I know some of you hard-cores have made your living by attacking property rights, but it is one area where a progressive like me says enough is enough. I love planning just like the next guy, but sometimes even us progressives need to say no to government.

Stick up for the worker and stick-up for the little guy!!!

Jim one lefty who is proud of his yes on Measrue 37 vote.

The court was right in Kelo? Did I just read that correctly? Tom, are you saying that it is proper for a government agency to take your property to hand it over to another private entity?

I understand the ED argument for essential community needs - schools, roads, etc. But to say that the public good is served by taking property from homeowners to hand over to developers is really not something I would imagine BlueOregonians would get behind.

Since when did government's role include maximizing property taxes by abusing the average American homeowner? Tom, are you a homeowner? And if so, would you be okay if another individual was able to show the city that they could pay more taxes using YOUR property than you can, and thus were kicked out of your home?

The court was right in Kelo? Did I just read that correctly? Tom, are you saying that it is proper for a government agency to take your property to hand it over to another private entity?

I think that in some cases that serves a public purpose. I'm not sure that it did in the case of Kelo. But imagine that Toyota was prepared to build a new assembly plant in the Central Eastside and provide 1000+ famly wage jobs. I think that would serve a public purpose and exercising eminent domain would be appropriate. Not that I would start there, but its a tool that could be used if needed to get the project built.

Ross, I couldn't disagree more.

Of course I understand the value of the scenario you mention, but I just can't see how that makes it okay to take from one private individual to give to another.

To me, the right to remain unharrassed in your home and not forceably evicted (without cause, of course) is one of the most important that we have.

I think Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was correct when she said, "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Again, as I said, it's hard for me to imagine BlueOregonians getting behind the "fat-cat developers" on this one.

Another interesting note, that I happen to agree with: "Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Kelo.....said mere months after the decision that he believes eminent domain for economic development is bad policy and hopes that the country would find a political solution. He said, “I would have opposed it if I were a legislator . . . . My own view is that the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials.”"

Tom, I guess we just need to agree to disagree here. I cannot in any way imagine that ED in the Kelo case correctly constituted "public purpose."

I refuse to believe that the folks that originally envisioned ED thought that the public purpose would be served by taking property from one owner to hand to another, in the name of increasing tax receipts.

In regards to your (correct) statement that if we're unhappy with that then we should pass laws to the contrary - that's exactly what we're seeing in several states across the country. There's been a lot of backlash over this issue.

And I pose my question to you again - If your neighbor was able to show the city that they would pay more taxes if they took your home from you, and you were subsequently ordered off your property, would you feel the same?

To be honest, while I agree that what's happening with Justice Souter IS political retribution, I don't see it as juvenile whatsoever. Mr. Clements is simply following the new standard of when ED applies. A standard that Justice Souter helped lower considerably.

The point you make about spending time drawing attention to Justice Souter vs. M37 is understandable.

"To me, the right to remain unharrassed in your home and not forceably evicted (without cause, of course) is one of the most important that we have."

We aren't talking just about homes. How would you feel about an empty lot?

There's some measure of reason on both sides. What irritates me is that the principle is so unevenly applied. Seems the question is, "Do demonstrable, collective interests allow the government to supplant an individual's liberties?". If it's "no", then let's go Libertarian all the way and do everything on a cost/benefits analysis basis. Where there's no benefit, government butts out. If not, take away peoples' kids and raise them right, re-evaluate all drugs on a cost to society basis, regulate nutrition, and the rest that you could imagine would go with that.

For what it's worth, I've chosen the Lib option, but I do wish those that haven't wouldn't dither.

Ross,

I feel the same about an empty lot. Private property is private property, and unless the owner has created a public safety nuisance, than he is allowed to let it remain empty if he wishes. I can envision exceptions for extremely blighted neighborhoods where the property owner's negligence contributes to the overall problems, but I'm a bit uneasy about how inconsistently that can be (and has been) applied.

Again, if that empty lot is needed for a hospital, bridge, etc, than I see the value of ED. However, if it's simply the case where another individual wants to put a 7-11, or a porn shop, or a clothing store, etc, there, then I see no justification for ED. YOU CANNOT TAKE PROPERTY FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL TO GIVE TO ANOTHER BECAUSE YOU PREFER WHAT HE WOULD DO WITH IT.

<h2>Am I missing something here ? Ross, if an auto manufacturer wanted to build a factory in an empty lot (well, it would take several lots, I presume), why would that be an eminent domain issue ? In any case, you'd still have to balance those family-wage jobs (would the auto manufacturer have to guarantee that number, for a specific time, and would they be subject to the City's definition of a family wage ?) against the impact of plopping a factory down in the middle of the Eastside.</h2>