Look for a lot of strip clubs to close soon, even if they aren't doing anything illegal. Local governmetns now have a new weapon at their disposal. I'm not a lawyer (thank God) but it seems to me that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, which removed local government restrictions on their use of eminent domain, means that any local government can now seize any private property if they don't like the use to which the property is being put. Five liberal judges voted for reducing rights of private property owners, four conservative judges voted against. I don't know about you but I for one am really tired of activist liberal judges rewriting our laws and taking away our freedoms. Little wonder that conservatives keep gaining strength.
parodyman, I think I could say all the same things about government, but governments can arrest and jail you whereas religions have to convince you. Which is the bigger threat?
Oh, and one last thing, most religions are very clear that your salvation is up to you. They may claim that they can instruct you on the best method, but the decision has to be yours. Governments will save you wether you like it or not.
Sorry FONDL: Religous institutions care about perpetuating their growth. They only care about closely guarding the lies that they use to instill fear in common people so that they will join and financially support the institution. Don't count on organized religion to be the savior of the people. This is something people need to do for themselves.
I think the saddest part of this is that it will most definitely have its biggest on the lower class neighborhoods. This will NEVER be applied in the wealthy suburbs or "good" neighborhoods. The property owner must be compensated for "market value", where do you think that is most likely to be profitable for a developer? It is in precisely those poorest neighborhoods where property values are low and the poorest homeowners can afford a house. Once the word gets out that these homes are on some developers wish list, what do you think happens to the market price under the threat of emminent domain seizure? These are the people least likely to be able to afford a better neighborhood or better house being forced to sell at what will likely be a poor price to wealthy developers. These are exactly the people the courts and governments are supposed to protect from predatory developers.
There is a school of thought that teaches the view that court decisions should be driven, whenever possible, by choices that expand the growth of business and private enterprise. If the conflict is between individual property rights or the expansion of business the decision should tilt in favor of business expansion. Books advocating this point of view are presented at seminars for federal judges run by the Federal Judicial Center.
FONDL: Local government in most areas is already corrupt enough to do that if it will put money in the right pockets. They didn't need the supreme court.
BTW, I stilll think that some creative local government somewhere will use this ruling to close strip clubs and put the property to some "better" use. And when they do, others will follow.
Thanks for the clarification, makes sense. I too used to be a traditional small-government/state rights Republican and still hold those beliefs. I am extremely disappointed in what the R's have done with their majority control. I sometimes think we'd be better off if the D's were still in control and the R's could oppose everything.
Neither party represents people like us who think a large central government is the wrong way to go. Sometimes I wonder why I bother to vote. I think the problem is that people who don't believe in an activist government don't run for office, and that everyone who gets elected sooner or later comes to believe that big government is the answer to every problem. I think that's the basic flaw in democracy and will eventually lead to our downfall. But probably not anytime soon. I'm glad I won't be here to see it.
doesn't the federal law supercede state law? I don't understand how a state can have a law that is contrary to what the US constitution supposedly says. I would think that a US Supreme Court ruling would override state constitions.
A state constitution can give more freedoms than the federal constitution, and in that respect will be upheld. Example: The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as permitting capital punishment. However, about twelve states abolish capital punishment in their own Constitutions. Therefore, prosecutors in those states cannot obtain the death penalty, although the federal constitution is OK with it.
A state constitution can grant more freedoms to the people than the federal constitution (such as the right to be free from certain takings of private property), but cannot take away freedoms that are provided for in the U.S. Constitution.
If the direction of liberties went the other way...for example, if the Supreme Court had interpreted the 14th Amendment to forbid the taking of private property for mixed public/private purposes, then the States could not have violated that.
To me, as a traditional "small government" Republican, this ruling is absolutely chilling. I don't understand the advantage, in terms of personal liberties, of having a majority Republican court, if this is the result. I thought that Republicanism/conservatism stood for suspicion of the exercise of government power, and restrictions on same for the benefit of personal liberties.
