Will the Supreme Court overturn its infamous decision letting developers take your property?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ส.ค. 2024
- Though Susette Kelo’s fight to save her home from her city’s efforts to take it for a private developer ended in 2005, the fight against eminent domain abuse has continued. In today’s show, we revisit that landmark decision and talk about the aftermath and where the biggest eminent domain battles are happening now, from pretextual takings to “common carrier” seizures. We also discuss Eychaner v. Chicago and other signals that the Supreme Court is ready to correct its Kelo errors.
Host: Melanie Hildreth
Guests: IJ Senior Attorneys Robert McNamara and Jeff Rowes
More podcasts: ij.org/podcast...
Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom-directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how-and why-we do what we do.
iTunes: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Google: www.google.com...
Sticher: www.stitcher.c...
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv
Sticher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr
Listening to this it feels like we have a black rock join with Beijing China as legal to proven illegal as treason. trying to take over u.s land from people who've been there with their families for one or two centuries.
I was tax appraiser for the state and not a single appraiser out of the 30 appraisers in the office agreed with it. We all considered it theft.
Kelo was illegal. The town cannot take property and award it to any specific individual. If not used fot any governmental purpose, it must be put up for auction.
that isnt the first case. the first one was in a city on a waterfront and they stole a guys farm to develop it, this was like early 1800s or 1900s, Philadelphia I think. Its in a book of cases on imminent domain.
@@tedphillips2501 thats untrue, its happened before this.
When I was a toddler we had beach front properly in Bremerton Washington the government not sure if it was City County or the state but the took our property through eminent domain claiming they needed it for public use. I'm in my 50's now and the land is still vacant.
So how much did they paid you for your property
They’ve done this frequently in Left - New England States. 20 yrs and Still Vacant.
Sorry for the thieft...
The 5 to 4 desisions. We're the same idiots that said you could marry the same sex, or your mother, father, sister, brother or any combination there of.
@@barrythomas529 why does it bother you who other ppl marry? Priorities....smh
Interresting topic!
Extrapolating that logic, that you must be of a certain value to the city or be expropriated, can lead to the basic foundation of this: "The rights to own property is correlated directly to your net worth rather than being rooted in rights given by the constitution".
Of course, once they stole those lands from Native peoples and murdered them all bets are off. They got the guns, they are capable.
Yup, canada too
Rights are not given by the Constitution....they are *natural, inherent, and Unalienable* BIRTHRIGHTS.
@@sovereignrights LOL. Only if you can protect them.
“Wealth makes right.”
Yup the Kelo case still makes my blood boil. Worst SCOTUS decision in my lifetime. It must be corrected.
@@traewatkins931 the citizens United decision was really bad too but I still maintain Kelo was far worse and more deviating to individual rights.
Worst SCOTUS decision in my lifetime was Bowers v Hardwick in which the Court ruled 5-4 to deny Mr Hardwick due process. It opened my eyes to how biased courts can be to the "lessers". 😡
Truth - the More Laws Passed, the Less Freedom we have.
It’s by Design ppl.
@@edwardmiessner6502 I missed that one. Wow, you’re right that was a horrible 1986 decision. Shocking really.
@@cato451 But that was finally overturned.(Lawrence Vs Texas 2003) But there are loads of "worse cases", apart from Citizens United those creating Qualified Immunity, allowing Civil Asset Forfeiture etc. Worst is just that that impacts YOU most!
If you want to stop or slow down eminent domain make the laws so if they want your land they have to pay you 10 times the current value of the raw land plus any improvements like buildings.
Inflation!!!!
Good luck trying to get that one on the ballot.
Oh no. I want the value of the land to be what I am paying taxes on. Because one problem of 'fair value' is they work like the insurance blue book. This land is only worth $5000 so here is your check and you owe us taxes on the check we are writing. Also you still have to pay off the mortgage with the bank. You say my land is worth $70000. And I owe $20000 on the mortgage, then pay me $95000. The tax price, the clear my name honorably price. And a good fee to move all my things safely because you are not going to wait for me to house hunt and I may need storage for a while.
Current market value, plus 20% of the increased value (if any) over 20 years.
Build a mall on the property and make it worth billions? Well the homeowners who lost their homes, or farmers who lost land, should benefit from that fully. Trump builds a hotel? 20% of the increased value of the land the new hotel sits on with the multimillion dollar suites. Doesn't matter what the reason is. And if they never do anything with it within 5 years, they should be REQUIRED to return it to you at THEIR LOSS for never having done anything. Maybe they knocked down the house .... maybe they didn't. If they did, you can rebuild using the money from the forced sale - if they didn't, you get a free house. This will reduce the number of times it's used illegitimately.
