Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I guess my view (as a matter of policy, not of law) is that takings should be severely limited. Your talking about massive disruption of many peoples' lives when you condemn a neighborhood. Also, FMV doesn't compensate for the emotional attachment people have for their homes, not to mention moving costs, etc. And I don't want the gov't taking my house to build the Monorail.

Even if it's a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
you've got part of me. It was rightly decided, in light of Midkiff. Midkiff, which I haven't considered since law school, is an abomination. Even more of one than Kelo. Pure transfer under the guise of "public use". If you can do that, there really are no limits to the takings clause.

I don't know that case, but I think the result in Kelo is the right one. It seems silly to say that a "public use" is only one where the government owns and manages the property going forward. Rational-basis review applies to other laws that legislatures pass. I agree that compensation may not suffice as a practical matter, so let's pass a law to hike it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why?

There's no dispute that if the government wanted to seize the property at issue in order to build a road, or a government owned-building, there'd be no problem here. The thing that makes it controversial is that the government is taking the land in order to develop it through a private developer. If that's not permitted, then the Takings Clause bars the government from taking land to build a road if it intends to auction the land to a private entity to build and manage a toll road, but not if the government wants to build and manage the road itself.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not certain. It's the obvious conclusion, and a sensible one. But there may be something more. I suspect that the documents won't help Bolto, but I expect that whatever they say, they will be used in as partisan a manner as anything and used to justify even further delay, without creating actual substantive objection. If that's the case, then there's no point in providing the docs, since the lines are already formed. Might as well push forward.

Calling it partisan isn't quite right, since I don't think the filibuster would stand if it didn't have some GOP support. Moderate Republicans don't like Bolton, and the most damaging testimony against him came from Republicans.

I don't see how a filibuster could be sustained once the documents are forked over, after all that's been said.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
[1]Calling it partisan isn't quite right, since I don't think the filibuster would stand if it didn't have some GOP support.[2] Moderate Republicans don't like Bolton, and the most damaging testimony against him came from Republicans.

I don't see how a filibuster could be sustained once the documents are forked over, after all that's been said.

1) You need to count the numbers

2) That's true, so he might not win a vote in the end. But was it damaging because of what it was, or because of who said it?

3) The support would be undermined, I agree. I'm speculating on motivation, but I would turn them over for the reason that it would undermine any opposition. But if I knew what I were talking about, I might be in the white house or on tv.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I guess my view (as a matter of policy, not of law) is that takings should be severely limited. Your talking about massive disruption of many peoples' lives when you condemn a neighborhood. Also, FMV doesn't compensate for the emotional attachment people have for their homes, not to mention moving costs, etc. And I don't want the gov't taking my house to build the Monorail.

OK, but none of that goes to the particular issue in Kelo. If the decision had gone the other way, the government could still take your house to build the Monorail, but only if it was government-owned and operated. Penske will tell you that a privatized monorail would be better and cheaper (spree: sound). And the endowment effect tends to prevent government from taking people's property. I tend to agree that FMV isn't enough, but the remedy is to pass a law giving, e.g., 125% of FMV.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) You need to count the numbers

You're right. I didn't mean what I said. I meant that there is significant GOP opposition to Bolton.

2) That's true, so he might not win a vote in the end. But was it damaging because of what it was, or because of who said it?

Both. Had the criticism come from Democrats, it would have discounted. Also, there's behind-the-scenes opposition from key Republicans (e.g., Colin Powell).

3) The support would be undermined, I agree. I'm speculating on motivation, but I would turn them over for the reason that it would undermine any opposition. But if I knew what I were talking about, I might be in the white house or on tv.

2.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, but none of that goes to the particular issue in Kelo. If the decision had gone the other way, the government could still take your house to build the Monorail, but only if it was government-owned and operated. Penske will tell you that a privatized monorail would be better and cheaper (spree: sound). And the endowment effect tends to prevent government from taking people's property. I tend to agree that FMV isn't enough, but the remedy is to pass a law giving, e.g., 125% of FMV.

I think it gives too much power to private developers, who tend to dominate local governments already.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think it gives too much power to private developers, who tend to dominate local governments already.

Ever repped a developer? Lower life forms are hard to find.