Chitown, doesn't the federal law supercede state law? I don't understand how a state can have a law that is contrary to what the US constitution supposedly says. I would think that a US Supreme Court ruling would override state constitions.
By the way, this ruling got a whole lot of coverage in my local area because there has been an ongoing fight locally between a farmer who is trying to keep his farm vs. a local town that wanted to take it to build a golf course as part of a proposed recreational center. The farmer recently won the dispute when the leading proponent of the plan moved to another town.
BTW, Chitown, my slur about the legal profession, as you call it, is actually quite factual in my case. I almost went to law school at one point in my life but instead choose graduate school in another field. And I'm really glad I did, I would have hated being a lawyer. The paperwork would have driven me nuts. Much too detail-oriented for me. So when I say thank God I'm not a lawyer I'm being quite accurate, not slurring the profession.
I doubt this would really close strip clubs. Most of them are in out of the way areas or industrial parks. You get away from the center of a big city, and they aren't exactly close to anything tourists would take an interest in. On the other hand, I do know of one that closed because of eminent domain (they wanted to build a freeway exit ramp at that location).
I know of one strip club that was closed in NC so that the city could build a new police station. I don't think it was a coincidence that the location was where the strip club was at. This was years ago so some cities have already been doing this sort of thing. The strip club simply move to a new location.
It seems like strip clubs may be of some public benefit as well so I wonder if anyone has considered that strip clubs may be generating significant tax revenue and churches don't. I doubt this would happen but couldn't a large privately owned adult entertainment complex be located where a church was at and the privately owned church would have to sell at fair market value? Again I doubt this would happen but it seems possible now. It all depends on who is on the city council or your state politicians.
Quote "By the way, this won't have any effect in states that have their own constitutional prohibition against the State taking any property for private use. I know of several in this category."
Do you know of a link or list of those states? I was thinking of writing senators and congressmen to get new laws passed to protect private property but didn't want to if we already have some laws. Is South Carolina and North Carolina on the list?
I do not believe it's fair to compensate someone at fair market value for their property they do not wish to sell. Perhaps twice market value would be fair. The increase would help pay for moving expenses and moving to a less desirable area and possibly much less desirable commutes, traffic, and all other kinds of hassles. I really do not like the thought that now people who run big business can decide oh, let's build a mall here, a strip outlet here, and a hotel here, and just forget about all the neighborhoods and long time citizens living in an area. I understand the community can decide a new highway or public buildings may be necessary at times, however I strongly disagree with this Supreme court decision. I think we need some new laws to protect private property. I don't think it's fair to pay someone existing fair market value for their property and kick them out for a privately owned development.
FONDL: I'll ignore your gratituous slur against my high professional calling, only because I like you and your take on matters concerning our mutual hobby is generally so accurate...
As a writer above said, the opinion held that local governments can take ("condemn") private property for mixed private-public uses, like increasing the tax base through a shopping center development. Before this case, there was a respectable argument that private land could only be taken for solely public uses, like road expansion.
In a marginal way, this might make some strip clubs vulnerable to condemnation, if they are located in run-down, arguably "blighted" areas, and the local government can get a developer to agree to take the parcel of property that a club is on, and develop it for ostensibly more "public-oriented" usages.
By the way, this won't have any effect in states that have their own constitutional prohibition against the State taking any property for private use. I know of several in this category.
FONDL: The story I heard on the news was that local governments could seize property by eminent domain for civic improvements such as road projects, shoping centers(yeah, we need more of those!) and the like. Not simply because they didn't like the way the property was being used.
If this is correct it is a damn shame. Now all of those morraly superior religous types will be able to put preassure on their local governments to close establishments that don't fit their narrow view of what is acceptable.
Abbie, you are exactly right. As George Will says in today's editorial: "The question answered Thursday was: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original owners? The court answered yes."
This is exactly why I fear separating church from government, because religious organizations tend to care more about ordinary people than do governments. When you remove religion from politics, the only god left is money. We've already got too much of that in my opinion. Separation of church and state will make it worse.