Just put a $100 million lien on your own property.
Most people did not Read the 2005 Supreme Court decision nor fully understand it. The court ruling stated and made it clear that cities can do it IF "JUST compensation" is paid. They did not say if market value or assessed value or a fair price is paid and instead the said "JUST compensation" is paid. "Just Compensation could be 10 times more than fair value or assessed value. It is up to a Jury in a court room to decide what is Just, not the city and not the developer. A city once used eminant domain to take my 2 acre lot to build a new town hall on. They offered me $180k I wanted $220k rather than pay me the $220k I asked for it I had to take them to court. A jury awarded me $480k as JUST compensation for the lot.
see now that makes a ton of sense, I don't think eminent domain is an issue if they are paying out 10x the assessed value. Feel free to seize my land lol
@@Inspectorzinn2very few places offer 10x. Besides, if it’s your property, it’s a different story how many people out there realize it Clarence Thomas was one of the biggest dissenters on this case!
The assessed value is totally artificial for determining property tax rates. It often is far below the current fair market value - in other words, what comparable properties are selling for currently.
I doubt if any eminent domain seizure is going to offer multiples of either the assessed or fair market value.
The eminent domain laws should state that such seizures are allowed ONLY if such an action is the only way to accomplish a necessary governmental project. In your case, they would not have been able to do so, since I highly doubt if your property was the only place they could build the town hall.
Any land taken by Eminent Domain, and nothing has really been used by it in a reasonable time or if the project was abandoned, should be given back to whomever owned it for free.
More like give back with a lot of Interest
This was a clear violation of the founders interest in the eminent domain re-emburse requirement. The State law is another matter. Corporate government entities are evil and should be unconstitutional!!
Since the Highland Clearances was the inspiration for the taking clause I agree. The Justices knew that and made their decision anyways.
Oh, you're just going to LOVE the Great Reset envisioned by the World Economic Forum. "You will own nothing, and you will be happy." Let's go, Brandon!
@@grizzlygrizzle How will corportists profit from that?
Eminent Domain is terrible policy and abuse should be expected. Good job to the state legislatures that did the work we need them to do👍💪❤️!!
Do they want killdozer? Cause this is how you get killdozer.
Killdozer wasn't really killdozer as his aim was only property damage, but you're definitely right, things like this push people over the edge. I don't condone it, but I certainly understand.
@@laser4117 I sort of condone it. I mean, think about it : why do laws exist? To keep people from having to take matters into their own hands. As long as you have rights, and as long as the government functions as it should, you can plea your case and expect a fair resolution. However, when the government abuses its authority and takes away rights people will invariably have to choose between a fight or surrender, and if they choose to fight it tends to be in the firm it would be if there were no rights.
In a perfect world that never should have happened of course, and I don't condone jumping to extremes, but I do understand why a person pushed to an extreme would act and I'd much prefer see someone destroy the property of the evil politicians vs the more common response of resorting to violence against people.
Take school shootings for example. More often than not the vast majority of victims were innocent of any bullying even though bullying is often cited as a major cause. The individual feels defeated by A system that doesn't help them and lashes out. I do not condone the way they lashed out because they are involving innocent and because they are killing, but if they found a way to lash out at the same level as their attackers and only target of the attackers I think I would condone that.
I was rooting for that guy to be honest.
@@Elliandr one of his notable quotes was, “Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things”.
@@glados4765 I understand where you’re coming from, that town certainly did him dirty.
No corporation should be able to take your home or land!
This case should be called Kelo vs. Pfizer, since the city of New London was depending on Pfizer make use of any commercial redevelopment on the Fort Trumbull neighborhood site. The leveled site is still just an empty lot, leveled at a cost of $78 million to New London taxpayers.
Ligit people should be in jail over this
Interesting, considering Pfizer is a big player in The Vax
Yeah, so sad. I believe 60 Minutes did a piece on this, and after all the wrangling, the property seized, family homes demolished NOTHING was ever built so the original intent was never fulfilled.
Who are you? New London City Council was the one trying to make a case it would bring in more tax revenue, regardless of whose rights they stepped on.
There might be an ulterior motive. It's a waterfront property, and now it has too much publicity tied to it for them to develop on it after stealing (spelling is correct) the property. I suspect someone on the city council, but it's only suspicion, not proven. They have motive and means and opportunity. They may have ties to both if not all three parties, New London City Council, New London Development and Pfizer. Again just suspicion. Motive, opportunity and means are present and theft of property (in violation of Amendments 4th, 5th and property rights, "others retained by the people"), a crime has occurred. That the US Supreme Court allowed it, is appalling.
Real estate developed on the property would have brought in premium prices for the waterfront property, but they may have overlooked the fact it has a sewage treatment plant next to it, by euphemistically calling it "waste-water treatment plant". It's possible they could also have moved the sewage treatment plant, and at taxpayer's expense. Reaping more profit for New London Development, and whoever would conspire on New London city council. Again, suspicion, not proven.
@crash6674 I disagree, ill ligit, criminal elements, and evil people, should be in jail over this.
If Politicians and or Judges feared for their lives over these decisions we'd have all of our rights still.
Kelo should be seen as evidence that judges are getting bribes from developers. That's the only reasonable explanation for that decision.
And guess who voted in favor? The beloved Ruth Bader Ginsburg...funny how nobody mentioned Ruth Bader Ginsburg obliterated property rights when she died. Nothing but praise in the media.
@@Inspectorzinn2 youre ignorant (republican .. they go together) ass thinks a single justice decides SC cases? You might want to look at who has been on and controlled the SC for the last few decades
Yeah but judges and lawyers have immunity even when they know they're breaking the law
they do not have immunity from old west justice, first shot on target.
That Supreme Court ruling was idiotic. Let's hope to God this is revisited and repaired.
And guess who voted to steal the land? The beloved Ruth Bader Ginsburg...funny how nobody mentioned Ruth Bader Ginsburg obliterated property rights when she died. Nothing but praise in the media.
we still have the decision that made corporations people... and many others.. that will never be overthrown. Citizens united wont be overthrown.
The main problem I have with this "taking" is that the compensation is almost always not even close to being "just." At a minimum, the owner should be compensated 20% beyond "fair market value" and any tenants should get the equivalent a a month rent for every year they living on the property. If the government (or even a developer) truly "needs" the property, extra payments will be down in the noise. If they are taking it for the heck of it, the extra might inhibit them a bit and will give the owners and tenants a fair shake.
@@JohnVanSickle-mf6ri -- Well, if he get's his friends in government to buy something that doesn't need to be bought, it just your run of the mill corruption. No better or worse than most other corruption and just as illegal.
@@JohnVanSickle-mf6ri Asset forfeiture and eminent domain are already prone to abuse. I'd rather the people abuse it instead of the government.
Please do an analysis on how the federal agency, CDC, overrode private contracts between landlords and renters with a moratorium on evictions. While it was ended by the SC yesterday, it bulldozed property rights during its tenure. Landlords received no compensation for their property while they still had to pay taxes and mortgages on property they were forbidden to control.
Landlords are evil beings.
They deserve no rights.
Think about it think about it.
What " service" do they provide? That's right absolutely none.
@@robertsmith-cj6gl Your idiocy is profound.
@@robertsmith-cj6gl Mao said the same thing during the great leap forward before they drug the landlords outside and executed them. why is it commies always target Land owners first?
@@robertsmith-cj6gl As a landlord - it is hard to know where to start. Properties are built solely because of landlord investors (apartments, duplexes, hotels, etc) and would not exist otherwise. How do we know? Because these properties do exist otherwise - they are called condos. If you do not want to own or cannot afford to own - you still need residence. So, a several thousand year old resolution to this problem is for people who already own property to offer it up for others to live in, in exchange for some funds to pay for the huge expenses of ownership and, if possible, even profit a bit to make up for the loss of use of the money invested in the home, the risk of losing the money or the property (insurance notwithstanding), and so forth. So, to be sure, if you have a home now (rented or not), do you want to receive anything at all for opening up a bedroom or your couch for another resident? If so, why? According to you, you didn't "provide" anything (aside from a safe and habitable residence that you could otherwise sell or use yourself)?
@@robertsmith-cj6gl wrong fool
I've never been fond of the government, but listening to this simply outrages me...I can't even finish it.
The judges that voted in favor of kelo should be removed from the bench as they are clearly corrupted and not serving the people's best interests.
I think they are all gone. Back then it was a 5-4 liberal court and liberals ruled against Kilo. As a liberal myself I was shocked.
It was the conservative side that was right. And now its a 6-3 court conservative so I can't imagine them ruling against a Kilo type case.
I learned from Wickard v. Filburn that lawyers can get the Supreme Court to agree that laws mean the exact opposite of what they say.
Because all of us, including the Supreme Court Justices, are human. My brother can sell ice in Alaska. Anything is possible with the right argument.
@@ladydeerheart1
IMHO, SCOTUS decisions are not humane, so their humanity is not their strong suit. They also have a road map to follow, i.e., The Constitution and all it's Amendments.
