Can the government take your property just to hand it over to your business competitor?

[welkin]

Finally!

Can the government take your property just to hand it over to your business competitor?

That is the question New York developer Bryan Bowers is asking the United States Supreme Court after New York's courts said it was perfectly fine for a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and give it to a rival developer to use as a private parking lot. In most states, that kind of one-to-one transfer of property between private owners would be forbidden—or at least be subject to serious judicial scrutiny. In New York, though, it's business as usual.

The culprit is the Supreme Court's much-maligned 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In that case, the Court blessed the condemnation of the working-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood—not to build a road or a school, but because the government wanted to hand the land over to new private owners who would pay more in taxes. The Constitution says eminent domain is reserved for public uses, like building roads or parks, but the Court held that the public-use requirement was satisfied by the prospect of the public benefiting from claimed higher tax revenues.

The backlash to Kelo was swift and widespread. Between legislation, constitutional amendments, and court decisions, 47 states changed their laws to make Kelo-style private-purpose takings more difficult. But in the few states that didn't, eminent domain abuse continues to occur. Bryan's case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider and hopefully overturn its decision in Kelo and to restore some constitutional protections against eminent-domain abuse—an opportunity that several Justices have publicly supported.

https://ij.org/case/bowers-v-oneida-county-industrial-development-agency/

 

[Tax Counsel]

For those unaware, the power of eminent domain, a holdover of the British Crown's power to take property as desired by the sovereign, was limited in the Constitution by imposing two requirements that the King of England would not have to meet: (1) the taking of the land had to be for public use or benefit (the most common and classic case being the taking of land for public works projects like roads, dams, etc) and (2) the landowners must be fairly compensated by the government for the land taken. It was not be used for the private benefit of some at the expense of others.

The Supreme Court's in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a split decision in which the majority moved the line between public use and private benefit, calling a taking that, by all appearances, was taking private property not for public use, but to benefit landowners, and saying that because the new development would raise property tax revenue it constituted a public benefit. It was a novel interpretation of the power considering the Court's own prior precedent. The court split 5-4, and at the time the liberal justices had the majority — the five votes that voted in favor of taking. The the four conservatives were solidly opposed.

I'm sure the liberal justices were a bit surprised by the backlash from the decision, by both conservatives and liberals alike (though the reasoning for their opposition differed). As a liberal decision it is an odd one given that the taking can easily be painted as robbing from the poor to give to the rich, something liberals ordinarily would oppose.

Now conservatives are the majority on the Court so the odds are a bit better that this case will be granted cert and reviewed by the Court than the more run of the mill Supreme Court appeals.

I opposed the Kelo decision when it came and my view hasn't changed over the last two decades. There are a lot of ways government may increase tax revenue; using eminent domain here was hardly necessary for the city to carry out its public duties. It was simply the most convienient way for the city to do it. I hope The Supreme Court grants cert for the case and issues an opinion that moves the line back to where it should be.

 

[army judge]

I opposed the Kelo decision when it came and my view hasn't changed over the last two decades. There are a lot of ways government may increase tax revenue; using eminent domain here was hardly necessary for the city to carry out its public duties. It was simply the most convienient way for the city to do it. I hope The Supreme Court grants cert for the case and issues an opinion that moves the line back to where it should be.

Gasp, gulp, grin

Not that it matters, but you and I are agreeing more these days.

Could it be Christmas Magic, the approaching birthday of our Savior, Santa's Christmas Dust, or the alignment of the stars, sun, and moon?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Not that it matters, but you and I are agreeing more these days.

We may indeed agree on a lot when it comes to issues. The main difference between us right now is that I can't stand Trump and you seem to wholeheartedly embrace him. But that's a difference in views about a political figure, not issues.

 

[army judge]

The main difference between us right now is that I can't stand Trump and you seem to wholeheartedly embrace him.

I've never met Trump in person.
I dislike 05-10% of Trump's actions.
That leaves me with 90-95% of the things he does to like, or accept.

However, once I learned the truth about the Donkeys, I don't dislike the individual's, I detest their past misdeeds; specifically their lies surrounding slavery and their deceitful actions as our Black citizens struggled to dethrone Donkey inspired and promoted "Jim Crow".

Trump, as am I, as are you, are far from perfect.
However, I've endeavored to improve my flaws over the years.

I suspect you have, too.
Watching Trump over the past 4 to 5 odd years, he's come a very long way, too.

Bottom line, I don't care too much about or for politicians.

I do care very much about the good things politicians promote and/or achieve.

......... :::::::::+++++++++=========---------_________""" "" "" "" #########
......... :::::::::+++++++++=========---------_________""" "" "" "" #########
......... :::::::::+++++++++=========---------_________""" "" "" "" #########
......... :::::::::+++++++++=========---------_________""" "" "" "" #########
......... :::::::::+++++++++=========---------_________""" "" "" "" #########
......... :::::::::+++++++++=========---------_________""" "" "" "" #########
......... :::::::::+++++++++=========---------_________""" "" "" "" #########
......... :::::::::+++++++++=========---------_________""" "" "" "" #########