmart public?

I think eminent domain should be used only as a last resort, and only when there is a compelling need to use it to avoid senseless obstruction by a small number of individuals of a large scale project that represents a clear benefit to the community. If the developer of that project happens to be a nongovernment entity, I don't think that makes it morally wrong, or vice versa. The key should be in the trade off between the overwhelming need and benefit to the community vs the rights of the individuals. And finally, those few individuals who are victimized should be compensated well beyond the mere market value of their homes--the compensation should include a generous premium that accounts for the massive inconvenience being caused.

For example, if a town in the midst of a recession needed to push one man out of his home to make room for the opening of a Toyota plant that would employ 5,000 people, and for some weird hypothetical reason the plant couldn't be built without using eminent domain, I'd support it. It doesn't matter that Toyota is private.sorry private is still not the goverment. I dont care if they save a billion jobs. They should let the market do its job. if the plant owner wants the land bad enough they should pay for what ever they think its worth and if they owner thinks its worth their time and money, they'll take it. if not they should offer higher. goverment should take land from private person A and give it to private person B.

escap

armchair_warrior wrote: sorry private is still not the goverment. I dont care if they save a billion jobs. They should let the market do its job. if the plant owner wants the land bad enough they should pay for what ever they think its worth and if they owner thinks its worth their time and money, they'll take it. if not they should offer higher. goverment should take land from private person A and give it to private person B.

Are you opposed to zoning? Do you think a company ought to be able to put down a chemical company in the middle of ProHo? How about an environmental review of the AY project, or "community input"? Mandates on affordable housing? Landmark? If you're in favor of any of these, you're saying that we ought not to just let the free market completely control urban planning.

Believe me, I am about as pro-free market as they come--far more than you are, for example, on nearly every issue. However, I still realize that urban planning is a legitimate govt role. I also see absolutely no moral distinction between using eminent domain to benefit the govt or to benefit a private citizen. If you're opposed to eminent domain, I think you need to be opposed to it across the board. And if you are opposed across the board, you had better be opposed to all other forms of property seizure, wealth redistribution and government intervention. It makes no sense for the overwhelmingly socialist members of this board to suddenly be so up in arms about property rights and be preaching the rhetoric of free market libertarians.

ratnerville4ever

escap wrote: However, I still realize that urban planning is a legitimate govt role.

True. Would that it were for "Atlantic Yards" where there is NO GOVT involved in urban planning. Hell, there is no Urban Planning involved.

escap wrote: I also see absolutely no moral distinction between using eminent domain to benefit the govt or to benefit a private citizen.

The moral distinction is that more often than not when gov't uses that powerful tool to benefit a private citizen it is due to cronyism and campaign funding.

qtrain

escap wrote: I also see absolutely no moral distinction between using eminent domain to benefit the govt or to benefit a private citizen.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems clear to me that it puts you in conflict with the understanding of the fifth amendment at the time of its ratification.

rogersma

One important note to add here is that the mere threat of eminent domain is a very powerful tool. Ratner's spokesman was recently quoted boasting how quickly they had managed to buy out many of the private owners in the footprint, thereby lessening the need for the actual use of eminent domain.

What a surprise! "Hey, we'd like to buy your property, but it's totally voluntary. Oh, by the way, if you refuse it'll get taken away from you anyway."

And then, of course, there's Ratner's crowning touch: "Oh, you'd like to sell? Wonderful. Now just sign this piece of paper promising to say you're really, really happy about it."

armchair_warrior

ratnerville4ever wrote: [quote=escap]However, I still realize that urban planning is a legitimate govt role.

True. Would that it were for "Atlantic Yards" where there is NO GOVT involved in urban planning. Hell, there is no Urban Planning involved.

escap wrote: I also see absolutely no moral distinction between using eminent domain to benefit the govt or to benefit a private citizen.

The moral distinction is that more often than not when gov't uses that powerful tool to benefit a private citizen it is due to cronyism and campaign funding.could of said it better myself . btw i'm a libertarian.

escap

qtrain wrote: [quote=escap]I also see absolutely no moral distinction between using eminent domain to benefit the govt or to benefit a private citizen.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems clear to me that it puts you in conflict with the understanding of the fifth amendment at the time of its ratification.