They have no excuse, they are bought off like the rest of the Government.
Sounds like Brownback v King to me
The injustice in the world baffles me. The fact SCOTUS does this among many other violations along with random nut jobs gunning down random people instead of gunning down the criminals in government speaks volumes about the societal moral compass.
The awful post-script is that they never even put the stolen land to productive use. They bulldozed her house and the land has sat empty for 16 years now.
There is no law stating a case cannot be fabricated for the sole purpose of having it overturned.
Somebody should get on that.
I finally sold my house because the city allowed investors to use the police to harass me. With less equity gotten than should have. But I managed to sell to a scum investor who wasn't harassing me.
About half of the properties in the neighborhood are Investor owned rentals.
On one occasion the police acted friendly and tried to invite themselves into my home. I asked whether they had a warrant. Every contact by the police was initiated by a lie with no consequences to the investors.
It is coming to the point that we have to use shotgun justice. Legal costs are too expensive to fight.
It will only work if you have millions standing with you. Gotta get those millions to stand up also and at the same time, otherwise it just becomes the "crazy vigilante, conspiracy theorist wacko" in the news...or whatever words they can use to make you look like a horrible person. I swear, they find the ugliest, meanest looking pictures of people (whom they are publicly condemning) to show on the news as well.
I truly believe that's why the ones trying to take guns away (and I'm NOT saying Dem or repub just saying ANY one trying to take guns) would like to see guns out of citizens hands so they don't 💀by shotgun justice!!!
So, in louisiana, I can just go to some rich guy's house and tell him "I am a common carrier pipeline, and I am acquiring your land through the power of iminent domain. Get your crap and get out." Man, talk about a fast track to home ownership.
It's not quite that simple. I suspect that the rich landowner could out last you financially in court.
Whether they change it or not doesn't matter much to people with guns because I'd have to be out of bullets before you get my property...
Back in the 90s Jeep Corporation, or at least whoever was signing off on their executive orders at the time, did this to a neighborhood in north Toledo. And after they insisted that they needed to force homeowners and business owners alike off of this ungodly large swath of land, news began circulating about just how much of that land was left to sit idle. I don't know if any of it has since been developed or how much. But I'm sure that information is available out there for anybody who feels inclined to go looking for it.
@Mark AnthonyYou're welcome. And I hope the lessons learned from that case means that something good can somehow finally come out of the whole fiasco.
Edit: I see what you did there with the "Holy Toledo" schtick. Also, M*A*S*H fan, I'm guessing? 🤣
And they can Profit off selling that land at will.
@@davemi00 Yup. Sounds a bit like legalized fraud, doesn't it?
@@didyasaysomethin2me Legalized criminality is the America way. Can't be more self-evident than lobbying declared legal. And this Supreme Court ruling on commercial eminent domain.
@@wngimageanddesign9546 This whole world is a shit show. I actually envy the few remaining pockets of society that avoid the "civilized" world like the plague.
Isn't this exactly what happened with that guy that made that "killdozer"? I was rooting for that guy to be honest.
The Court is toothless if it has no executive branch to enforce their rulings. This is the most significant news in the past month and barely reported. Recent SCOTUS ruling deeming COVID19 emergency measures unconstitutional where lessee is able to squat without paying lessor has been ignored by the executive branch which further extended the rent moratorium on a federal level. When the Executive no longer enforces rulings and continues to write its own laws, only one effective branch of the government exists.
In another ways the courts will use paperwork order followers with guns who are proven to make up accusations in favor of the corporation and the courts to incarcerate anyone who goes against the paperwork of the courts.
Well put !
It's been that way ever since Andrew Jackson ignored a SCOTUS ruling that he can't deport the eastern Indians to out West and created The Trail of Tears.
Just yesterday the Supremes ruled 6-3 that the CDC went beyond its authority and struck down the "new" moratorium. Biden will probably abide by that one.
Another ruling is the Remain in Mexico case. There the Supremes also ruled 6-3 that Biden couldn't just revoke Trump's policy without a good reason. Watch AMLO tell Biden he won't allow any more migrants heading for the US legally to stay in Mexico until the US INS rules they can come into the US, in other words indefinitely.
@@edwardmiessner6502 That is interesting. This is a flaw in our system. We may not always agree with SCOTUS rulings but they need to be enforced until overturned or else the system can break down. Also, the War Powers Acts need to be revisited and curtailed, in my opinion as a classical liberal.
@CoolChannel Name they do in fact issue orders. They usually hide them in very clever language but in habeas corpus rulings in favor of the petitioner, it's obvious that they issue orders.
Eminent Domain is exactly why the Founding Fathers gave us our inalienable right of owning and bearing arms.
