A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The problem is that conservatives value the protection of property rights over urban renewal. It is not just the monetary value, but the value of the right as well.

Ah, it's fun to watch the screw turn sometimes.

Remember, conservativism today is big government conservatism, not the libertarian conservatism that was hip back in the 80s, or the snooty upper-class conservatism of the 50s. Ty is hearkening back to 50s conservatives "cleaning out the slums" and you're hearkening back to President Marlboro Man.

Today, it's all about what big goverment can do for the Friends of George. Property rights? That what the Repubs advocate for Iraq. Otherwise, get the little guys out of the way of progress.

And, Ty, I wouldn't buy that a private development will necessarily have sufficient public benefits as described. Remember, I'm the kind of guy who questions whether a sports stadium meets the test (though, of course, I'd concede an Art Museum will almost always meet the test). I just have real questions about whether a few condos and a Dunkin Donuts get you there.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You forgot hookers

That's what the retraining programs are all about.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're getting compensated for the market value of your property -- fairly, let's suppose -- and for things like relocation, what about the property right isn't being protected? Your argument is circular: Why do you oppose urban renewal in this case? Because you want to protect property rights. What's to the property right if someone is compensated? It's the right not to have your property taken for urban renewal.

You're back to absolutes.

I'm talking about a balancing test. If the call is close, I'd rule against emminent domain. I think the power should be used sparingly and with caution, because it impinges on other rights.

The government cannot demand whatever I have based on their willingness to pay me fair market value. I have no doubt that putting my Tom Seaver rookie card in a sports museum would have public benefit, but I do not believe government should be able to force me to do it. Do you?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If this is just a squabble about whether, as a practical matter, governments pay people enough as compensation for takings, I'll agree that they probably don't.

It's not. That's a different issue. Issue here is, our country (through the Constitution) professes a higher degree of attention to the value of the individual over the group than other countries have historically embraced. One of the touchstones of that concept lies in our right, over the right of our limited government, to retain our property. We allow, as an extreme exception, our government to take some things from us (with compensation) only on a rather high showing of public need. Not just benefit, but need. (I'm speaking of tradition here, not recent jurisprudence.)

Lately, it's degenerated to "benefit". Kelo is the best recent attempt to wind this "group over individual" attitude back.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're back to absolutes.

I'm talking about a balancing test. If the call is close, I'd rule against emminent domain. I think the power should be used sparingly and with caution, because it impinges on other rights.

The government cannot demand whatever I have based on their willingness to pay me fair market value. I have no doubt that putting my Tom Seaver rookie card in a sports museum would have public benefit, but I do not believe government should be able to force me to do it. Do you?

I was responding to club with that post, not you.

I agree that eminent domain should be used sparingly, and I suspect that it is, because property is expensive, and government budgets are the subject of much, um, attention.

On your Tom Seaver hypo, given your premises, I disagree: the government should be able to force you to do it, but must compensate you for it. I want to fight the premise that there is a public benefit, but it's your hypo. And I tend to think that any minimal public benefit will not exceed the government's cost to compensate you, suggesting that a rational government will not do that sort of thing.

Suppose that the government wants to have rail service between Middletown and Murphysville, and there's no rail line there now. In fact, all the property on the possible routes is owned by a variety of private parties. Suppose that the value of having a rail link is clear -- it's too short for air service, the roads are jammed, etc. And suppose that the government concludes that the most efficient way to get this line built and running is to let private companies bid to build, own and operate it. Is exercising the power of eminent domain in this case not permitted because the government is going to sell the land to a private party? Does the Constitution require the government to own and/or operate the rail line itself to get this done? Because that seems a little odd, and it seems particularly odd that anti-government, pro-privatization advocates like club would by the people forcing this principle on us.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's not. That's a different issue. Issue here is, our country (through the Constitution) professes a higher degree of attention to the value of the individual over the group than other countries have historically embraced. One of the touchstones of that concept lies in our right, over the right of our limited government, to retain our property. We allow, as an extreme exception, our government to take some things from us (with compensation) only on a rather high showing of public need. Not just benefit, but need. (I'm speaking of tradition here, not recent jurisprudence.)

Lately, it's degenerated to "benefit". Kelo is the best recent attempt to wind this "group over individual" attitude back.

I don't understand where you disagree with me as a question of constitutional principle, particularly because this distinction between "benefit" and "need" sounds formalist and elusive. I suggest that the concern you raise should not be imported into the constitution through Scalia-like judicial activism, but should inform when legislatures actually exercise the powers they have.

