OT: Land Use Decisions (was Re: Request to remove Information)
From: Patrick Wiseman (pwiseman_at_gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:11:38 -0500 To: Debian User Lists <email@example.com>
On 11/19/05, Steve Lamb <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> > This thread is just way out of hand, but if you're speaking of the US
> > Supreme Court's decision in _Kelo v. New London_, you've apparently
> > bought the MSM's spin on it.
> Nope, tend to ignore MSM for the rubbish it is.
OK, then you've bought the right-wing ranters' version of what the Kelo
> All the Court did in that case was
> > reaffirm at least 50 (and arguably 200) years' worth of constitutional
> > law: decisions about land use should be made _locally_ and not be
> > second-guessed by the 9 probably-out-of-touch folks who happen to sit on
> > the US Supreme Court.
> That's the excuse given which doesn't hold water because even local law
> officals are beholden to the Constitution. I'm sorry but the phrase "nor
> shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
> hard to mangle into "Taking property from one private individual and
> giving it
> to another individual because they would generate more tax revenue" based
> the notion of "decisions about land use should be made locally".
Have you read the Kelo decision? Apparently not. The Court made it
abundantly clear that taking property from one private owner and giving it
to another would violate the "public use" limitation (if that's what it is -
textual analysis could go either way) of the Takings Clause, and that that
is NOT what happened in New London. And it's not. The "taking" was part of a
comprehensive land-use development.
> Whether what happened in New London was bad
> > _policy_ (something I'll not argue) it violated no constitutional>
> Bull. Protections against private property are very much the core of
> constitutional principle and that was grossly violated.
Bull back at you, if that's the level on which you wish to conduct the
discussion. The constitution _explicitly_ contemplates that private property
_may_ be taken for public use upon payment of just compensation (i.e. fair
market value). Who should make the decision whether exercise of the eminent
domain power is appropriate?
> I thought libertarians - and I had the impression you, Mr.
> > Lamb, consider yourself one - preferred local to national decision
> > making.
> I do. But I do not believe "local decision making" trumps one's right to
> personal property. Why? Because that's as local as you can get. It's is
> *my* land and *I* decide whether to sell it or not. The local "planning
> board" is one step removed from the most local authority of that land, the
So the owner can simply deny government's right to exercise the power of
eminent domain? The constitution (the US one that is, sorry to be parochial
on this international list) specifically provides otherwise. You're no
libertarian; you're an anarchist! (So be it - I'm not riding a horse here,
just clarifying constitutional doctrine, and the US Constitution is not an
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com