If more people took up arms against illegal seizure such as this, governments would think twice before attempting such ill-begotten tomfoolery.
Eminent Domain is in the Constitution, so their is nothing illegal about it. Keilo is a misinterpretation of the Constitution; but the Supreme Court is the final arbitor. What people don't realise that this s part of a series of cases (this is usually the case) starting in the late '40's when states wanted to impose minimum size requirements for houses. This was partial justified in health and safety, but also justified economically which was the real motivation. With the advent of the building code you should be able to build anything sound structure you want but the judges all live in exclusive areas and they want to keep them that way.
@@kenlieberman4215 The quote from the Fifth Amendment that is applicable: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The key word there is “just”. If the Founders meant that the government could take property carte blanche they would have just wrote “compensation”. But they wrote “just compensation”. Ergo, one could conceivably take “just” to mean agreed upon by both parties, otherwise how “just” can it be?
I posit that this does not affirm eminent domain. In fact, no such term exists in the Constitution. My stance still stands. People need to killdozer when necessary. :)
@@kenlieberman4215 it was used to keep minorities out of white neighbourhoods. They could have often afforded modest homes (as were the norms for white folks as slong as they could openly ban the sales to any non white people). When that did not fly anymore economic discrimination was used.
Due to a lot of real estate speculation, prices went up and the families that had to buy the larger more expenise homes built equity. AND they did get the loans and at better conditions. So a lot of the whtite middle class could make it work, and it served to screw a lot of black folks in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
By then the zoning laws had become self perpetuating. The need to have big homes in order to maintain the VALUE of ones property.
The same with Medicare. Southern Dixiecrats liked populist Medicare for all - if ALL would be restricted to white persons. So they invented the 20 % co pay to make sure to screw black people. Of course also some white folks but never mind. If those were riled up enough with racial ressentment they overlooked that they and black folks had a lot of COMMON ECONOMIC interests.
Your founders did not give you that right. They recognized that it exists as a natural right, independent of the constitution, and created the second amendment in an attempt to prevent your government from infringing on it.
When they are found and executed by patriots maybe the criminals. Will realize
I changed my name to Eminent Domain. So every time a government registers a property to Eminent Domain, it becomes mine!
Noice 👍
Excellent video. IJ is among the most valuable ally of the American people of all non-profits, for profit companies, and government agencies. Is there a single better entity in America (private or public) that pursues the essence of justice better than IJ does?
The lack of housing, the cost of land, is all protected by zoning and seizure for taxes. County's keep land out of the market to keep realestate high and "protect other owners".
Even more reason to have much smaller governments.
And they keep single family zones long after the single family use expiry date. Doing so keeps the cost of housing up so that individuals can't compete with investment houses. They _could_ let existing homeowners convert their houses to three deckers or add accessory units on their property, ya think?
@@edwardmiessner6502 I suspect that's more a case of NIMBYism, or at least the expectation of NIMBYism. Don't want to tick off the voters in that neighborhood by working against the grain.
@@edwardmiessner6502 you mean like Granny Flats?
"A peasant is complaining? Silence yourself madam!" - the Supreme Court
I remember some people wanting to form a “group” for real estate projects aimed solely at the homes of the Justices who voted for that CCP like ruling. One of them had a home kind of in a forested region that had been in his family for generations. They though a hotel would make better use of the land. They probably were not able to get enough small investors to get anywhere with the idea. But it was, and is, a great idea. Think of the revenue and jobs that would generate from a 15+story hotel in the Hamptons?
Too many people believe Kelo was a pro-capitalism decision. It was not. It was a pro-business decision and those two are not the same. Property rights are a key component of capitalism.
They do this in Las Vegas like a deli cuts meat - it's how they do business! From the neighborhoods destroyed for airport property that actually became the land of retail chains, to the monorail debacle, to the vintage bottle of wine for the assemblyman as a carrot for passing another power rate increase for the power company, because 6 increases in 6 years wasn't enough.
and dont forget the city inspectors that get new rolexes' for putting that purple stamp on a set of plans to be passed.
What prevents the hardware store from picking another site in that town for the store. They still have the finances. The town might end up having a LOT of parks.
It's sad when you realize that eminent domain was originally intended for the military and then only during times of war!
They already let the CDC do it twice and give no repercussions.
This story is very similar to what was going on in the town of Aurora, Illinois.
The city was coaxed , by a casino company, to acquire private property within the city for the purpose of allowing the the "Company" to build a gambling casino in the downtown area. This took place in the early '90's during Mayor David Pierces' administration. Look in to that story.
You use the word coaxed, don't you mean bought?
