Is stealing from low income people to provide cushy opportunities to developers "for the common good."?

Question

Previously, I posted a question about the Supreme Court decision -KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
In this case, it was decided that property could be confiscated "for the common good", but we are not talking about building a school, park, highway or hospital. The land was to go to a private company, a real estate developer, to build condos that the previous owners of this property would never be able to afford.
It seems to me that their property may have been their only investment, and they should have been awarded at least twice the true market value for their land that was confiscated. Otherwise, townships full of corrupt officials could run around stealing your property at any time "for the common good" and awarding reconstruction contracts to their buddies.
Did I miss something here?

Answer 1

The 2004 decision is commonly misunderstood.

What the court actually ruled is that the decision of what constitutes "public use" is left up to the appropriate legislature, and should not be decided by the courts.

What the Court actually ruled was that the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party (which was already the existing law), but could to pursue a carefully considered development plan chosen by the legislature for a public benefit. The Court had actually rejected the literal requirement that property be put into use for the public back in 1984. This holding simply reaffirmed that earlier decision.

The hypothetical about stealing property for their buddies is not likely. The ruling affirmed by the Court is that the city could not confer a private benefit on a particular private third-party. In other words, there has to be a general plan already in place that requires the use of the property, in a manner that benefits the community. If the city takes the property to give it to their buddies, that would be bribery or nepotism, and not covered by the Kelo decision.

People keep misunderstanding the ruling, most never having ever read it. The final decision is up to the city, county or state legislature, and all the Court did was say that it wasn't going to overrule the decision made by the legislature.

As a side note, it's always amusing to me how people scream about this decision being the work of "activist judges", when all they did was say that the Court was NOT going to overrule the decision legislature. So apparently, allowing the legislature to make decisions is now being activist.

Answer 2

Nope, you missed nothing except for the fact that if the state is not confiscating your property for a legitimate public purpose then NO price is sufficient should you choose not to sell. That is the entire point of living in America... the government is not supposed to be able to ruin your life in one fell swoop. Complete garbage. Since that ruling there have been at least 15 separate cases of governments doing the exact same thing to honest, decent Americans simply becuase the courts now said it was ok.

Answer 3

well, it's really more of a dilemma than you make it out to be... I hate the idea that government can just take your property and give it to a private company... that's just stealing if you ask me... however your question about the common good is interesting... in many cases it would be in the good of the community to confiscate property belonging to low income people.... In many cases this property is not kept up properly and lowers the value of the surrounding land... in cases like that, it would definitely be in the interest of the common good to take the property and develop it.... It really works both ways.

Answer 4

It depends on the situation. In my town, property in an area was seized because for years the residents of the area chose to vandalize and make the entire area into a drug/crime zone. It had once been a busy shopping area, but as crime rose in the area, thanks to the residents, shops closed down and stores stood abandoned. Low income apartments were built, and within a month, vinyl siding was torn down, graffiti was on the walls, etc. So, yes, taking the property and building higher end condos and apartments that these jobless, worthless scumbags cannot afford is for the common good.

Answer 5

It may serve the common good, but it isn't being used for "public use". Which is what the Constitution says. They are using it for private use, which should be clearly unconstitutional. Public use is roads, parks, things that technically the public owns since we are governed "by the people" I think the Supreme Court had their heads up their asses on this one.

Answer 6

Theft is theft. Justice was not blind in this instance-public money provided better bottom feeders for the city. Confiscation of private land "for the common good" does not seem equivalent to theft of private land by legal loophole for private financial gain.

Answer 7

Ask the Democrats on that city council. They love taxes and really do not care for the common man or woman. Time to wake up people.

Answer 8

This is a weird case -- breaks all precedents. A liberal court would not do this. A concervative court would not do this. We have a right wing court from outer space.

People's houses were demolished so developers could build a mall -- local government said they needed the tax dollars. RAMnifications from this bad boy.

Answer 9

I almost spit Diet Pepsi all over my car when I heard about this case. It's crazy!! Another example if the liberal courts in action.

Answer 10

?????

When was the last time...

Well, I'm scrambled..............

Are you crazy? Do you think the governement is working for YOU? To protect YOU? You are worse than crap to them - you're an insect and you're in the way of their profits.

WAKE UP - this is your government.

And in answer to your question - from the perspective of rich white men - YES!

FP