Eminent domain, or how the govt. wants your beachfront property
 

http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/vid...p10436,00.html

Found this on another forum, thought it could make some interesting political debate here. This is definitely a side of China that you don't get to see or hear about much (and if you watch the video, you can kind of tell how they're already trying to suppress even the cameramen recording these things).

That got me to thinking about other things similiarly happening not just in China, but the US as well (and no doubt other parts of the world are probably experiencing things like this). Imagine if the house you lived in right now was suddenly declared "condemned" and you were forced to move out, only to find out about a year later that where your house used to be is now a business district.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0509/p01s03-ussc.html

Here's a small excerpt from that article:

The Institute for Justice's report documents dozens of instances of apparent abuse where states and local cities and towns put the interests of individual developers over longtime residents. For instance:

• In Atlantic City, an entire black middle-class neighborhood was condemned and destroyed to make way for a tunnel to a new casino.

• Bremerton, Washington removed a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years for the claimed purpose of expanding a sewer plant, but gave her former home to an auto dealership.

• West Palm Beach County in Florida condemned a family's home so that the manager of a planned new golf course could live in it.

--------

This is the 5th Amendment from the US Constitution (relevant info italicized and in bold print):

The problem presented in the above link is that these people's homes aren't being taken away for "public" use. I suppose one could argue that a private business setting up there would generate jobs/income for the city, but I don't think many people would be happy about that, if they had a house, say by a beachfront or other highly desirable area, and having it turned into a Starbucks or Walmart.

So what does this have to do with China? Well, as you can see, the situation is much worse in China, and contrary to what we might see, it seems that there's a lot of unrest, and despite the Chinese government's attempts to suppress it, given its past history, another large protest or rebellion will probably occur (heck, China's got quite a long history of civil wars and rebellions against the current regime, and most of them were often pretty bloody).

And to generate some debate, are you for or against govt. taking people's private property for private businesses? Why are you for or against it?

I'd have to be against it. While again, you can argue that those private industries are creating jobs, why do they have to do it right by the beachfront property owned by a few private citizens? If it were for a school or other government building, I'd be okay with it, so long as the people get compensated fairly. But from what I'm getting based on these articles, it seems that people don't even get that, they're just told to move (I could be wrong, but you have to wonder if what's being done is ethical, and in the US, constitutional). I feel bad for those Chinese who lost their homes and are forced to live in those tents afterwards (like the footage of the old man and his sick wife being forcefully taken out by the police).

Wonder how long it'll be before the world is entirely run by corporations. Yeah, some of you will joke that it already is, but there could very well come a day when Walmart can legally force you out of your house so they can build another store there.

No matter how you look at it, it's abuse being conducted by the government. It's like ancestral lands when you consider it except that these areas might be legally owned. With the above articles posted, there was compensation no involved thus making the eminent domain treatment invalid.

This is one of the few cases in recent time in which I've completely disagreed with the Supreme Court. Seizures of land have always been for public projects such as highways, etc. But what is going on now is perposterous. They should reevaluate the case, and I think eventually, they may.

The decision illustrated the left wing idea that then needs of the government outweigh the needs of the individual. The government needs a larger tax base, so they take the land of individuals and give it to private developers who then develop the land to bring in more tax revenue. So the guise is that the higher tax revenue is for the public good since that tax money can be used, in theory, to benefit the entire community. In reality the ruling just enriches the already wealthy and redistributes wealth.

I don't think it's really fair to call it a left-wing idea when most of the left-wing don't like it. =\

Sounds like a right wing idea to me.

It's neither right-wing or left-wing.

NP's right on this one. While it was largely liberal SC judges who voted for it, many on both side of the spectrum are furious over the deal. For that matter, in general, people are furious with this deal.

It is at its heart a leftist idea. Confiscating private property for the betterment of the state reeks of Marxism. Taking the prpoerty from one private owner and transferring it to another private owner so the state can benefit can also be said to lean towards fascism/ A look at those on the court who favored this ruling will tell you what side of the political aisle they come down on.

As far as the contention that this is a right wing idea, American conservatives have always championed private property rights.

I hate unscrupulous corporations that will toss out dozens of families to build another fucking franchise to expand their already bloated coffers. But what I hate more are the zoning officials that authorize this stuff. I mean don't these guys have laws to obey and uphold?

Given that our leftists pretty rarely veer right off into straight up communism and fascism your statement has little bearing on what's going on around here. If this were happening in say France you might have something though.

You can hardly argue that the right doesn't support corporations ability to assrape people if they can get away with it though. After all it's at the heart of supporting unbridled capitalism.

Regardless of the ability to throw the blame to either side really everyone should be pissed about this.

The problem with citing the 5th amendment is that my definition of "just compensation" and your definition is probably different. Especially if I am the buyer of your land. Same deal goes with the government.

I believe some progressive pissed off about the recent Supreme Court ruling is trying to have one of the Justice's house siezed under the new laws.

Why not? It has in the past. For example, the construction of the railroad.

Oh for God's sake.

The Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling was to point out to lawmakers that, as the laws stood, such abusive property seizures were completely legal. The Supereme Court wasn't suggesting that this is behavior the government should be engaging in, they were warning lawmakers that their laws had some really ugly loopholes.

Here is a quote from Justice Stevens as he was writing for the majority in the decision.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government," wrote Justice Stevens for the majority.

Sounds like an endorsement of the behavior to me.

There's two sides to this. One is that it is your home, you reside by the beach, it is your property. The other side is that a beach is a natural place of recreation that no one man can claim as his own and for his own use only. I have to side with the public here.