4 ms·

It would be tricky in more densely populated areas, thanks to the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London. "The local government thinks they'll get more economic

It would be tricky in more densely populated areas, thanks to the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London. "The local government thinks they'll get more economic activity from someone else" is a valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason. It works in more rural places because, frankly, it's generally not worth the trouble of litigation there.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason The reason is: (1) eminent domain isn't Constitutionally limited in purpose beyond that it must be a public purpose. (2) State governments under the US Constitution have general police powers, so any purpose they aren't expressly Constitutionally forbidden to pursue is a valid public purpose, as distinct from the federal government being one of granted powers where there must be a specific Constitutional basis for it pursuing a purpose for it to be valid. (3) Seeking revenue is not a thing prohibited to the states by the Federal Constitution. (4) Under the federal Constitution, subordinate entities within states don't have distinct powers from states; if they are limited, that is a matter of state law, not the federal Constitution. EDIT: Also, note also that some states do Constitutionally restrict the purposes of eminent domain, or have state laws limiting local use of it, some, IIRC, in Constitutional provisions that were proposed and passed directly in response to Kelo, so that what happened there would not be allowed.
- voxic11 4y ago
  How is using property to profit private business "for public use"? > "[the decision eliminates] any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." > "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > How is using property to profit private business “for public use”? Because, as the Supreme Court has consistently held since interpreting the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply the 5th Amendment’s protections against the states in the first place (without which, the issue would be moot since absent such application there would be no federal constraint at all) use in which the state action is pursuing a legitimate public purpose has been held to be a “public use”. Which presumably you already know, because surely you read the majority opinion in Kelo in the course of locating and quoting (without attribution) O’Connor’s dissent.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
silon42 4y ago
they don't have to use eminent domain, adding/increasing property tax is enough.
- sgtnoodle 4y ago
  I can't imagine that would actually work if the political system isn't completely corrupt.
Semiapies 4y ago
Some states have set up more restrictive eminent domain laws since that ruling.
ROTMetro 4y ago
As someone who lives in a county with National Forests, this is a huge issue. Originally the deal was the Feds could have national forests, but make up for missing property tax/economic activity with logging grants, mineral right grants, and paying a portion of the money the feds made from that to the local community. Then for environmental reasons the feds just stopped allowing anything on the land and paying what they promised AND killed all those local community jobs. Double whammy. Personally I think the Feds should have to sell all the national forests now since they did not keep to the promises they made, or at least renegotiate with the local community. But unlike when these deals were made, the USA is now a Federal system without any state rights power, so we just try to keep the roof from leaking on our school and vote to increase our own taxes to educate kids. Meanwhile people talk trash about rundown rural communities and all the unemployed millworkers/miners that turned to drugs when they lost their job opportunities and ignore that the entire country broke it's promise to those people. Imagine the weight of the country choosing to break a promise and ruin you while making fun of your rundown ignorant small town po-dunk life, an ant crushed with no-power to do a thing about it. Lumber is through the roof, yet the mills are all closing. Because the country hates you, your way of life, and TOOK all of the land and locked it up even though it promised not to do that when it took the land.
- cactacea 4y ago
  I've spent the majority of my life living in rural areas. I've also spent a ton of time on public land in just about every state west of the Mississippi. The lack of historical context and understanding of the economics of resource extraction here is staggering. 1 - Guess who the land belonged to before the federal government? It wasn't the states. I reject your assertion that localities are even entitled to a say here beyond the federal democratic process. Almost all of the land in question was open to claim at one point - nobody did so and ownership was retained by the government. 2 - It's absolutely laughable to say that they "just stopped allowing anything on the land". In certain areas maybe but as a blanket statement that's absolutely incorrect. As a personal anecdote, one of my favorite spots to pick berries in western WA was clear cut just this past summer. I'll never visit that spot again in this lifetime. But hey, someone got paid a couple of bucks so I guess that's a net positive for the country. Don't even get me started about cattle ranchers and the damage they've done. 3 - Those jobs were based on extracting a resource that didn't belong to them and that takes decades to recover, if ever. Why should the rest of us let (in your words) some po-dunk town clear cut everything in sight when the rest of us can make our living without destroying everything from sea to shining sea? 4 - Should we help them out now that the economics have changed? Sure, absolutely, totally support that. However economies built on resource extraction have never been sustainable long-term, what's the point in doubling down on what already failed? I also disagree with your supposition that federal restrictions is what hollowed out these towns, the fundamental economics of resource extraction is why they've failed to be sustainable over the long term. 5 - I actually agree with you on one thing at least: put all it up for sale at a fair price. All national forests, all BLM land - everything that isn't wilderness or a national park. While the cattle ranchers, miners, and loggers will get a bit I can guarantee that conservationists will buy more. Leases are a sweetheart deal to extractors and always have been. Why should they buy what they can lease for basically nothing? The extractors would fight your proposal harder than anyone else.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason The reason is: (1) eminent domain isn't Constitutionally limited in purpose beyond that it must be a public purpose. (2) State governments under the US Constitution have general police powers, so any purpose they aren't expressly Constitutionally forbidden to pursue is a valid public purpose, as distinct from the federal government being one of granted powers where there must be a specific Constitutional basis for it pursuing a purpose for it to be valid. (3) Seeking revenue is not a thing prohibited to the states by the Federal Constitution. (4) Under the federal Constitution, subordinate entities within states don't have distinct powers from states; if they are limited, that is a matter of state law, not the federal Constitution. EDIT: Also, note also that some states do Constitutionally restrict the purposes of eminent domain, or have state laws limiting local use of it, some, IIRC, in Constitutional provisions that were proposed and passed directly in response to Kelo, so that what happened there would not be allowed.