20 comments
Latest
Neither party represents people like us who think a large central government is the wrong way to go. Sometimes I wonder why I bother to vote. I think the problem is that people who don't believe in an activist government don't run for office, and that everyone who gets elected sooner or later comes to believe that big government is the answer to every problem. I think that's the basic flaw in democracy and will eventually lead to our downfall. But probably not anytime soon. I'm glad I won't be here to see it.
A state constitution can give more freedoms than the federal constitution, and in that respect will be upheld. Example: The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as permitting capital punishment. However, about twelve states abolish capital punishment in their own Constitutions. Therefore, prosecutors in those states cannot obtain the death penalty, although the federal constitution is OK with it.
A state constitution can grant more freedoms to the people than the federal constitution (such as the right to be free from certain takings of private property), but cannot take away freedoms that are provided for in the U.S. Constitution.
If the direction of liberties went the other way...for example, if the Supreme Court had interpreted the 14th Amendment to forbid the taking of private property for mixed public/private purposes, then the States could not have violated that.
To me, as a traditional "small government" Republican, this ruling is absolutely chilling. I don't understand the advantage, in terms of personal liberties, of having a majority Republican court, if this is the result. I thought that Republicanism/conservatism stood for suspicion of the exercise of government power, and restrictions on same for the benefit of personal liberties.
By the way, this ruling got a whole lot of coverage in my local area because there has been an ongoing fight locally between a farmer who is trying to keep his farm vs. a local town that wanted to take it to build a golf course as part of a proposed recreational center. The farmer recently won the dispute when the leading proponent of the plan moved to another town.
BTW, Chitown, my slur about the legal profession, as you call it, is actually quite factual in my case. I almost went to law school at one point in my life but instead choose graduate school in another field. And I'm really glad I did, I would have hated being a lawyer. The paperwork would have driven me nuts. Much too detail-oriented for me. So when I say thank God I'm not a lawyer I'm being quite accurate, not slurring the profession.
It seems like strip clubs may be of some public benefit as well so I wonder if anyone has considered that strip clubs may be generating significant tax revenue and churches don't. I doubt this would happen but couldn't a large privately owned adult entertainment complex be located where a church was at and the privately owned church would have to sell at fair market value? Again I doubt this would happen but it seems possible now. It all depends on who is on the city council or your state politicians.
Do you know of a link or list of those states? I was thinking of writing senators and congressmen to get new laws passed to protect private property but didn't want to if we already have some laws. Is South Carolina and North Carolina on the list?
I do not believe it's fair to compensate someone at fair market value for their property they do not wish to sell. Perhaps twice market value would be fair. The increase would help pay for moving expenses and moving to a less desirable area and possibly much less desirable commutes, traffic, and all other kinds of hassles. I really do not like the thought that now people who run big business can decide oh, let's build a mall here, a strip outlet here, and a hotel here, and just forget about all the neighborhoods and long time citizens living in an area. I understand the community can decide a new highway or public buildings may be necessary at times, however I strongly disagree with this Supreme court decision. I think we need some new laws to protect private property. I don't think it's fair to pay someone existing fair market value for their property and kick them out for a privately owned development.
As a writer above said, the opinion held that local governments can take ("condemn") private property for mixed private-public uses, like increasing the tax base through a shopping center development. Before this case, there was a respectable argument that private land could only be taken for solely public uses, like road expansion.
In a marginal way, this might make some strip clubs vulnerable to condemnation, if they are located in run-down, arguably "blighted" areas, and the local government can get a developer to agree to take the parcel of property that a club is on, and develop it for ostensibly more "public-oriented" usages.
By the way, this won't have any effect in states that have their own constitutional prohibition against the State taking any property for private use. I know of several in this category.
That's enough law for a Friday afternoon.
This is exactly why I fear separating church from government, because religious organizations tend to care more about ordinary people than do governments. When you remove religion from politics, the only god left is money. We've already got too much of that in my opinion. Separation of church and state will make it worse.