Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Gabe, I'll grant you that there is a fundamental difference between the public needs of a railroad/pipeline/transmission line et al and the public needs of a big box store or new multi family dwellings. However, in spirit (and from a legal perspective) a new private development is a new private development regardless of function or intent. In other words, I'm not sure the law sees a difference between local/regional juristiction that supports UP and local/regional juristicition that supports WalMart. The Supreme Court recognized that it would be discriminatory to allow Corporation A the right to eminent domain but not allow Corporation B the same right, regardless of what it is those corporations are involved. It is up to Congress to make the distinction between those corporations which absolutely need to access certain private property to function, and those which could effectively "shop around" for the right location. Of course, I have argued in other topic lines that railroads are not the same as other private ventures, therefore it is ridiculous to allow railroads the same levels of "hands off" government approach, especially given the importance of preserving and expanding transportation infrastructure to meet the demands of an ever growing economy. If I remember correctly, even you Gabe presented the "McDonalds" analogy in defending the current railroad closed access status quo system. So therefore, if railroads are no different from McDonalds when it comes to what governments allow in terms of price or access regulation, then it can also be argued that McDonalds is no different from railroads in what governments allow when it comes to eminent domain. For the record, I am all for allowing railroads the right of eminent domain, but with that right comes the necessary oversight of regulation to assure optimal citizen access to that ROW that utilized the right of eminent domain. Otherwise, we are just granting fiefdoms to discriminatory entities. [/quote] Dave, I am not trying to be contumacious, but to quote the Court in its reference to the new land use "Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers." The Court just kicked out one of the chief restrictions on the use of the doctrine. This will not only allow the greatly expanded view of public benefit to be used as a sword by the rich; it will also allow the doctrine to be used CONSIDERABLY more than it is now. Gabe [/quote] Well, I'm okay with you being contumacious, as long as you don't become contumelious. I admit, I am a little bit perplexed by the Court statement regarding lessees absolvency from "common carrier" assimilation, since the particular case pertained to a developer whose end product would ostensibly be made available to the public marketplace. If this interpretation is taken at face value, then a private individual with influence could convince governments to bestow the act of eminent domain to remove another private citizen from their property, soley for the purpose of the former building their own private residence on the latter's site. Perhaps this is why the reaction from both the left and the right has been so vocal, and it begs the question as to why the Court would so drastically extend this right of eminent domain beyond the auspices of the original case. It's one thing to grant eminent domain for a project that would be made available to the public, it's entirely beyond reason to grant eminent domain for a project that is intended for private use.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag