Recently, I blogged about the amicus brief I filed on behalf of myself and seven other legal scholars urging the Supreme Court to hear the case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester. Didden is a Second Circuit decision that upheld the taking of property that was condemned because the owners refused to pay a private developer the $800,000 he demanded as the price for avoiding the use of eminent domain.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, a prominent public interest law firm, has now also filed an amicus brief in the case, also urging the Supremes to hear it. Unlike our brief, which focuses on the question of whether or not this kind of pretextual condemnation is permissible under the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the PLF brief focuses on the separate question of whether the Constitution permits the government to use its regulatory powers to engage in "exactions" that force property owners to pay money to either the government or private parties as the price of retaining their rights. Both issues are important, and hopefully both will be considered by the Court.
For a helpful short synopsis of the exaction issue raised by Didden, see this post by PLF attorney and leading eminent domain expert Tim Sandefur, author of the PLF amicus brief.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Your Money or Your Land II - The Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus Brief in Didden v. Village of Port Chester:
- Your Money or Your Land: Didden v. Village of Port Chester - An important Post-Kelo eminent domain case:
I am curious: Given the statute of limitations bar that your last post didn't point out, but was suggested in the comments, do you think your case will make a good vehicle for the Supremes? After all, the SoL barrier isn't really "sexy," but it has to be overcome to get to the merits.
I would understand if the people doing the regulating are unelected. Is that the case here?
There is a difference between a generalized tax applied to all property and a payment that targets one owner or a small group. There's also a difference between a tax taht goes into the public fix and a payment that is extorted for the benefit of a private party such as Mr. Wasser in this case.
Because the meaning of the phrase was clear until Poletown, or so, and the abnegation of the phrase evident in Kelo is an atrocity.
Yup. It's called "Stare Decisis."
Of course, the right answer is that Kelo, Didden, and these other private use cases are actually violations of the Due Process Clause, but because Courts have turned their backs on the Due Process Clause, and refuse to enforce it as it ought to be enforced, we have to go with the Public Use
Clauseprepositional phrase. That phrase was written with the Due Process Clause in mind, however, by people who believed the substantive prohibition would be in the Due Process Clause. So it's like holding up one side of an arch when the other side has been torn down.Can I get in on that racket? Get my local city council to "delegate" drug enforcement to me, and then go hold up the local meth dealers for $800K or 1/2-interest?
Sure, I guess if you consider an organization funded by Exxon Mobil, Weyerehauser, etc. to be acting in "public interest."
The Pacific Legal Foundation is funded partly by me, and by all the gods of all the diverse peoples in the universe, it IS a public interest law firm. When you purport to cite association with the Devil, you make no argument at all. Property rights are as much civil rights as any others, sometimes more so.
I find it amusing how, when anti-property rights groups are funded by corporate donations, in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars, that's okay. And when they're funded by government, that's okay--because these groups are disinterested protectors of the public interest.
But when individuals and businesses agree with the principles we defend, and put their money where their mouths are, we're suddenly shills for Snidley Whiplash and his gang of greedy capitalist henchmen.
Pathetic what a little ad hominem will do.
PLF's initial financial support came from members of the California Chamber of Commerce and J. Simon Fluor of the Fluor Corporation's oil, nuclear and mineral dollars.
And, yes, let's talk about all those "individual donors." That phrase sort of conjures up images of honest hardworking americans sitting at the kitchen table and writing out their humbel $15 and $25 checks doesn't it?
In reality these individuals are "people like the Castle Rock Foundation (the Coors family) ($125K in 2005) the Carthage Foundation – a Scaife family front $175 in 2005 and 2004 and, best of all over $600K directly another one of the Scaife family. People may recall the Scaife family as the folks who were really, really interested in what Bill Clinton did with his penis.
And I will leave it to others to decide whether when the PLF filed suit earlier this year to removed endangered species protection for the marbled murrelet whether they were doing that because of all of the folks across America who were upset by that listing, or whether the PLF was doing it because of all of the funding they received from the timber industry.
You folks provide a good example of when you can't argue on the facts argue on the funding.
In other words you might be taken seriously if you actually added something useful to the discussion not unrelated tangents like Which has precious little relevance to the item being discussed. Aside from the fact that somebody is getting scr**ed by government action:-)
Cheers,
TJIT
Which is rational self-interest, and hardly requires a foaming-mouthed accusation of litigation bought and paid for.
If you would accuse the evil wood people of taking interest in government, you would do well to remember that the REASON they do so is because the government takes such interest in them. In a world where industries can be choked off by government fiat, I should HOPE that the Sierra Club isn't the only voice 'allowed' to have people donate to it.
Obviously, you feel differently.
No, I don't feel that that people should only be able to donate to the Sierra Club. What I do believe is in honesty and transparency. I mean, rapists and child molesters have a right to attorneys, so I don't see why all these foundations and corporations are so coy about paying lawyers.
TJIT - actually, I was following up on the characterization of the PLF as "public interest" attorneys so that was the "facts". And, I provided the description of the Scaife family as being penis obsessed because I thought that is what would jog most people's memories about who they are. If you can come up with a better description of the family that spent millions of dollars to "investigate" what Bill Clinton did with his penis, go right ahead.
Gosh, I thought the idioms were "think with your penis" and "talk out of your ass".