Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 24 2019, @04:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the What-about-state's-rights? dept.

Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come?

A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.

The 5-to-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.

Federal courts are often viewed as friendlier than state courts for such property claims. The decision, with all five of the court's conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 24 2019, @05:15AM (19 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @05:15AM (#859258) Journal

    "Eminent domain" has been sorely abused in recent decades. Some cock-bite "developer" promises a few million to a corrupt mayor, and he invokes "eminent domain" to evict thousands of people from their homes. Yeah, a rapid, easy, route to federal courts may put a stop to that nonsense.

    On the other hand, the nay-sayers are right. We may end up with the Supreme Court getting involved in petty little disputes about zoning laws.

    If the threat of a federal case stops some of the corruption and theft, that is good. Corrupt politicians should be smart enough to know there are limits to the theft they can get away with, and start reining themselves in.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by EJ on Monday June 24 2019, @05:24AM (4 children)

    by EJ (2452) on Monday June 24 2019, @05:24AM (#859261)

    Buh..buh..buh..but...Conservatives were in favor of this, so it must be bad.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Monday June 24 2019, @06:09AM (3 children)

      by ilPapa (2366) on Monday June 24 2019, @06:09AM (#859273) Journal

      Buh..buh..buh..but...Conservatives were in favor of this, so it must be bad.

      I guarantee that this law will be used as the conservatives intended: to increase profits for wealthy landowners and screw people who work for a living. Watch and see.

      --
      You are still welcome on my lawn.
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by coolgopher on Monday June 24 2019, @06:11AM

        by coolgopher (1157) on Monday June 24 2019, @06:11AM (#859274)

        Where's the "sad-but-true" mod? :(

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 24 2019, @02:55PM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @02:55PM (#859363) Journal
        What is "this law"? Courts don't create law.
        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday June 24 2019, @05:12PM

          by Pino P (4721) on Monday June 24 2019, @05:12PM (#859410) Journal

          Courts interpret law, and this has the effect of creating law by filling in gaps left intentionally or unintentionally by legislators.

  • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday June 24 2019, @06:11AM (9 children)

    by ilPapa (2366) on Monday June 24 2019, @06:11AM (#859275) Journal

    "Eminent domain" has been sorely abused in recent decades.

    I'll bet you don't feel the same about the federal government using eminent domain to get property to build Trump's nonexistent wall that will never exist.

    --
    You are still welcome on my lawn.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 24 2019, @06:30AM (8 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @06:30AM (#859278) Journal

      Actually - no, I don't. The interstate highways system was an appropriate use of eminent domain. The wall is very much the same thing. It's a huge federal project, with the purpose of improving life for all citizens. Besides which, I'm not sure that eminent domain is being used for the wall. I believe that landowners are being compensated for the use of their land - correct me if I'm wrong. Many landowners welcome the wall, because they can't use their land with hordes of invaders wandering across their land at will. Shut off the flow of invaders, and ranchers can get back to the business of ranching.

      Now, IF, hypothetically, Brian Kolfage were appealing to federal authorities to exercise eminent domain, so that WBTW could PROFIT from building the wall, then I would have a problem with that. That is not the case though. https://webuildthewall.us/ [webuildthewall.us]

      Oh - one additional note. Much of the land that the wall is being built on is ALREADY occupied by inadequate barriers. Six to eight foot high stock fencing, Normandy barriers, and even plain old barbed wire fences already stretch across most of the border. No one respects such easy-to-evade barriers, so a real barrier is being used to replace those.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @08:11AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @08:11AM (#859290)

        FDR effectively grabbed a strip of property all along the border. If I recall correctly, it is 60 feet wide.

        Technically, he didn't take away ownership. He just said that people couldn't build anything there, and that the federal government could use the land for a wall.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @11:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @11:12AM (#859308)

        No one respects such easy-to-evade barriers, so a real barrier is being used to replace those.

        You are so right! I mean a big, beautiful honkin' wall will definitely keep people out!

        Let's make it 20-25 feet tall and 10-15 feet thick, and no one could ever get through. Well, at least not without some serious technology to do so.

        I mean, what could possibly defeat such a formidable barrier? Gosh. Let me think? A ladder.

        Such a wall wouldn't keep out any but the most casual migrants, when ladders can be bought in any hardware store or even built right onsite.

        If you want to keep people out, you need effective solutions that will allow us to identify and repatriate (assuming no asylum claim is made, and most asylum claims are made at regular points of entry anyway) people easily.

