Va. Constitutional Amendment

[BlueStreak]

This cycle we also had a constitutional amendment on the ballot that passed with overwhelming support.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Virginia_Eminent_Domain_Amendment,_Question_1_%282 012%29

It is now illegal for the state to seize property under "eminent domain" purely for private use. From now on, such actions can only take place for public use. I voted for this measure and I am proud of my fellow Virginians for doing so as well.

(This came about because of battles with WalMart, principally, but there were other companies involved. I recall there being news of such battles in California and other states.)

Does your state have similar language in it's constitution?

Dave

[Oerets]

I don't think mine does. Should though.

Wounder if it will be tested at the Supreme Court?

Barney

[d-ray657]

I don't think mine does. Should though.

Wounder if it will be tested at the Supreme Court?

Barney

I would not expect this SCOTUS to take action that would weaken property rights that a state chooses to recognize. The courts generally defer to the states for the definition of property. And this Court has from time to time elevated property rights in relation to others.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

I don't think mine does. Should though.

Wounder if it will be tested at the Supreme Court?

Barney

Oh, I'm sure it will. Nobody threatens to thwart the will of the mighty Walton Dynasty and gets away with it. I'm sure their royal highnesses are throwing infantile temper tantrums and schmoozing Republican suck ups as I type.;)

Regards,
Dave

[ebacon]

Interesting. The crazy uncle at the root of the measure is Pfizer. Pfizer and a private consulting group made a mess out of a town about ten years ago.

Here is the wiki on the Supreme Court case, Velo v. City of New London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[Oerets]

I would not expect this SCOTUS to take action that would weaken property rights that a state chooses to recognize. The courts generally defer to the states for the definition of property. And this Court has from time to time elevated property rights in relation to others.

Regards,

D-Ray

Hope yo are right on this. I just wounder if this new law had anything to do with the SC decision on "eminent domain" and increased revenue for property taxes back a few?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/eminentd.htm





Barney

[BlueStreak]

""And in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, the Court said the government purpose "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.""

It seems the SCOTUS has been involved as Ebacon has posted. And, it appears that Virginia specifically has been instructed to not leave any loopholes. (Not surprising at all.)

Regards,
Dave

[ebacon]

In Kelo v. City of New London the SCOTUS sided with Pfizer. States are trying to legislate around that ruling so that they can control themselves instead of being controlled by nationwide corporations.

It's an incremental battle. The mathematically minded might frustratingly understand it as being a recursive process. :D

[BlueStreak]

Yeah, I read that. So, Pfizer went in, bulldozed the place.....then changed their minds.
You gotta love those people......................

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

I remember Kelo from the time that it was being heard. If I recall, it broke new ground with regard to the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private person to another private entity. Talk about your "activist judges" and legislating from the bench!

John

[icenine]

What about local city government? Does that state law trump city law? Or am I asking a stupid question?

[Boreas]

What about local city government? Does that state law trump city law? Or am I asking a stupid question?

It may vary from state to state, based on the state constitution and the relevant statutes. In the case of Kelo, I seem to recall that the governor attempted to intercede on behalf of the plaintiffs but was unsuccessful.

John

[CarlV]

A city not far from me fought off something like a 1 1/2 square mile wally world in court but that was city vs county. The city won and wally world moved into a deceased dep't store at the nearby mall. Never been in one anywhere.


Carl

[JJIII]

It's an incremental battle. The mathematically minded might frustratingly understand it as being a recursive process. :D


Huh? What did he say?:D

[Charles]

What's more important, individual rights or the common good?

Seems like they pulled this stunt somewhere with the reasoning being that it would enhance the tax base of the community.

Now I would never pull a stunt like this on anyone, and I also maintain that you should be allowed to kill anyone who tries to pull it on you.

But I'm just a stoopid hillbilly who figures that I have the same rights as any other swinging dick.

Starting with the right to be left alone.

Don't like thugs, don't like gangs of thugs...even if they wear a three piece suit.

Chas

[bobabode]

What's more important, individual rights or the common good?

Seems like they pulled this stunt somewhere with the reasoning being that it would enhance the tax base of the community.

Now I would never pull a stunt like this on anyone, and I also maintain that you should be allowed to kill anyone who tries to pull it on you.

But I'm just a stoopid hillbilly who figures that I have the same rights as any other swinging dick.

Starting with the right to be left alone.

Don't like thugs, don't like gangs of thugs...even if they wear a three piece suit.

Chas

Easy, peasy, pumpkin f**king easy. The common good.:D

I dunno about the rest. I like being left alone...

[d-ray657]

What's more important, individual rights or the common good?

Seems like they pulled this stunt somewhere with the reasoning being that it would enhance the tax base of the community.

Now I would never pull a stunt like this on anyone, and I also maintain that you should be allowed to kill anyone who tries to pull it on you.

But I'm just a stoopid hillbilly who figures that I have the same rights as any other swinging dick.

Starting with the right to be left alone.

Don't like thugs, don't like gangs of thugs...even if they wear a three piece suit.

Chas

We just have to be sure that we don't get the common good mixed up with the commercial good.

Regards,

D-Ray

[ebacon]

We just have to be sure that we don't get the common good mixed up with the commercial good.

Regards,

D-Ray

And therein lies the difficulty of the issue. In the case of Velo the argument was that more jobs benefit the common good. In hindsight the jobs never came and the quaint town ended up with an empty waterfront office complex where there once was a poor community.

Where there once was a graham cracker there is now a giant hollow shit cake made of steel and mirrored glass. Oh yeah, the town can make jobs by tearing it down. A Sisyphean task if there ever was one.

We have a similar billion dollar concrete turd that sits vacant between Romney's old Bloomfield Hills and the City of Pontiac of Silverdome fame.

The situations remind me of the last line of the Wealth of Nations doggerel:
And nothing could be added more.

Frustrating. And yet we have people that say the Federal Reserve, consumer credit, and government spending are what made us great. That thinking ignores the corollary -- anything that can make great can also make a great big mess.

[Boreas]

And therein lies the difficulty of the issue. In the case of Velo the argument was that more jobs benefit the common good.

Just another case of the Right looking out for us by looking out for the Job Creators.

John

[ebacon]

Just another case of the Right looking out for us by looking out for the Job Creators.

John

And another case of the right ignoring the fact that not all work is necessarily good work.

FFS. Pfizer. As if the US market was demanding, to use the economists favorite lie word, more penis pills.