← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 19571 | Posts: 2 | Started: 2005-08-11
2005-08-11 14:07 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi/Property%20Rights/2005/08/05/The_Kelo_Calamity]Chronicles[/URL] The Kelo Calamity Friday, August 05, 2005 The Kelo Calamity Paul Craig Roberts
Libertarians are mistaken in their assessment of the Supreme Courtââ¬â¢s 5-4 Kelo ruling, which permits the use of eminent domain for private development projects. Lew Rockwell, for example, argues that the distinction between public and private use makes no difference to the owner whose property is taken. He also argues that the Kelo decision has already produced its own blowback in the form of 25 states and hundreds of localities working to enact laws against the use of eminent domain for private takings of property.
Libertarians are correct that the basic problem is eminent domain, but they are incorrect that the distinction between public and private use is ââ¬Åridiculous,ââ¬Â and they are wrong in their supposition that state and local laws can offset the impact of the Kelo decision.
The state and local laws to restrict the private use of eminent domain are merely policy statements that the eminent domain authority of the state or local government will not be used to take private property for private developers. A city or countyââ¬â¢s policy statement cannot prevent a state or the federal government from exercising eminent domain authority in the local governmentââ¬â¢s jurisdiction, nor could a stateââ¬â¢s policy stop the exercise of eminent domain by the federal government.
Moreover, not all of these efforts to restrict the use of eminent domain are succeeding, and those that do can be changed by a majority vote. They do not constitute a constitutional protection of private property.
It is clear that the Kelo decision has greatly diminished the protection of private property. Prior to the decision, there were fewer demands for takings and fewer opportunities for government to use eminent domain powers. The distinction between public and private use of eminent domain restricted its use against private property. The Kelo decision removed this restriction.
The Kelo decision created fundamentally new inroads into private property. Prior to Kelo, zoning authorities could restrict what could be built in specific locations, but they had no power to assemble or disassemble land parcels. Thus has Kelo greatly enhanced the reach of government planning.
The Kelo decision also further corrupts government by creating another avenue of payoffs to public officials in exchange for their power to alter property ownership in behalf of private interests.
Libertarians are correct that the source of the mischief comes from the governmentââ¬â¢s power to take private property for public use. ââ¬ÅPublic useââ¬Â is an elastic concept. Originally, public use meant roads and bridges. With time and technology, the concept expanded to electric power companies serving public purpose.
The takings of property were limited to the amount needed to provide a community with transportation or electric power. However, in the 1980s, a major new development was initiated by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). MARTA was one of the first to condemn more property than it needed to serve ââ¬Åpublic purpose.ââ¬Â The transit authority reasoned that property surrounding a new transportation station would rise in value because of the increased ease of commuting from the site. The authority decided that since its station was the reason for the rise in property values, it should benefit by condemning property for re-sale after the rise in value. People with condemned property blocks from the new stations sued and lost.
Kelo expands the definition of public use. Condemnation for ââ¬Åpublic useââ¬Â is now justified by higher projected tax revenues made possible by condemning low-density neighborhoods, for example, and transferring the land to developers who make multimillions of dollars by constructing high-density high-rises on the assembled site.
The Kelo decision threatens all private property, especially low-density residential neighborhoods that occupy desirable sites. All coastal and waterfront communities, for example, are endangered by the Kelo ruling.
Money is a powerful force. The Kelo decision has made it more powerful.
COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC
2005-08-23 04:08 | User Profile
Has anyone identified who the "developers" are that are behind this Bolshevik assault on our once cherished right to own property?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5721[/url]
Kelo: City Extorts 'Back Rent' from Homeowners News; Posted on: 2005-08-21 21:31:38 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ] This Land Was Your Land: Real estate speculator wants back rent from Connecticut homeowners whose land he stole.
In the adding insult to injury category, the city officials that triumphed over a group of Connecticut homeowners in a landmark Supreme Court property-rights case are expecting those residents to pay the local government rent dating back to the year 2000.
The June 23 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London gave the town the approval to seize the residents' homes and transfer them to a real estate speculator for demolition and replacement with a an office complex, luxury hotel and condominiums. In the highly controversial decision, the justices (sic) ruled 5-4 that the economic development resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as "public use" under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The city now says that it won his case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property since 2000 when it first began condemnation procedures against them, and so they must pay back rent ââ¬â- to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Members of the city's government did not reveal how much the anonymous speculator paid them in the land-confiscation scheme.
"It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation," wrote Jonathan O'Connell in the Fairfield County Weekly.
Not only is the city demanding rent, but the buyout offers on the table are based on the market rate as it was in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble.
The New London Development Corporation, the front organization hired to facilitate the deal on behalf of the private real estate speculator, first addressed the rent issue in a June 2004 letter to residents, proclaiming the alleged debt retroactive "use and occupancy" payments.
"We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case," the agency said. It warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.
The Kelo case is named after Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house in New London with her husband. Kelo was told she would owe around $57,000 in rent.
"I'd leave here broke," Kelo told the weekly. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."
Matt Dery owns four houses on the building site, including the home his 87-year-old mother was born in and still lives in. Dery's past-due rent, according to the city, exceeds $300,000.
It remains to be seen if a suit will be filed against the residents.
"From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," Jeremy Paul, an associate University of Connecticut law dean who teaches property law, told the paper weakly.
é 2005 WorldNetDaily.com