The latest round of attacks aimed toward Donald Trump can only reasonably be considered divinely inspired fails.
OMG Donald Trump Supports Eminent Domain!!
[ *NOTE* Watch closely who picks up on this attack approach and you’ll identify an even larger number of the GOPe deceivers than were visible before. ]
Brett Baier interviewed Donald Trump for his Fox News Special Report segment and carried with him a specifically pre-framed angle of attack, an agenda. Baier used the Club for Growth argument (see video: @3:34) for conversation about Eminent Domain.
Of course Eminent Domain is wonderful, it goes without saying.
It is not even a reasonable argument to state otherwise. Eminent Domain is expressly written into the 5th Amendment of the U.S. constitution because without the ability of government to control property use, institute easements and take ownership of land parcels there would be complete chaos. Think about the power grid as an example. How do you get electricity to your home if the municipal government cannot put a power pole in the neighborhood yards? It really is that simple.
Or if you live in the country and build a home and you need to have utilities installed, think about how ridiculous it would be if the neighboring land owner two miles away refused to allow the transferring infrastructure?
Eminent Domain is an essential element of society and life. There is no other option without it. Donald Trump says “eminent domain is wonderful” because it is.
Yet look at how quick the punditry moved to make an issue out of it:
You just have to laugh at the scope of the FAIL.
Now, there is an argument to be made that the Kelo Supreme Court decision, which expanded Eminent Domain to encompass the transfer of property ownership from one private owner to another private owner, is going to far.
In Kelo you enter into the “greater good” argument where the property rights of an individual are compromised by government intervention. Should a property owner lose their property for a developer or business who is putting a manufacturing facility upon it?
That’s a more nuanced argument and should be decided between the interested parties and resolved in local courts if needed.
However, the larger argument of “eminent domain”, where the government can use private property for the benefit of a larger society is not an issue; it is essential. There’s another aspect to “actual property ownership” that revolves around taxation, economic activity, private property “ownership”, and who actually owns real property that is subject to cyclical taxation, but that’s for another day.
Short version “anything that is taxed, while existing in a static economic form, you do not technically own”.
But in their rush to find something, anything, to attack Donald Trump with – Fox News once again shows how absolutely biased they are in their efforts to get rid of Donald Trump and make way for their chosen candidate, Jeb!
"In Kelo you enter into the “greater good” argument where the property rights of an individual are compromised by government intervention."
All that the Kelo decision said was that local governments could take property for commercial use. Since that decision, 42 states have passed laws against taking property for commercial use, thereby voiding Kelo.
All that the Kelo decision said was that local governments could take property for commercial use. Since that decision, 42 states have passed laws against taking property for commercial use, thereby voiding Kelo.
Kelo was wrongly decided and should be reversed by SCOTUS
All that the Kelo decision said was that local governments could take property for commercial use. Since that decision, 42 states have passed laws against taking property for commercial use, thereby voiding Kelo.
Kelo involved an eminent domain taking pursuant to Connecticut state law. The U.S. Supreme Court only had jurisdiction to determine if the taking had violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that over a century of case law confirmed that there was no constitutional violation. The Supreme Court explicitly explained that any state could legislate to restrict its exercise of the takings power.
Kelo at 489-90: (citations omitted)
In affirming the City’s authority to take petitioners’ properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a “public use” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is affirmed.
Sec. 48-6. Time limits for municipal corporations to take real property. Taking of property in neighborhood revitalization zones.(a) Any municipal corporation having the right to purchase real property for its municipal purposes which has, in accordance with its charter or the general statutes, voted to purchase the same shall have power to take or acquire such real property, within the corporate limits of such municipal corporation, and if such municipal corporation cannot agree with any owner upon the amount to be paid for any real property thus taken, it shall proceed in the manner provided by section 48-12 within six months after such vote or such vote shall be void.
(b) In the case of acquisition by a redevelopment agency of real property located in a redevelopment area, except as provided in sections 8-127a, 8-193 and 32-224, the time for acquisition may be extended by the legislative body upon request of the redevelopment agency, provided the owner of the real property consents to such request.
(c) In accordance with the policy established in section 7-603, any municipal corporation may take property which is located within the boundaries of a neighborhood revitalization zone identified in a strategic plan adopted pursuant to sections 7-601 and 7-602. The acquisition of such property shall proceed in the manner provided in sections 8-128 to 8-133, inclusive, and 48-12.
(1949 Rev., S. 7179; 1959, P.A. 152, S. 64; 1961, P.A. 294; 1971, P.A. 198; P.A. 83-587, S. 58, 96; P.A. 91-398, S. 3, 7; P.A. 95-340, S. 5; P.A. 07-141, S. 20.)
History: 1959 act deleted “concerning the condemnation of land for the site of county buildings” following reference to Sec. 48-12, county government having been abolished by the act; 1961 act added reference to powers conferred by the general statutes, imposed six-month deadline for taking action under Sec. 48-12 and specified that unless such action is taken the vote shall be void; 1971 act clarified six-month deadline for taking action by rephrasing provision; P.A. 83-587 made a technical amendment; P.A. 91-398 designated existing language as Subsec. (a), substituted the term “real property” for “real estate” in Subsec. (a) and added Subsec. (b) regarding acquisition by a redevelopment agency of real property located in a redevelopment area; P.A. 95-340 added Subsec. (c) re taking of property located within neighborhood revitalization zones; P.A. 07-141 amended Subsec. (b) to add “except as provided in sections 8-127a, 8-193 and 32-224”, effective June 25, 2007, and applicable to property acquired on or after that date.
Cited. 100 C. 411. Challenge of authority’s decision must be by procedures under Sec. 48-12. 154 C. 446. Cited. 186 C. 229.
Cited. 23 CA 554; 32 CA 611. 6-month time limitation in Subsec. (a) applies only to condemnation proceedings and not to voluntary sales. 94 CA 364. Where referendum question stated that property proposed to be acquired by eminent domain by municipality for a school project would also be used for open space and general government, provisions of section requiring commencement of compensation process within 6 months of referendum apply. 103 CA 369.
Establishment of an airport by a town is clearly one of its municipal purposes and proceedings to condemn for such are brought under this section and Sec. 48-12. 9 CS 317. Cited. 20 CS 422.
