samiam.com

[TC] Let me be very clear up front. I hate the idea of Eminent Domain. I find the idea that government can forcibly take anything from an innocent individual anathema. Having said that, I understand that sometimes the greater good must be served and the seizing of a person’s property may be required. I don’t like it, but intellectually I can understand why it may be necessary in rare circumstances.

What follows is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Read carefully the last sentence of the amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States is so wrong headed it defies explanation. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Justices ruled that property in New London, Connecticut, can be seized in order to be turned over to a private developer for the construction of an office complex. The Constitution, the ultimate law of the United States, clearly states that property can only be seized for public use. Public use has, until now, meant just that… public use. Roads. Dams. Schools. Never has it meant an office complex or other privately owned building.

New Haven argues that increasing the city’s tax revenue is public use. Following that logic leads to only one place… you own property at the pleasure of the state. People who want to build mansions can forcibly remove people in more modest homes. Larger businesses can seize smaller businesses. Because of this Supreme Court decision we have all become renters in our own homes.

Consider this hypothetical example. The location of my house would make a dandy place for a new Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart would certainly pay more taxes to the community than my neighbors and I do. Now, because of this broader interpretation of “public use” Wal-Mart need not bother to find space to buy. If a location Wal-Mart wants is inconveniently owned, Wal-Mart could have the city seize it on their behalf. “Never happen,” you say? Tell that to the homeowners in New London, Connecticut.

[Sam] I was incensed when I first learned of this. I still am… The use of this awfully powerful tool is never (Rarely will you see me use the word “never.” When I do, it is with great consideration.) well-received by anyone being displaced. Granted, there are likely speculative and opportunistic landowners that welcome this, but I question their investing savvy. No, the great majority of us will be rather perturbed (to put it politely) at any part of our government swooping in and relieving us of our property. Sure, we’ll receive “just compensation” because our government is not a band of pirates. “Just compensation” is likely to be too little to salve the sacrifice of the landowner; there are just too many reasons one may want to retain one’s land. Often, many of those reasons are not fiscally based. Of course, one can refuse to “sell,” but then condemnation is likely to be used and the land still goes to the government. “You can’t fight City Hall.” Still, as distasteful as the use of eminent domain is for the victim, there is at least some measure of understanding and even reluctant appreciation that the use of the land will serve the public, in some way enhancing the lives of many people. Oh, and the original landowner, as a member of the public, will have access to what has been built on his/her property. (Probably…)

We are fortunate in NC to not be affected by this ruling, at least for now.

The North Carolina League of Municipalities

This Supreme Court decision changes nothing in North Carolina. That’s right - nothing. Our N.C. cities and counties have no statutory authority to use eminent domain for general economic development purposes, and the federal courts cannot provide it. The authority of our cities and towns comes from the N.C. General Assembly, which is not about to authorize use of the eminent domain power in this way.

Still, I can’t help but wonder how long our General Assembly will remain scrupulous in this. The Institute for Justice provides some sadly enlightening research results:

IJ Publications: Liberty & Law

In its first-of-its-kind nationwide study of eminent domain abuse, the Institute for Justice was shocked to find more than 10,000 similar instances of actual or threatened condemnations for private development in just a five-year period. There is every reason to expect a breathtaking expansion of that number is right around the corner.

What this all boils down to is, just as TC put it, we “own property at the pleasure of the state.” While this has been so for quite some time, it has not been so aptly set up for abuse. The use of eminent domain to take one person’s land and give it to any entity other than the public is wrong. There are no shades of grey here. If eminent domain is used, then the property must be for public use. Private property, even if open to the public, is by nature not for public use.

Here’s a link to part of NC’s General Statutes regarding eminent domain:Clicky
_____________________________
UPDATE:
The bastards in New London are to charge the homeowners back rent for 5 years!!!
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22new+london%22+kelo+%22back+rent%22

Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. However, the Supreme Court having disposed of the eminent domain issue, the only legal avenue left to Kelo and her fellow residents may be to contest the fairness of the amount that the city intends to pay for the land - the city has reportedly set aside $1.6 million to buy all 15 homes, and city officials believe that they will be in possession of the property within a few months.[2] Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began. The city contends that the residents have been on city property for those five years and owe tens of thousands of dollars of rent.

It’s been a while since I’ve felt the desire to post here, but Dataviz’s poor customer support BEFORE the sale has prompted me to do so. I’ve tried their product, Documents To Go, to use for invoicing in the field. I’ve had significant problems and have asked for help. When a potential customer asks for help, your response to that request means money coming into your coffers or going elsewhere. Apparently Dataviz doesn’t quite get this. I have used their support system and it is lacking. Imagine troubleshooting a computer problem through the US Mail. That’s much of what I’ve been doing with them. I submit a request, a day, two days or more later I get a response. (Don’t pay attention to the date stamps on the entries in the PDFs. They’re entirely wrong. Notice that their response is posted exactly at the same time I posted my query.) Then, when I ask for a way to speak to someone, they want to charge me $20??? Charging for customer service when you’re trying to sell your product to someone??? That’s in line with a telemarketer calling me collect to pitch a product to me! Get real. I’ll survive quite nicely without your product, Dataviz. Don’t forget that word-of-mouth (or blog) is the best advertising; it can also be the worst.

dataviz1.pdf
dataviz2.pdf

Serendipity is a sign that we’re letting the universe organize the events that lead to answered questions and fulfilled dreams.
– Karen Casanova

Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
–The Talmud

[Sam] And so it begins…
This blog was created at TC’s suggestion. We have been discussing politics and general societal issues for several years. While our labels suggest we should be diametrically opposed to each other’s positions on the bulk of issues of concern in today’s society, we are actually more in agreement than not. We have often marvelled at our similarities and the fact that opposing positions on some things do not make us enemies. In fact, we feel we are part of the real majority of America, the moderates. While the few left- and right-wingnuts garner most of the media attention, the vast majority of Americans agree on almost everything. They (We) are the seemingly unheard voice of reason in our increasingly divided nation. We believe that simple conversations about various topics are the way to find how so many of us can relate rather than compare. Here is part of our conversation. We hope it proves enjoyable, but we also hope it makes you think. Please join our conversation by commenting on the posts. We’ll start posting in the next week or so. Thanks for stopping by.

[TC] … may the country follow.
So… it seems that a liberal and conservative can agree on something. Sam and I agreed that we would do this blog. We also agreed on a name, style, tone and frequency of updates, all in the space of an hour or so.

OK, big deal you say. Well, I think it is a big deal. Sure, this is a little thing… nothing like the challenges that are facing our nation. But if two people, seemingly far apart on the political spectrum, can agree on something simple, then they can agree on something big. And think about it… don’t most big ideas start out small?