        Drones, cameras, sticky little bits with RFID and GPS transmitters on them strewn about and all manner of other technologies would be enormously more effective than a barrier that millenia-old technology can defeat easily.

        A physical wall is just a waste of taxpayer money. If we're going to do it, at least do right. Sigh.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 24 2019, @03:25PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @03:25PM (#859371) Journal

        I believe that landowners are being compensated for the use of their land

        That doesn't demonstrate lack of eminent domain for two reasons. First, by the US Constitution landowners are supposed to be appropriated compensated for use of their land, even in cases of eminent domain. Second, any such use of land is a seizure of the same sort as eminent domain and would be treated similarly by the courts - though that doesn't mean that there's a legal basis for blocking such seizures.

        Oh - one additional note. Much of the land that the wall is being built on is ALREADY occupied by inadequate barriers. Six to eight foot high stock fencing, Normandy barriers, and even plain old barbed wire fences already stretch across most of the border. No one respects such easy-to-evade barriers, so a real barrier is being used to replace those.

        So those people will then be disrespecting real barriers? I suppose it will be educational.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Monday June 24 2019, @04:05PM (3 children)

        by ilPapa (2366) on Monday June 24 2019, @04:05PM (#859385) Journal

        The wall is very much the same thing. It's a huge federal project, with the purpose of improving life for all citizens.

        You might want to ask those citizens, who oppose building a wall in very large majorities (you can check whichever poll you like on your own, but the most support the wall has ever gotten is about 40%).

        Besides which, I'm not sure that eminent domain is being used for the wall.

        If they were to build a wall (they're not) they would have to use eminent domain, because 2/3 of the land across our Southern border is owned privately.

        Brian Kolfage

        You know that Brian Kolfage is a scam-artist, right? He's the guy behind "right-wing news" who was caught posting fake stories on Facebook. He's built 1/2 mile of fence, on private property. Do you think migrants who've traveled thousands of miles can't walk another 1/2 mile? I hope you look into him before you send him money from your disability check.

        --
        You are still welcome on my lawn.
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 24 2019, @04:35PM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @04:35PM (#859396) Journal

          That short stretch of wall is strategically located. There are steep hills to the east and west, with some ridges running north and south below the steep hills, and a nice flat valley at the bottom. That stretch of wall is the stopper in the bottleneck.

          Kolfage is a scam artist? I dunno that - maybe he is. But, he has delivered a wall, where the Army Corps of Engineers said a wall wasn't needed. The "natural barrier" that the engineers pointed at, is now supplemented with a physical barrier that has demonstrably impeded foot traffic in the area.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @07:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @07:01PM (#859464)

            The "natural barrier" that the engineers pointed at, is now supplemented with a physical barrier that has demonstrably impeded foot traffic in the area.

            Now all we need to do is impose tariffs on Mexico (or bomb Mexico City) until they ban ladders and any materials that can be used to construct them, and we'll be all set!

            USA! USA! USA!

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @11:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @11:46PM (#859540)

          He's built 1/2 mile of fence, on private property. Do you think migrants who've traveled thousands of miles can't walk another 1/2 mile?

          If you're blocked by a 1/2 mile fence, and you walk 1/2 mile before you can get by it ... you went the wrong way.

  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday June 24 2019, @07:16AM (3 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Monday June 24 2019, @07:16AM (#859282) Journal

    I RTFA.
    The main complaint from the four dissenters seems to be that this decision requires payment in advance whenever the government exercises eminent domain.
    It's an interesting change, and will likely change the dynamics of fighting a seizure. Can they still seize it if you reject the payment?

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 24 2019, @07:52AM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @07:52AM (#859287) Journal

      I believe that they did so when the railroads were built, and again, when the interstates were built. I suppose that a court might uphold seizure of the property, if a fair price were offered. A price of pennies on the dollar might be rejected, but a fair price probably upheld. That, of course, presumes that eminent domain were valid in the case. Seizing land for a developer's personal gain certainly doesn't qualify.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:15AM (#859590)

        > Seizing land for a developer's personal gain certainly doesn't qualify.

        You know that Trump did this (or tried to) to some low income housing that happened to be where he wanted to build high end stuff.
        Just one of the many reasons that I've disliked Trump for many years (long before he started into politics).

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 24 2019, @03:28PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 24 2019, @03:28PM (#859372) Journal

      Can they still seize it if you reject the payment?

      Why would that change? They didn't make eminent domain illegal after all.