eminent domain 2.0

i read my hometown newspaper - the san diego tribune, online often, to keep abreast of what's happening in the region where the average daily water usage, per person is 180 gallons. the comments on the site's articles are on par with aljazeera and haaretz -- containing nothing informative or constructive, but irrational and subjective ignorance. the comments devolve into a skirmish between right wing nutjobs and their insecure and ill-informed opponents, with the right wingers blaming all the bad occurrences in the region on the "illegal alien problem" and the opposition attempting to one-up the wingers with their own brand of idiocy -- adding vitriol to the fire, instead of either ignoring the ignorance or countering with constructive, rational discourse.

lately i read an interesting story about a problem that could in no way be blamed on poor folks from latin america. the article was on how the latest incarnation of the eminent domain laws were being used in san diego and it's potential effect on the debt riddled city government. you see, san diego is in the middle of a financial crisis, caused by it's perpetually inept city government. the city drained the fund that was to pay it's city employees pensions on god knows what and now has a huge budget deficit, while it attempts to pay the pension with money that should be going to things like fixing it's pothole riddled streets, expanding it's airport or funding it's pathetic public transportation offerings. the scandal earned the city the monicker "enron by the sea."

i read in the tribune one day about a piece of property that starbucks and something like arbys or burger king or something wanted. there was a dry-cleaning business and convenience store already there. the location was just too good for starbucks and the other multinational corp to pass up and the existing businesses weren't generating the kind of tax revenue that the city wanted. so, the city wants to seize the property and give it to starbucks and the other entity.

now, san diego, and/or any/every other locality in the country, wanting to boost their income, now, legally can seize any property it wants. period.

for decades, eminent domain was a tool used by all forms of government, giving itself the right to seize private property from an individual or institution for the benefit of a larger body of citizens. typically, the property would become something like a park, freeway, government building. it could become the bottom of a lake if a dam was created somewhere nearby. recently, the supreme court made a decision on eminent domain that has the potential to change the landscape of this country. in Kelo v. City of New London, the supreme court decided that property could be seized, not just for public works projects that have a tangible benefit for the public, but now property can be seized for the economic benefit of the community. in this particular case, land was seized to become part of a private redevelopment. ownership of the property was transferred from one private owner to another, by the authority of the government. the language used in the case was that the act of seizing land for private redevelopment was for the "public good", even though the public had nothing to do with it. a neighborhood was taken from individual private owners and transferred to pfizer for them to redevelop it into condos, a hotel and more. according to wikipedia, years after pfizer won the case through it's proxy - the local government, the land sits empty.

the comments on this piece were exactly what i would have expected, though i didn't realize just how many members of the john birch society were still alive. there was alot of talk about how eminent domain was some kind of evil socialist plot cooked up by the commies in our government to take away our rights and stuff. while i don't disagree that this use of eminent domain is really bad, i fail to see how socialism plays into it. seizing an individual's property and transferring ownership to a major corporate entity is anything but socialist. in fact, it is the exact opposite of socialism. communists seized property from the businesses and gave it to the workers. a government using eminent domain to increase it's income is also anything but socialist. this ruling has potentially turned local governments into companies, able to increase their revenue at will. this new eminent domain legally entitles localities to collude with corporations in the seizure of property for their mutual benefit, to the detriment of the people.

an interesting part of the ruling is who voted against it - o'connor, scalia, clarence "coke n' pube" thomas, and rehnquist all voted against. these are people who are owned and operated by the pro-business republican party. and the more "liberal" wing voted in favor of the ruling.

it just goes to show you how bizarre the whole thing is.

link | rss | share | posted: 2007-10-21 15:37:05