@@jameshaynie4570
Bought would not have been the term I would use.
Coaxed , would be more appropriate .
The casino sought the city to use the powers of eminent domain to acquire the properties
( private property)at the cities exspence of legal fees," fare market value" demolition cost, exc.... with the promise of tax revenue generated , to the city.
See the casino isn't out any money.
@@phillipthethird42 that is the part that was disclosed to the public. What you dont mention because it is a well kept secret is how much the politicians got paid under the table. The only way to find that out would be a forensic audit of the politicians finances.
@@jameshaynie4570
I agree.
I can tell you what would happen if they tried to take my property through imminent domain so some rich jackwang can have it. They would pay for it IN BLOOD!
no shit right, if i cant have it noone will, thats my way of dealing with them.
A supreme court justice's childhood home was taken for a similar purpose.
Back in 1972 NYC used eminent domain to take 4 city blocks in queens to build a public school. One old lady held out and would not budge. The police came to remove her and she shot and killed one cop and injured another before she was killed herself. I was a teenager when this happened. My mother told me at the time the old lady had cancer and wanted to die in her home. Well she did and took a cop with her. Really sad situation.
As an American i thank GOD for Institute for Justice
This is outrageous !
"The rationale in Kelo was that we're going to take this property and give it to someone richer and the richer person will pay more taxes".
That sounds like Robin Hood in reverse.
I had no idea this was a thing. I knew they could take over property for roads and stuff but had no idea they could take it for "economical reasons"
Citizens united is a pretty crap decision too.
In the mid 2000's, Woodbury, NJ the city declared about 5% of the city as "in need of redevelopment". The hospital which needed to expand was unable to privately buy out the adjacent properties for decades asked to be excluded from the redevelopment plan. The city let them out of the redevelopment plan. Fast forward 10 years and the hospital picked up and moved 10 miles away and officially opened in December 2019 and closed the Woodbury hospital. The hospital had planned this the whole time. Since they were not covered by the redevelopment plan, it will give them flexibility in marketing the property when they sell it. Covid has delayed action on the property for the past two years and the State even refurbed the closed hospital in the spring of 2020 for Covid patients but was never used.
SCOTUS needs a mechanism to be able to pick an issue and ask for expert advice, and change rules. Having to wait for the perfect disaster causes unnecessary delay, and makes for suboptimal revisions.
The court should apply the law, the Supreme Court decision isn't the biggest problem here. It's the legislature's issue, even the constitution can be changed if Congress would actually do its job...
Not that infamous as the government still has to pay the fair market price. Zoning is used more abusivly. I know of a community that zoned a location so the homeowners couldn't improve or maintain their property. Even that is better than forced sterilization without due process which the Supreme Court decided was constitutional.
Not sure of how "expropriation" is different, but In other Anglo-saxon nations it is assumed that the government can "expropriate" your property to use it for a "public good." For example for a road or a school or even a town hall, but right of first refusal goes to the original owner if the government decides it no longer has use for the land. Now that would seem to be the way to remedy this situation in the USA, eminet domain can be used only for the government to take and use land and then it must be offered to the original owners if the government no longer needs it.
Why is a park considered a legitimate public purpose? Government's purpose is to protect our rights, not provide for our recreation.
Unless you are a leftist a fascist a a socialist or a communist who believes everything belongs to all so to nobody really therefore to whoever is in charge like in the USA where the elitists pretty much DO as they DO.
The Supreme Court must overturn Wickard v. Filburn, which states that without government permission, a person can't grow wheat (or any food really) even if it is for his own private consumption, simply because that wheat could conceivably cross state lines.
I live in southold town and it’s the most corrupt township on longisland
Very informative without being political. Much appreciated these days. Thank you.
Individual liberty above all is important.
Agreed, until the individual liberties of two or more people collide.
Let suppose this were to be allowed, regardless of whether one views are against. how should it be done to be fair. One example: assess the current value of all properties in a zone. Suppose that this is $10M. Conduct an auction open to all developers. Possibly divide the zone into lots, so multiple developers are participants. If the money raised is $20M, then each existing owner get 2X the pre-eminent domain value. There could be a requirement that bidding starts at 1.4X or something. Another possibility is also give the former owners first rights to buy at pre-construction price of an appropriate number of units of any condos or something, this could be resold later for additional gain
The firearm issue is an issue where the USSC will not have the luxury to make a "bad" decision.
We all know what happens if they do make a bad decision.