And what's your answer to the rail hypo I just spun to G3?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't understand where you disagree with me as a question of constitutional principle, particularly because this distinction between "benefit" and "need" sounds formalist and elusive.

It really is. those are the words that have become the trigger words, but I don't think they really work well. What is at issue is the idea that it should be really, really hard for our government to take something away from me. Government should have to meet an incredibly high burden in order to do so, a burden that almost amounts to "we, the entire community, must absolutely have this in order to maintain our way of life, and there is no other way to do this without John's back yard." But, "need" and "benefit" fit into court opinions better than all of that.

I suggest that the concern you raise should not be imported into the constitution through Scalia-like judicial activism, but should inform when legislatures actually exercise the powers they have.

I think that this concept was historically "found" in the Constitution, and it is only more recent caselaw that has allowed the takings to expand in scope and ease.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
since most conservatives are in favor of things like urban renewal.

not gov't-financed urban renewal.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not bothering to stp here, but I think much of the objection to what he said is that he wasn't speaking "as an academic." He was speaking as the President of Harvard. If he hadn't been the President of Harvard, no one would have invited him, as an economist, even a distinguished economist and former Treasury Secretary, to address a conference about those issues in the sort of off-the-cuff way that he did.

A fair point. It's a bit like having the attorney general, or the head of the FTC, or SEC, preface remarks with "these are my own and don't necessarily represent the views of hte agency." yeah, right.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're getting compensated for the market value of your property -- fairly, let's suppose -- and for things like relocation, what about the property right isn't being protected? Your argument is circular: Why do you oppose urban renewal in this case? Because you want to protect property rights. What's to the property right if someone is compensated? It's the right not to have your property taken for urban renewal.

It's the right to control disposition, which has long been recognized as having some value. Bear in mind that property is unique, and is recognized as such. One can't breach a contract for sale of property and pay merely damages to escape (well, if the damages are high enough to settle the case you can).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A fair point. It's a bit like having the attorney general, or the head of the FTC, or SEC, preface remarks with "these are my own and don't necessarily represent the views of hte agency." yeah, right.

No, no. I'll try to find the article, but he made a big point, before he would accept the invitation, about what he would be representing. He was specifically NOT speaking for the school.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suppose that the government wants to have rail service between Middletown and Murphysville, and there's no rail line there now. In fact, all the property on the possible routes is owned by a variety of private parties. Suppose that the value of having a rail link is clear -- it's too short for air service, the roads are jammed, etc. And suppose that the government concludes that the most efficient way to get this line built and running is to let private companies bid to build, own and operate it. Is exercising the power of eminent domain in this case not permitted because the government is going to sell the land to a private party? Does the Constitution require the government to own and/or operate the rail line itself to get this done? Because that seems a little odd, and it seems particularly odd that anti-government, pro-privatization advocates like club would by the people forcing this principle on us.

My objections stem from the extremely high value I place on property rights, mainly because property rights are our greatest check on government power. The only thing worse than the government taking my property is the government taking my property and giving it to someone else.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, no. I'll try to find the article, but he made a big point, before he would accept the invitation, about what he would be representing. He was specifically NOT speaking for the school.

I understand what he said (or may have said). But my point (and Ty's) is that that doesn't matter. He is the president of Harvard, and even if he says he's not, or he's not acting in that capacity, people will still recognize that he is, at the end of the speech, the president of Harvard, and holds the views he just expressed on his own behalf. And if those views are cause for concern, they are even more so if held by the president of harvard (if it weren't such a second-rate institution)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My objections stem from the extremely high value I place on property rights, mainly because property rights are our greatest check on government power. The only thing worse than the government taking my property is the government taking my property and giving it to someone else.

I think that's more offensive, but I'm not sure it's worse. The soviet union just took property--not such a good result either.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're getting compensated for the market value of your property -- fairly, let's suppose -- and for things like relocation, what about the property right isn't being protected? Your argument is circular: Why do you oppose urban renewal in this case? Because you want to protect property rights. What's to the property right if someone is compensated? It's the right not to have your property taken for urban renewal.

You are only being compensated for the value of the property, you are not being compensated for the right to control the property. The right to control the property has value and is separate and distinct from the value of the property itself.

Think about it in terms of economic value and dispositive value of property placed in trust.