The Little Man

[Pale Rider]

BRAVO! ABSOLUTELY DEAD-ON!

[fleaflicker]

What I got from this, was not the Supreme Court making new law, just intrepreting the eminent domain law. Even if, in some people's opinions (I haven't made up my mind one way or the other on this), the translation of public usage is translated rather loosely. In any case, the public that did live on that ground will get some usage from selling their homes at a price that is likely significantly better than market value, and some people who get jobs from whatever is being built there will get value from it as well. Last I heard, intrepreting the law was the Supreme Court's job.

[El-Moldo]

How do you interpret "public usage" into "private usage for public benefit"? Do you have to be on the Supreme Court to tell the difference between public and private?

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="96820"]What I got from this, was not the Supreme Court making new law, just intrepreting the eminent domain law. Even if, in some people's opinions (I haven't made up my mind one way or the other on this), the translation of public usage is translated rather loosely. In any case, the public that did live on that ground will get some usage from selling their homes at a price that is likely significantly better than market value, and some people who get jobs from whatever is being built there will get value from it as well. Last I heard, intrepreting the law was the Supreme Court's job.[/quote]

Good grief flea. I honestly believe you argue just for the sake of arguing. You, being a liberal, stand up and scream anytime a business is given a tax break for the exact same purpose as you make in your argument - to create jobs. I would think that with liberals being on that side of the tax issue, this would make you want to scream.

Maybe the Supreme Court wasn't making new laws, but they sure as hell are rewriting the Constitution with this ruling.

With this ruling, what's to prevent local governments from coming in and claiming eminent domain on a family farm that has been in a family for generations so that a developer can build a housing development. Do you think that family cares that they'll get more than market value? I doubt it.

[LionPride]

[quote="El-Moldo";p="96827"]How do you interpret "public usage" into "private usage for public benefit"? Do you have to be on the Supreme Court to tell the difference between public and private?[/quote]

Exactly!

[fleaflicker]

No, on the contrary, I don't scream when businesses get tax breaks because they are creating new jobs. The best way to create new jobs is to reinvest our money into businesses.

But, depending on intrepretation, public benefits could be intrepreted into public usage. The public is the potential field of employees that would be employed by said companies, and the public also includes those whose homes are being sold at better than market value and are benefitting from that. It is a broad intrepretation of the word that no, I don't agree with, but nonetheless it is the Supreme Court's law to intrepret the law as they see fit.

But what if a private contractor takes eminent domain of a land and turns it into a mall? Obviously, the public at large has full access to a mall, and will use it. So is it that for public usage, since the public is in fact using it, or is that overruled by a private contractor owning and building the mall?

[LionPride]

Another candidate for eminent domain for a private enterprise

[Pale Rider]

Exactly. He's only an American citizen, therefore, what protections we THOUGHT we had as Americans is out the window, because some contractor has a better use for somebody ELSE'S property.

[fleaflicker]

Right now, I don't have a clear cut opinion on this one way or the other, even the way I'm arguing (note that I did say I was against the Supreme Court's broad intrepretation of it. But I do enjoy stirring the pot. lol. So anyways, would a public mall owned by a private enterprise be for public usage or not?

[Pale Rider]

I suppose if it were truly a "public" mall it would have to be built by the government, wouldn't it? If it is owned by Private concerns, then it is public only in the ability or desires of the general population to be able to go there to purchase something they can't elsewhere, or because there is greater value to be had( cheaper costs), or a better selection. That is what is known as the FREE ENTERPRISE system. If you don't like it, for whatever reason, you are free to go elsewhere. Nobody forces you to go there, because it's the only game in town. That's what was wrong with the old 'company store' concept the Unions put forth. The people who worked the mines were able to get easy credit at the company stores and could get most of their "necessities" there. The idea was for the company to control the people's lives even when they weren't working the holes in the ground. If you build a better mousetrap, mankind will beat a path to your door. If you build it, they will come.