This reminds me of one case of I.D. that was a few years ago. A person bought a piece of property. They looked over ALL of the zoning laws, got all the proper permits, made sure that all their i's were dotted and t's were crossed, and began to build an off-grid home. The place had its own well for water, it had a massive septic tank, with proper field, the place had solar panels and two medium sized windmills. They did not get gas hooked up. The only "on grid" things they had, as it were, was cable internet and satellite TV. The place, otherwise, was purely off-grid when it came to water and power. The power companies in the area bitched heavily because this large home, and the two barns, did NOT have any wires connecting the home or barns to the grid. But the state allows for that, so they couldn't go to the state to force it. So the companies then turned to the CEO's and said they were needing to expand to "make sure the states power needs were met" and, therefore, that the land was needed, HIS land specifically, for another substation to be placed. He fought, refusing to sell, so they got the city to force him out and used Imminent domain to condemn his home claiming it was "blighted", i.e. unlivable. Despite the fact the place was built up to code, in fact, was built to specs even better than the codes required, and the man had, had all the permits and had worked within the law. They took his home from him, did NOT give him fair market value, in fact I think it was condemned by the city and he was trespassed off his own property, he wasn't even allowed to go in and get his personal belongings, and it was bulldozed. If I can find the article again, I'll post it.
But this isn't uncommon I.D. is used, A LOT, to stop people from building off-grid homes, especially when power companies object to the idea of someone being allowed to live off-grid even if the state allows for it.
I live in Connecticut, and Kelo vs New London is still heartbreaking. The city spent $78 million bulldozing the houses and to this day it is a vacant lot.
why would you expect anything different when corrupt democrats control the state......
@@alroth6308 In 2005, the Governor of CT was a Republican!! Jody Reil was in office from 2004 - 2011, and, before that, it was another Republican, John Rowland, who was the Governor of CT from 1995 - 2004! Rowland was your typical corrupt Republican, who resigned from office in 2004 during a corruption investigation, and later pleaded guilty in federal court to a one-count indictment for conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, mail fraud and tax fraud. He ended up serving two nonconsecutive prison terms on various corruption charges.
Nice try though, loser!! LMAO
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodi_Rell
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Rowland
The question is who is the government? Let’s establish that first.
They were not blighted properties as people would use the term, but just a legal designation with no meaning so the city could take the homes.
Its good not only to hear what the PTB have done, but also what they've TRIED to do.
* Powers That Be
My deed specifies that I can use it for any purpose including waste i.e. blight or no use at all.
It should have been called legalized theft of private property. It was not the intent of the founders in spite of the SCOTUS. Legislation
from the bench.
Man, let's hope so. One of the top 10 worst SC decisions.
I grew up in AZ where water is scarce. One of the few families who was there since before it was a territory of the United States had there water taken by eminent domain. A week later their fam was burned.
They can't take your property if you have a land patent
the government can do whatever they want.
Kelo means the government can take whatever they want from whomever they want to take it from, no limits.
And that's now federal law, which supersedes state constitutions.
It is my understand that the US Constitution supercedes State laws only if the US Constitution gives more protection to the individual than the State law does.
@@jwenting That's Right! The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
@@bradleyb3266 The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
@@MountaineeringSense Right, but a case would have to first be fought at the state level. And once it loses then it can be fought at the Federal level where they can overturn the lower courts ruling.
absoutly disgusting decision SCOTUS . It still boggles my mind how SCOTUS could even rule in favor of this.
US government did this to the Bruce Family in Manhattan Beach, CA and they recently got their land back!
I just found this organisation and I am very impressed.
No way USSC is overturning Kelo.
The power of the state isn't ever getting turned back.
A knee on your neck forever.
Keep Pressing!!!
What a scintillating interview!!! Thank you!!!!! I really learned a lot and it was EASY to listen to!
Why didn't they give these property owners the option of keeping their land and opening a business? They could have just rezoned it, right? A percentage of the profits made by the new owner should be part of the moneys paid to the people that have their property taken by imminent domain.
IF A CITY OR COMPANY TRIED TO DO THAT WITH MY PROPERTY I WOULD GO BUY A GOOD RIFLE AND GO HUNTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
New London seized the property and bulldozed the homes. When the property was handed over to the developer, who reneged on the deal. Instead of getting an increase in tax revenue from a strip mall they got a large lot that remained vacant as of 2018, collecting no taxes of any type on the property.
Nicely done, thank you for this information...
Hope this gets turned around...
My boss bought 200+ acres in Utah and it sits right against the sheriff's property, also 200+ acres. The land my boss procured used to be public land and the sheriff used to run his cattle through it. Now that the land has been bought, the sheriff thinks he can still do what he wants on it and has cut the lock to the property gate twice now, and we caught it on a trail cam.