Every scumbag developer from here to Alaska will now donate pissloads of cash to the local degenerates on the planning board to get the local govt to force a taking on some folks who don't want to sell a prime piece of land. The SCOTUS standard that the taking must be for local community betterment is easily met. Any scumbag planning board can decide a development is in the "community interest."

Excellent decision. Put the stupidest and most corrupt people on the planet in charge of deciding when private property may be taken.

This is what happens when idiots who've spent their lives in law books and never worked in reality get to decide such issues.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because you don't think economic redevelopment is a "public use," or because you don't think much of this particular project?

This particular project bugs me, though having read the opinion, it seems consistent with prior SCOTUS rulings on the matter. There's something distasteful about tearing down someone's house to be Pfizer's parking lot.

ETA: I live in a recently regentrified neighborhood. I'm sure our tax base has gone up considerably in the last 20 years, and my yuppie ass being here doesn't help matters, but the neighborhood character is slowly eroding to the point that it's unrecognizable to long-time residents and lovely old homes are torn down on a regular basis to build expensive, modern, compact townhomes. The developers have it easy enough to make things into their own corporate image as it is without this decision.

OTOH, I was reading about plans in Freeport, Texas to build a marina on the Old Brazos River. Freeport, Texas is a cesspool with absolutely nothing to recommend it. They're trying to inject some life into the town, but what if it fails? It's certainly not guaranteed to be of any use to anyone to have empty hotels sitting on a waterfront that no one uses.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The SCOTUS standard that the taking must be for local community betterment is easily met. Any scumbag planning board can decide a development is in the "community interest."

You don't seem to be talking about Kennedy's concurrence, which specifically addresses the circumstances in which a local government looks like it's acting at the behest of a specific private party. Kennedy lists reasons why those concerns did not apply here. I think I quoted those paragraphs of his decision a few days ago. Since the decision was 5-4, I think it's safe to say that his concurrence can't be ignored.

If local governments are making bad decisions, the remedy is to elect better local governments, not to interpret the Constitution to prevent them from acting at all.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/..._trade_studies



Once again, the Bush Admin sponsors a report, then suppresses it because the findings are unfavorable to Bush policies.

The problem with this whole CAFTA thing is that the administration has let the protectionist Dems frame the argument. Whatever the workers situation is in Central America CAFTA will improve it. If there is more demand for Central American products that will improve the workers bargaining position and will improve their income. If you are concerned about the working conditions in central america CAFTA is the best way to help those workers. If you are going to try and make it so workers in Central America are on the same playing field with American workers that will never happen. The Unions have inserted that idea because they know that "parity" is impossible to achieve. Lowering trade barriers between countrys is beneficial for both countrys. CAFTA should be about lowering tariffs and other barriers period. All this workers and environmental stuff is just side arguments to give protections a reason not to vote for it. There is no way to say that you believe in free trade and are against CAFTA.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If local governments are making bad decisions, the remedy is to elect better local governments, not to interpret the Constitution to prevent them from acting at all.

You know I love you like a brother, but that's an insane statement that renders the constitution nugatory in all respects.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The problem with this whole CAFTA thing is that the administration has let the protectionist Dems frame the argument. Whatever the workers situation is in Central America CAFTA will improve it. If there is more demand for Central American products that will improve the workers bargaining position and will improve their income. If you are concerned about the working conditions in central america CAFTA is the best way to help those workers. If you are going to try and make it so workers in Central America are on the same playing field with American workers that will never happen. The Unions have inserted that idea because they know that "parity" is impossible to achieve. Lowering trade barriers between countrys is beneficial for both countrys. CAFTA should be about lowering tariffs and other barriers period. All this workers and environmental stuff is just side arguments to give protections a reason not to vote for it. There is no way to say that you believe in free trade and are against CAFTA.

Why supress the reports?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If local governments are making bad decisions, the remedy is to elect better local governments, not to interpret the Constitution to prevent them from acting at all.

Wheeeeeew, is that rich! Stuck your finger in local politics lately? Think the surface of a urinal in a Basra motel. Now fill that urinal with rat feces. They'll cure cancer before local politics will ever approach anything remotely close to clean or even redeemable.

But what does that matter to the SCOTUS. They are men of academic concerns. Their policies need not acknowledge reality. Its like that line from "Back to School" where Rodney laughs at the teacher - "Where you gonna build that factory? Fantasyland?"