tales of eminent domain, or why Antonin Scalia is my new best friend
It's an odd day when I find myself agreeing with Justice Scalia and a whole host of libertarian property-rights activists.
But such was the case when I read about the recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, which stated that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.
4 Justices dissented - O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas - most unlikely bedmates for I.
Yet, I have to agree with Justice Thomas's statement that eminent domain in the name of urban renewal "has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor".
Because when you think about it, whose definition of blight are we using? Is Vancouver's Chinatown blighted, and therefore a good candidate for urban renewal vis-a-vis the wholesale removal of residents and demolition of family homes? Or what about Watts or Little Tokyo or Boyle Heights or any of these other so-called "depressed communities"?
Is it really increasing the public good when the state orders the demolition of a family-owned corner store to make way for Walmart, no matter how much tax revenue Walmart might generate? (and given our discussions of Proposition 13, it's doubtful even the tax revenue would make up for the loss of community).
God, the more I learn about the law, the more depressed I get.
But such was the case when I read about the recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, which stated that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.
4 Justices dissented - O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas - most unlikely bedmates for I.
Yet, I have to agree with Justice Thomas's statement that eminent domain in the name of urban renewal "has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor".
Because when you think about it, whose definition of blight are we using? Is Vancouver's Chinatown blighted, and therefore a good candidate for urban renewal vis-a-vis the wholesale removal of residents and demolition of family homes? Or what about Watts or Little Tokyo or Boyle Heights or any of these other so-called "depressed communities"?
Is it really increasing the public good when the state orders the demolition of a family-owned corner store to make way for Walmart, no matter how much tax revenue Walmart might generate? (and given our discussions of Proposition 13, it's doubtful even the tax revenue would make up for the loss of community).
God, the more I learn about the law, the more depressed I get.
posted by drunken monkey at 1:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home