The sheriff, of Panguitch, Garfield county Utah, is already under investigation for multiple things, and in a battle with BLM (Bureau of Land Management), for trying to stake claim to land that obviously isn't his. It was also said that he tried, or did, force a couple citizens off of their land. I guess his family has been part of that town for centuries and thinks he runs things out there, which he kind of does. But more like a dictator.
The sheriff and his deputies harassed us all one night while talking outside of the restaurant we had dinner at, and demanded all of our id's, just because he believes he could. The company color is purple and we have a fleet of purple trucks, so when the sheriff and his deputies see the vehicles in town, they start following us around this tiny town, and keeps an eye on us for whatever reason.
With our company being from Las Vegas, he seems to see our presence there as an encroachment of his town. We are building a firing range on the property and things could get hairy if either side just happens to, whether accidentally or purposely, trespasses while everyone is armed. If he gets ousted because of the investigation on him, I think he will feel like he has nothing to lose and something bad could happen.
The pipeline company was probably planning to sell the abandoned route to someone else.
I remember this case had a strong influence on my suspicion of our government and how far it had strayed from its original mission.
Now the loop around to prevent protection is that counties setup economic development committees and foundation nonprofits overseeing the economic development heavily staffed with attorneys, politicians, and CEOs running these nonprofits. These nonprofits are Paid by the county supervisors with 6 or 7 digit salaries from county funding in addition to state and federal funding. These nonprofits have land zoned for commercial first THEN purchase property from its own members making tens of millions OR the elite TAKE it from a poorer person, zone it commercial , then sell it making millions OR nonprofit takes it thru immanent domain, zone for commercial, then sell for millions. Its impossible to fight these entities they have become too powerful with elite and political influence. County supervisors have passed their responsibility to these nonprofits. They even use rural water federal grant funding on private rural land owned by members utilizing all grant funding instead of using for what it was intended. Then sell it for millions. Its out of hand.
The government should never be allowed to procure property. Sure, I can see them purchasing it from the owner if the owner agrees but that's it
Yep And when these economic development nonprofits that now run counties that have become so political and powerful and they purchase land from elite buds and pay millions, obtain big bond money\grant funding and hire buddy contractors for about a year then the contractors go belly up bankrupt walking away with all the money the "stupid" nonprofit paid them upfront.. And how many times did they do this in my area? Twice with no accountability or payback....they just move on from one buddy to the next and continue their games. They are too powerful now with politicians involved heavily with them due to grant funding. The More layers of nonprofits they have, the more grant funding (double dipping) they get. All these responsibilities need to revert back to county supervisors!!!!! Hell supervisors sit back and do nothing now.... The supervisors let these nonprofits run the county and the supervisors cut 6 digit payroll checks to them from our tax payroll. The nonprofit staff members and board hire their own private subsidiaries or private businesses and pay their own businesses for services paid by the nonprofits boards in which they serve. This is how arrogant they are. Worse than HOAs attitudes.
I had a local Twp use the code officer to harass me for 2 years in court. I beat them dozens of time in court. Then, they got a local crooked judge to take my property in a hearing, where he threatened to have the code officer ticket me daily, if I didn't give them my property. This same judge is being reprimanded by the Judicial Conduct Board currently, for other misdeeds of the same nature. I need to find someone to sue them, in my case.
Great explanation
I can't believe people allow this behavior to go unpunished
Thanks for putting that zoom glitch counter in there. :)
Great job keeping America informed👍👍🥇🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
This was a good one .
The real problem isn't getting rid of bad law, it's that bad law so easily gets passed in the first place.
Wow Melanie is stunning!
My question regarding imminent domain for public use: what the time limit is a government entity required to put the land to use?
Then, if that entity does not use the land for such, who is entitled to own it? For instance, initial owner never wanted to sell property, city takes it. City really took it because a board member wanted the land as cheap as possible AND could not buy it (found out after the fact). I believe the entity should ALWAYS give it back to the previous owners, at a hugely discounted price!!!!
Some people would rather die than allow this, heading to a war
Maybe try turning off the propaganda and go outside. We're not going to war. We disagree. That's not worth killing each other over. At least it hasn't been since the south lost the Civil war.
The more land private companies take away from citizens, the more leverage they have to demand more tax breaks.
We don't need an opportunity to challenge "eminent domain" - it needs to be abolished. Challenging it is just a money grab for lawyers so it's no surprise that's what lawyers advocate. There's no point in having the ability to challenge it when it's going to bankrupt you even if you win.
*** whispering *** The IJ are lawyers.
@@TackleTheWorld I'm glad you got the hint.
@@TackleTheWorld *whispering* Tony knows that.