I guess the Supreme Court is in conflict with the constitution as well, then.

escap

armchair_warrior wrote: could of said it better myself . btw i'm a libertarian.

You're a libertarian? I'm gonna hold you to that.

alafairnadia

escap wrote: [quote=qtrain][quote=escap]I also see absolutely no moral distinction between using eminent domain to benefit the govt or to benefit a private citizen.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems clear to me that it puts you in conflict with the understanding of the fifth amendment at the time of its ratification.

I guess the Supreme Court is in conflict with the constitution as well, then.

that's not a shocker.

escap

Yeah, those justices are such a bunch of hacks. BTW, you guys do know that it's the center/left justices that ruled in favor of allowing eminent domain for the "public good", which is consistent. The opponents are the hardcore rightwing, which is also consistent with their values of small government and strict property rights. At least they're all consistent. You guys are all over the map, passionately claiming one ideology, only to do a complete 180 in the next breath.

alafairnadia

escap wrote: Yeah, those justices are such a bunch of hacks. BTW, you guys do know that it's the center/left justices that ruled in favor of allowing eminent domain for the "public good", which is consistent. The opponents are the hardcore rightwing, which is also consistent with their values of small government and strict property rights. At least they're all consistent. You guys are all over the map, passionately claiming one ideology, only to do a complete 180 in the next breath.

don't get me started on real republicans vs. reagan/bush "conservatives". I believe in the constitution, and traditionally, that makes me a republican. will I vote republican? sometimes. do I think the asshats on the supreme court (for the most part) know what they're doing? no. is this, allegedly, a free country, where I can defy definition and either agree or disagree with the supreme court, the constitution, you, or whatever and whoever else? yes. for now.

qtrain

escap wrote: Yeah, those justices are such a bunch of hacks. BTW, you guys do know that it's the center/left justices that ruled in favor of allowing eminent domain for the "public good", which is consistent. The opponents are the hardcore rightwing, which is also consistent with their values of small government and strict property rights. At least they're all consistent. You guys are all over the map, passionately claiming one ideology, only to do a complete 180 in the next breath.

Not to get in the way of your attempt to win the internets or anything, but by aligning yourself with the center/left justices on that case you are also stepping out of your usual ideological role as a proponent of limited government interference in market matters. An originalist view of the takings clause speaks to my personal sense of justice, and doesn't preclude me from supporting things like progressive taxation (and other socialist heresies).

ratnerville4ever

qtrain wrote: [quote=escap]Yeah, those justices are such a bunch of hacks. BTW, you guys do know that it's the center/left justices that ruled in favor of allowing eminent domain for the "public good", which is consistent. The opponents are the hardcore rightwing, which is also consistent with their values of small government and strict property rights. At least they're all consistent. You guys are all over the map, passionately claiming one ideology, only to do a complete 180 in the next breath.

Not to get in the way of your attempt to win the internets or anything, but by aligning yourself with the center/left justices on that case you are also stepping out of your usual ideological role as a proponent of limited government interference in market matters. An originalist view of the takings clause speaks to my personal sense of justice, and doesn't preclude me from supporting things like progressive taxation (and other socialist heresies).

Bingo, Q-Train

qtrain

escap wrote: [quote=qtrain][quote=escap]I also see absolutely no moral distinction between using eminent domain to benefit the govt or to benefit a private citizen.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems clear to me that it puts you in conflict with the understanding of the fifth amendment at the time of its ratification.
I guess the Supreme Court is in conflict with the constitution as well, then.
I forgot to respond to this -- yeah, that was the gist of the argument of 4/5ths of the Court, which I agree with.

escap

qtrain wrote: [quote=escap]Yeah, those justices are such a bunch of hacks. BTW, you guys do know that it's the center/left justices that ruled in favor of allowing eminent domain for the "public good", which is consistent. The opponents are the hardcore rightwing, which is also consistent with their values of small government and strict property rights. At least they're all consistent. You guys are all over the map, passionately claiming one ideology, only to do a complete 180 in the next breath.

