Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

NEW LONDON HOTEL PANIC

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The first thing one must understand about the Supreme Court and human settlement pattern cases is that no matter how good or bad the initial press coverage makes the case seem, the facts turn out to be different.

The validity of the City of New London action and the court’s opinion depends on whether the municipality, representing the interests of all the citizens, has a well considered Comprehensive Plan that will result in functional human settlement patterns. If it does, these patterns will benefit the entire community and is a public purpose. If not, this taking will continue the agglomeration of dysfunction as so many urban renewal, highway and waterway projects have done in the past.

The second thing to recognize is that almost none of the outlandish things that are predicted to flow from a case like this ever happen. Read some of the gnashing of teeth and dire predictions that followed Euclid v. Ambler, Grand Central, etc.

Let us spend our energy on issues that will improve the life of all citizens like real property tax reform, improving mobility and access and providing affordable and accessible shelter.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    Thanks, EMR.

    After watching some media commentary, perhaps the only real impact will be felt by lobbyists. They’ll have lots of new business in state capitals.

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I am going to eat crow here. I was prepared to say that if it was illegal for the government to sieze property for the purpose taxable development, then it must be equally illegal to prevent development on the basis that development is somehow tax negative.

    The Supreme Court has declared that I am wrong.

    This amounts to an end to private property, and it ought, as a result to bring an end to the outrageous property value increases we have seen in urban areas.

    It is only in urban areas, as EMR has pointed out, that property has such a high value that it is worth it to the government to steal it.

  3. criticallythinking Avatar
    criticallythinking

    The government was not given the right to steal your property. They have to pay for it. You can argue that the process for getting paid appropriately is broken, but that wasn’t part of this court decision. The decision dealt NOT with whether the property owners were getting paid, but only if they could be forced to sell.

    Therefore, the danger here is NOT to people in expensive houses, but rather poor people in cheap houses. Because the court essentially said that the state could take anybody’s property and give it to anyone else so long as it benefitted the “public”, which apparently includes more tax revenue for the government.

    So the government can’t easily take your expensive house and give it to someone else, because it won’t significantly raise taxes. But they can go into a rural community of old run-down houses, rezone for high-density expensive new houses, and force the people to sell, all in the name of the “public good”, meaning more tax revenues. Oh, and maybe they’ll turn part of your farmland into a ball field that you can use if you get a government permit.

    “Public Use” has been amended in the constitution by 5 unelected dictators to now mean “government gain”.

    Clarence Thomas was right in his dissent — The public itself should get use out of the land in order for the government to take it.

    TO interpret this any other way is to suggest that the Supreme Court is actually saying that every dispute over “public good” vs “property rights” should be adjudicated to the Supreme Court where they will carefully consider the two and balance the scales before rendering judgment. The majority suggested that this was their approach.

    But in fact a reading of their ruling shows nothing more than that so long as the council doesn’t specifically take Mr. Brown’s tackle shop and give it to the Home Depot, it’s fine with them.

    Imagine that. Four conservatives protecting the poor, downtrodden common man against the big business interests. And the liberals crushing the dream of property rights for millions of ordinary americans who can no longer feel protected by the Constitution’s clear prohibition against taking of their property for private use.

  4. subpatre Avatar
    subpatre

    Jim and Ray, don’t read too much into the decision by applying logic or common sense. Nowhere did the ruling state that development can be blocked. Heck, they’re much closer to approving mercy killings than they are to blocking a big developer.
    Something along the lines of: “Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a euthanization will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting euthanasia if residents are overly burdened, he said.”

    Anyway, what’s the gripe? For those residing in the grandaddy of all [cough cough] economic development schemes, it may give new meaning to the Old Dominion. 🙂 After 70 years, good Ol’ Virginny, and the special interest group that pushed the idea, finally sees the top court say it did the right thing all along.

    Who was it that said “almost none of the outlandish things that are predicted to flow from a case like this ever happen” As we sow, so shall we reap.

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I concede, steal is too strong a word.

    If I demand your wallet and then pay you the value of the wallet, what would you call it? Like your wallet, the value of your home is more than its cost, because of what is in it.

    My family has lost property to the state, twice, and I can tell you that what was received was a pittance compared to what was lost.

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Critically thinking is right though, there is no telling how this will play out. As it stands now my government prohibits me from building a home because they claim new homes are tax negative. Yet now a new government could be elected and they might decide to condemn the farm, for development!

Leave a Reply

Read More