Court: The rich can buy you.

Posted byWaldo Jaquith 8 Comments on Court: The rich can buy you.

What a terrifying ruling from the SCOTUS today. From the AP:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

This ruling means that anybody who wants to replace existing private property with their own, more valuable private property, may do so. As if — particularly in Virginia — developers were not already sufficiently powerful, now they may force you out of your home in order to replace it with a shopping mall or, a gas station, or just a larger, newer house.

I see from cvilleblogs.com that Charlottesville bloggers have already begun to weigh in on the ruling. Responses are uniformly negative, whether from the left, the right, or somewhere in between. It seems that nothing brings people together like a foolish SCOTUS ruling.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

8 replies on “Court: The rich can buy you.”

  1. Here’s another viewpoint on today’s Supreme Court ruling, from a blogger on dailykos:

    People I know own 1,500 acres of wilderness along a pristine river and want to turn it into a gated golf course community at a profit of about $150 million. The land is habitat for black bears (and dozens of other species) and plays a key role in linking three major black bear refuge areas (that total 30,000 acres) together. Right now, the law says no more than one home per five acres, which means max $10 million in profits, a substantially smaller market to sell to and a significantly riskier venture. (P.S., 1:5 is also way more environmentally degrading, with septic tanks and drain fields, etc., this issue has no clear winners anywhere).

    For years, developers have threatened court cases, they have hired million dollar lawyers to make their threats known and they have made huge contributions to Republican Party candidates up and down the state to get their way. They have almost gotten it — a review of the Future Land Use (FLU) policy is imminent and everyone I know was pretty sure they would prevail in two or three years.

    Now it looks as if they are screwed. Their best bet now will be to sell the land to the state as conservation lands. Their profit (they are speculators, pure and simple) will just about cover their legal costs (ain’t that always the way it works?).
    ——————–

    Sounds to me like this Decision may well be the only good news in the legal history of
    over-development and Sprawl.

    I mean, who would you rather have decision making power, corporate speculators who cannot be influenced by
    activists or local governments who can?

  2. Somebody pointed out to me this afternoon that this could hypothetically flow both ways: local government could seize malls and turn them into parks.

    I’m not holding my breath, but I like the idea. :)

  3. Thanks for the plug, but I don’t think I’m of the “right” any more than I am of the “left.” I’m a libertarian — neither left nor right, but opposing authoritarian action by government in any direction.

    See the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, which uses the Nolan Chart (an alternative to the left/right political spectrum) to help people identify where they stand: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

    :-)

  4. A weigh-in from a CT resident – The ruling scares me. Josh, your glass half-full view is something I hadn’t considered, and if it pans out to the environment’s benefit, than I will be ecstatic. The whole development may be a failure anyway with the nearby Sub base slated for closure and New York looking to open its own casino to compete with Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun.

    That having been said, there is still an evil side to a local political body being able to overrule the rights of a local property owner for something as speculative as commerce and the chance to increase the tax base. This is putting political motivations (fund my campaign Mr. Developer, or “look at me Mrs. Voter, I lowered your taxes”) ahead of the fundamental individual right to own property, a cornerstone of our economy.

    Scary stuff, if you ask me. $$$$ wins over individual rights.

  6. I’m a libertarian — neither left nor right, but opposing authoritarian action by government in any direction.

    Such is the danger of presenting anything as being more simple than it is. Using a conservative/liberal spectrum requires some stretches. But you do identify as a Republican, after all, so I figured “right” wouldn’t be too terrible of an oversimplification.

Comments are closed.