Not to get in the way of your attempt to win the internets or anything, but by aligning yourself with the center/left justices on that case you are also stepping out of your usual ideological role as a proponent of limited government interference in market matters. An originalist view of the takings clause speaks to my personal sense of justice, and doesn't preclude me from supporting things like progressive taxation (and other socialist heresies).

You're absolutely right, and I recognize this. I am generally opposed to government intervention into the market, but not so much (I'd like to think) based on ideology as just good policy. A lot of intervention has the opposite effect of what's intended. But I'm definitely not an anarchist--I'm in favor of sensible gun control, for example.

Anyway, I clearly specified that I'm only in favor of using eminent domain as a LAST RESORT, when there is a clear benefit to the surrounding community, and that the victims be compensated well beyond the market value of their property. So I think my consistency is fairly intact. As far as me seeing no difference between the government seizing property for its own uses (which are usually useless), or for the sake of a private entity, I don't think that's inconsistent with my general beliefs at all--namely, that the private sector is generally superior to the public sector, and that the public as a whole benefits from private investment more than it does from public investment. That is totally consistent with my typical DH rantings.

And for the record, I virtually never vote Republican, although the Dems are disgusting me so much lately that I don't even know what I'll do this year. For every misguided Dem policy there are five GOP bills trying to ban evolution, so that's not such a palatable option either.

ratnerville4ever

escap wrote: Anyway, I clearly specified that I'm only in favor of using eminent domain as a LAST RESORT, when there is a clear benefit to the surrounding community, and that the victims be compensated well beyond the market value of their property. So I think my consistency is fairly intact. .

Okay, so where does Ratner's "Atlantic Yards" proposal fit into that above description?

raulism

escap wrote: Anyway, I clearly specified that I'm only in favor of using eminent domain as a LAST RESORT, when there is a clear benefit to the surrounding community, and that the victims be compensated well beyond the market value of their property.

I hope you know that eminent domain is being used all over the country, especially in New York state. And EVERY SINGLE time it is used they say it is used as a last resort.

I consider your standards very weak, and much more open to abuse than the Kelo decision. The current Supreme Court standard (as I understand it) is that there has to be an open process that is not designed to benefit a specific developer. In New London, the determination to take individual's homes and give it to a private interest was part of a larger plan to develop the whole city. Ratner's plan probably does not pass current Supreme Court muster because it clearly was a plan presented by a developer without alternatives and without any larger civic plan.

The biggest problem with your statement is that you don't define "benefit" or "surrounding community." I think it would benefit me if my neighbor cut down his tree, so if I define myself as the surrounding community, can't I use eminent domain to appropriate his tree? And isn't it always to the benefit of the community if we just get rid of poor people? They always bring down the tax base, and they are usually the victims of eminent domain.

escap

ratnerville4ever wrote: [quote=escap]Anyway, I clearly specified that I'm only in favor of using eminent domain as a LAST RESORT, when there is a clear benefit to the surrounding community, and that the victims be compensated well beyond the market value of their property. So I think my consistency is fairly intact. .

Okay, so where does Ratner's "Atlantic Yards" proposal fit into that above description?

To be honest, I'd say it falls short, though obviously I hope the project goes through. I think the project WILL benefit the community at large, but there are obviously also major drawbacks and clear community opposition. The compensation to the former owners was generous from what I hear, but I don't know for sure. And most important, I fail to see the necessity (the last resort condition). Perhaps at one or two sites there are critical locations that need to be absorbed into the whole project, but there's no obvious reason to me that Ratner couldn't just build a couple fewer condos, or make some other scale adjustment here or there to fit into the land he already owns. Since I don't know all the details, obviously the courts should make the final decision. I just wouldn't automatically disqualify FCR because of its nongovernmental status.

raulism

escap wrote: [quote=ratnerville4ever]
Okay, so where does Ratner's "Atlantic Yards" proposal fit into that above description?

To be honest, I'd say it falls short, though obviously I hope the project goes through. I think the project WILL benefit the community at large, but there are obviously also major drawbacks and clear community opposition.

Whew!