voxic11 4y ago
How is using property to profit private business "for public use"? > "[the decision eliminates] any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." > "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > How is using property to profit private business “for public use”? Because, as the Supreme Court has consistently held since interpreting the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply the 5th Amendment’s protections against the states in the first place (without which, the issue would be moot since absent such application there would be no federal constraint at all) use in which the state action is pursuing a legitimate public purpose has been held to be a “public use”. Which presumably you already know, because surely you read the majority opinion in Kelo in the course of locating and quoting (without attribution) O’Connor’s dissent.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

silon42 4y ago

they don't have to use eminent domain, adding/increasing property tax is enough.

sgtnoodle 4y ago
I can't imagine that would actually work if the political system isn't completely corrupt.

Semiapies 4y ago

Some states have set up more restrictive eminent domain laws since that ruling.

ROTMetro 4y ago

As someone who lives in a county with National Forests, this is a huge issue. Originally the deal was the Feds could have national forests, but make up for missing property tax/economic activity with logging grants, mineral right grants, and paying a portion of the money the feds made from that to the local community. Then for environmental reasons the feds just stopped allowing anything on the land and paying what they promised AND killed all those local community jobs. Double whammy. Personally I think the Feds should have to sell all the national forests now since they did not keep to the promises they made, or at least renegotiate with the local community. But unlike when these deals were made, the USA is now a Federal system without any state rights power, so we just try to keep the roof from leaking on our school and vote to increase our own taxes to educate kids. Meanwhile people talk trash about rundown rural communities and all the unemployed millworkers/miners that turned to drugs when they lost their job opportunities and ignore that the entire country broke it's promise to those people. Imagine the weight of the country choosing to break a promise and ruin you while making fun of your rundown ignorant small town po-dunk life, an ant crushed with no-power to do a thing about it. Lumber is through the roof, yet the mills are all closing. Because the country hates you, your way of life, and TOOK all of the land and locked it up even though it promised not to do that when it took the land.

cactacea 4y ago
I've spent the majority of my life living in rural areas. I've also spent a ton of time on public land in just about every state west of the Mississippi. The lack of historical context and understanding of the economics of resource extraction here is staggering. 1 - Guess who the land belonged to before the federal government? It wasn't the states. I reject your assertion that localities are even entitled to a say here beyond the federal democratic process. Almost all of the land in question was open to claim at one point - nobody did so and ownership was retained by the government. 2 - It's absolutely laughable to say that they "just stopped allowing anything on the land". In certain areas maybe but as a blanket statement that's absolutely incorrect. As a personal anecdote, one of my favorite spots to pick berries in western WA was clear cut just this past summer. I'll never visit that spot again in this lifetime. But hey, someone got paid a couple of bucks so I guess that's a net positive for the country. Don't even get me started about cattle ranchers and the damage they've done. 3 - Those jobs were based on extracting a resource that didn't belong to them and that takes decades to recover, if ever. Why should the rest of us let (in your words) some po-dunk town clear cut everything in sight when the rest of us can make our living without destroying everything from sea to shining sea? 4 - Should we help them out now that the economics have changed? Sure, absolutely, totally support that. However economies built on resource extraction have never been sustainable long-term, what's the point in doubling down on what already failed? I also disagree with your supposition that federal restrictions is what hollowed out these towns, the fundamental economics of resource extraction is why they've failed to be sustainable over the long term. 5 - I actually agree with you on one thing at least: put all it up for sale at a fair price. All national forests, all BLM land - everything that isn't wilderness or a national park. While the cattle ranchers, miners, and loggers will get a bit I can guarantee that conservationists will buy more. Leases are a sweetheart deal to extractors and always have been. Why should they buy what they can lease for basically nothing? The extractors would fight your proposal harder than anyone else.