Kelo / Eminent Domain / Little Pink House

[Fife]

Kelo, 13 years later. I urge you all to really think about the case. I don't know when this movie will play in Nashville, but I'm working on it.

Little Pink House: The Evils of Eminent Domain

The brand new film Little Pink House relates the events leading up to Kelo v. New London, about the taking of Susette Kelo’s home to give to a private developer. I talk to writer, producer, and director Courtney Balaker in today’s episode.

http://littlepinkhousemovie.com/



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._C ... New_London

Justice Thomas, dissenting

Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.

[nmoore63]

Kelo, 13 years later. I urge you all to really think about the case. I don't know when this movie will play in Nashville, but I'm working on it.

Little Pink House: The Evils of Eminent Domain

The brand new film Little Pink House relates the events leading up to Kelo v. New London, about the taking of Susette Kelo’s home to give to a private developer. I talk to writer, producer, and director Courtney Balaker in today’s episode.

http://littlepinkhousemovie.com/



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._C ... New_London

Justice Thomas, dissenting

Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.

Fuck the Kelo ruling.
And Fuck New London.

[Kath]

We had quite a thread on DCF about this decision. A sad day...

I recall a bunch of little pop up groups trying to get the justice's homes taken for eminent domain. It was an empty gesture, like most of these types of popup groups.

[clubgop]

We had quite a thread on DCF about this decision. A sad day...

I recall a bunch of little pop up groups trying to get the justice's homes taken for eminent domain. It was an empty gesture, like most of these types of popup groups.

DCF was around then?

[Penner]

[Kath]

We had quite a thread on DCF about this decision. A sad day...

I recall a bunch of little pop up groups trying to get the justice's homes taken for eminent domain. It was an empty gesture, like most of these types of popup groups.

DCF was around then?

I have a very vivid memory of discussing this decision.

[Ex-California]

Its amazing how many people argue in favor of eminent domain

[clubgop]

We had quite a thread on DCF about this decision. A sad day...

I recall a bunch of little pop up groups trying to get the justice's homes taken for eminent domain. It was an empty gesture, like most of these types of popup groups.

DCF was around then?

I have a very vivid memory of discussing this decision.

Decision was 2005. What was the membership then? A handful?

[Speaker to Animals]

Its amazing how many people argue in favor of eminent domain

Depends on what it is used for and how people are reimbursed.

Without it, there really would be no more transportation infrastructure, since there exists very little undeveloped land around population centers.

I would prefer to see ot used only for major infrastructure and not ever for private development. All legal fees regarding the matter should be paid by the state. Reimbursement for property should be about three times the market value of the property.

I do not believe it is wrong, per se, but the times where it is justified really are rare. Further, the cost should fall entirely upon the state. Those losing property should be reimbursed so that it is very profitable to them. These things would mean it really only ever gets used in absolute necessity.

So.. if some grandma does not wish to give up her house so they can build an interchange on that spot.. First they can try to negotiate with her at some amount above the x3 market value rate they are required to pay. If she still does not want to move, they have to take her to court, and 5hey have to pay her legal fees and per diem so that she need not pay a single dime. If the court finds this thing is still necessary, THEN they can go ahead and pay her the 3x market value. The part I do not really have a good idea about are legal doctrines to determine whether such a land grab is necessary. It should be very difficult to justify this.

[Fife]

What could go wrong with 3x damages? Especially when the city council votes to condemn the property the mayor's brother just snatched up from a widow at 1/2 market price to build a new park.

:goteam: :drunk: