Berman v. Parker: How This Landmark Case Paved the Way for Government Overreach in Property Seizures

Berman v. Parker (1954) is a significant Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of eminent domain for urban redevelopment purposes, including the elimination of blight and slums. While the decision was a landmark in urban planning and redevelopment, it also generated various objections and criticisms. Here are some arguments against Berman v. Parker, along with quotes from those who expressed these concerns:

1. Property Rights and Takings: Berman v. Parker expanded the scope of eminent domain to an extent that it could infringe upon property rights and lead to unjust takings. Berman v. Parker opened the door to government overreach, where private property can be taken for the mere promise of increased tax revenue or economic development.

2. Government Abuse of Power: It could potentially enable government officials to abuse their power by favoring certain developers or interests over others. Berman v. Parker gives government officials immense authority to pick winners and losers in redevelopment projects, often at the expense of marginalized communities.

3. Economic Displacement and Gentrification: Urban redevelopment projects following Berman v. Parker have often led to the displacement of low-income residents and contributed to gentrification. While redevelopment may have good intentions, it often results in the forced removal of vulnerable communities and the loss of affordable housing.

4. Lack of Adequate Compensation: Property owners affected by eminent domain may not receive just and fair compensation for their properties, leading to financial hardship. The promise of 'just compensation' is often elusive, and many property owners find themselves undercompensated for their losses.

5. Erosion of Community Identity: Urban redevelopment, as allowed by Berman v. Parker, can disrupt the social fabric of neighborhoods and erode their unique identities. Our communities are more than just buildings. Berman v. Parker has enabled the destruction of the social and cultural heritage of many neighborhoods.

6. Impact on Small Businesses: The decision's application in urban renewal projects has sometimes led to the displacement of small businesses, which may struggle to recover. Small businesses, often the heart of vibrant neighborhoods, can be casualties of redevelopment projects enabled by Berman v. Parker.

7. Growth of Government Power: Berman v. Parker expanded the authority of government to intervene in private property matters, potentially leading to further government overreach. The decision has given the government a dangerous amount of power to dictate how and where private property can be used, challenging individual freedoms.

While Berman v. Parker was a pivotal Supreme Court decision in the realm of urban redevelopment, it also sparked significant objections and debates, primarily regarding property rights, government power, and the potential negative impacts on communities and individuals affected by eminent domain actions.

#1 Hit Video Short from the Week of 05/12/2024

Bastiat's concept of the broken window fallacy challenges the idea that wealth can be created by government spending. The best government can do is redistribute wealth, destroying as much wealth as it purports to create.

#1 Hit video for the Week of 04/28/2024

 

Public projects usually are wastes of resources because they are built to satisfy political rather than practical needs. Due to an economic principle known as the Broken Window Fallacy, as much or more wealth is destroyed by these projects as is created.

Calder v. Bull: The Forgotten Case That Shaped Eminent Domain Debates

Calder v. Bull (1798) is not a case that directly created or established the concept of eminent domain. Instead, it is a significant case in the context of constitutional law, particularly concerning the limitations on legislative power, and it laid some foundational principles that have been referenced in subsequent eminent domain cases.

In Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court addressed issues related to the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause and the Contract Clause. It dealt with a Connecticut state law that retroactively invalidated certain wills and contracts. The Court's decision upheld the power of states to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts in certain circumstances.

While Calder v. Bull is not directly related to eminent domain, it is important in the broader context of property rights and governmental powers. It reinforced the principle that the government has the authority to regulate and even take private property for public use under certain conditions, provided that it adheres to constitutional limitations, including those related to due process and just compensation.

Eminent domain, as a concept, has its roots in English common law and predates Calder v. Bull by centuries. The idea that the government can take private property for public use dates back to ancient legal traditions. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly addresses eminent domain, stating that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Calder v. Bull did not create eminent domain but contributed to the broader understanding of government power, limitations on legislative action, and the importance of due process and constitutional protections when the government exercises its authority to take private property for public use.

The Politician's Dilemma: #1 Hit Video Short for the Week of 03/24/2024

 

Public projects often spiral out of control. This causes political forces to take extreme measures to please cronies.

#1 Hit Video for the Week of 03/17/2024

 Karl Marx's views on private property represent a cornerstone of his critique of capitalism and the socioeconomic inequalities it perpetuates. His calls for the abolition of private property and the establishment of communism continue to shape discussions on economics, politics, and social justice. While his ideas have been both celebrated and contested, there is no doubt that Karl Marx's perspective on private property remains a fundamental aspect of his legacy in the world of political and economic theory.

The Legacy of Steve Mnuchin: The Man Who Wants to Use Congress to Take TikTok

Steve Mnuchin, a man of many facets, has left an indelible mark on the political and financial landscape of the United States. From his rise in the world of investment banking to his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury under the Trump administration, Mnuchin's journey has been marked by both acclaim and controversy. Delving into his life unveils a tapestry of power, wealth, and notoriety, with scandals casting a shadow over his legacy.

Mnuchin's early years were characterized by a trajectory typical of many successful financiers. Born into a wealthy family in New York City, he attended prestigious institutions such as Yale University and later pursued a career on Wall Street. His tenure at Goldman Sachs, where he spent 17 years, solidified his reputation as a savvy dealmaker and financier. However, it was his foray into Hollywood that would thrust him into the limelight in a different capacity.

As the co-founder of Dune Capital Management, Mnuchin delved into the realm of film financing, producing successful hits like "Avatar" and "Mad Max: Fury Road." Yet, his time in Hollywood was not without its share of controversy. Critics raised concerns about his involvement in financing movies accused of promoting questionable values or political agendas. Additionally, accusations of profiting off the 2008 financial crisis through the purchase of distressed assets further tarnished his image.

However, it was Mnuchin's tenure as Secretary of the Treasury that truly brought him under the public microscope. Appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, Mnuchin's stewardship of the nation's finances was met with both praise and criticism. He played a pivotal role in crafting and advocating for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which ushered in significant tax cuts for corporations and high-income individuals. Supporters lauded the legislation for stimulating economic growth, while detractors argued it primarily benefited the wealthy and exacerbated income inequality.

Amidst his policymaking duties, Mnuchin found himself embroiled in several scandals during his time in office. One such controversy revolved around his use of government aircraft for personal travel, including a trip to Kentucky during the solar eclipse, which drew sharp scrutiny and accusations of wasteful spending. Moreover, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic's economic fallout, particularly the administration's implementation of relief measures and oversight of stimulus funds, faced intense scrutiny from Congress and the public.

Perhaps the most contentious episode of Mnuchin's tenure occurred in 2020 when he clashed with the Federal Reserve over the extension of emergency lending programs aimed at stabilizing the economy during the pandemic. Mnuchin's decision to allow several of these programs to expire prematurely sparked outcry from economists and policymakers who argued it could undermine the nation's recovery efforts.

As Mnuchin exited his role as Treasury Secretary with the transition to the Biden administration, his legacy remains a subject of debate. While his supporters commend his contributions to economic policy and financial deregulation, critics point to his alleged conflicts of interest, questionable ethical decisions, and controversial policy stances as blemishes on his record.

In the annals of American finance and politics, Steve Mnuchin's name will be remembered for its complexities. A man who rose to prominence through the corridors of Wall Street, ventured into the glitz of Hollywood, and wielded significant influence at the highest levels of government. Yet, behind the veneer of success lies a narrative fraught with controversy and scandal, leaving an enduring question mark over his legacy.

Xenophobia Gone Berserk: When A City Uses Immigration Fears to Steal Property

Daughter of Mexican field laborer. Near Chandler, Arizona, 1930s

In 1997, a group of residents has filed a $35 million lawsuit accusing police in Chandler, Ariz., of violating civil rights during a July roundup with a stated goal of rooting out illegal immigrants.  The motivation for the nationally infamous "Chandler Roundup" was to rid the downtown of its established Latino population so that Chandler could move forward with a white-bread urban redevelopment plan spearheaded by Michael Kerski, director of the Downtown Chandler Community Partnership.  In attempts to empty a neighborhood in order to build condominiums next to a luxury resort, police mass arrested and detained or deported residents, including many United States citizens, under the guise of a joint operation with immigration.  The action netted 432 immigrants but also resulted in civil rights violations against dozens of documented immigrants and Hispanic Americans who were stopped and interrogated by police simply because of their ethnicity.  “I went to open the door and they rushed in. It’s a miracle they didn’t knock me down,” said Jose Felix, an elderly green card holder who lived in the area.  

The Chandler Roundup, which took place in 1997 in Chandler, Arizona, was a controversial operation aimed at enforcing immigration laws. While it sought to address concerns about illegal immigration, it also generated significant debate and criticism, particularly from immigration advocates. This article provides a perspective on the Chandler Roundup, examining the human and civil rights implications of such operations.

Balancing Enforcement with Human Rights:

Immigration enforcement is a complex issue, and the Chandler Roundup underscores the ongoing debate between enforcing immigration laws and upholding human rights. Immigration advocates often emphasize that any enforcement actions must be carried out while respecting the rights and dignity of all individuals involved.

Dehumanizing Approach:

From an immigration advocate's perspective, the Chandler Roundup was problematic because it was criticized for using tactics that many considered dehumanizing. Mass detentions, checkpoints, and sweeps can lead to racial profiling and the harassment of individuals, including those with lawful status. “In the roundup, to get 432 detainees, they stopped thousands of people,” said Chandler City Councilman Martin Sepulveda, who was in office during the roundup and still disagrees with how it was handled. “Are those acceptable odds? Are you willing to forgo someone’s constitutional rights?”

Impact on Families:

Advocates argue that immigration enforcement actions often have profound consequences on families. The Chandler Roundup led to the separation of families and created fear within immigrant communities.

Rights Violations:

Critics of the Chandler Roundup pointed out potential rights violations, including violations of due process and the Fourth Amendment. They argue that all individuals, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to certain legal protections. In investigations of 91 formal complaints from the roundup filed by 71 different people concerning incidents during the raid in which they were stopped and asked for papers 23 led to arrests and only three of the arrestees were found to be illegal immigrants.

Community Trust:

Immigration advocates stress the importance of fostering trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. Aggressive enforcement actions like the Chandler Roundup can deter individuals from reporting crimes or cooperating with authorities. “There is no confidence in the police,” said Benjamín Flores, a Chandler resident who remembers the roundup. “If someone sees a patrol car, they hide and get intimidated.”

Comprehensive Immigration Reform:

Many immigration advocates argue that incidents like the Chandler Roundup highlight the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform. They emphasize that a balanced and compassionate approach is necessary to address the complexities of immigration.

In the end, the plaintiffs did not get $35 million, but there were several lawsuits in which hundreds of thousands of dollars were awarded to US citizens and legal immigrants who were unlawfully harassed, detained, or deported.

The Chandler Roundup serves as a contentious chapter in the ongoing debate over immigration enforcement in the United States. Immigration advocates stress the importance of a humane and rights-based approach to immigration that balances law enforcement with respect for individual dignity, family unity, and community trust. It is their hope that such an approach will lead to more just and effective immigration policies in the future.

Special thanks to some of the sources from which material in this post comes, Including The East Valley Tribune , The Washington Post , and Phoenix New Times .

Government Cronyism Sanctified: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Kelo Decision

 

Watch Little Pink House for free.

The Kelo v. City of New London (545 U.S. 469 2005) decision, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, generated significant objections and criticism from various quarters. The case allowed the use of eminent domain for private economic development purposes, and many argued that it undermined property rights and expanded the power of government. Here are some objections to the Kelo decision, along with quotes from prominent figures expressing those objections:

1. Concerns about Property Rights: Many believed that the decision eroded property rights by allowing the government to seize private property for the benefit of private developers. "The Kelo decision chips away at the very foundation of property rights, and that's something we should all be worried about." - Ron Paul

2. 
   

3. Impact on Vulnerable Communities: Critics argued that eminent domain could disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, as they often lacked the resources to fight such case "The Kelo decision means that the politically weak will be at the mercy of the politically strong." - Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

4. 
   

5. Conflict of Interest: Concerns were raised about the potential for collusion between government officials and private developers, leading to decisions that prioritize profit over public interest.

   Quote: "The Kelo case essentially allows the government to take your property and give it to a wealthier private party with more political influence." - Institute for Justice

6. 
   

7. Diminishing Public Trust: Critics argued that such decisions could erode public trust in government institutions and the fairness of the legal system. "When the government can take your home or business and hand it to someone else just because they promise to generate more tax revenue, it shakes the public's faith in the system." - George W. Bush, former U.S. President

8. 
   

9. Unintended Consequences: Some believed that allowing eminent domain for private development could have unintended negative consequences for economic development. "By endorsing these types of seizures, the Kelo decision discourages private investment because property owners fear their investments could be taken." - Richard Epstein, legal scholar

10. 
    

11. Need for Legislative Action: Many called for legislative reforms to limit the scope of eminent domain, emphasizing the need to protect property rights. "The Kelo decision highlights the importance of state legislatures taking action to prevent this kind of abuse of eminent domain." - Sandra Day O'Connor, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice

12. 
    

13. Public Outcry: The Kelo case sparked a nationwide public outcry, with many expressing their discontent with the decision. "Kelo was a wake-up call for Americans who value their property rights and cherish their homes." - Dana Berliner, attorney for Susette Kelo (plaintiff in the case)

The Kelo decision remains a controversial and debated topic in the realm of property rights and eminent domain, with objections stemming from concerns about the potential abuse of government power and the impact on individual property owners.

Top Video Short for the Week of 02/18/2024

 

The broken window fallacy, coined by French economist Frédéric Bastiat, highlights the error in believing that destruction or government spending inherently creates economic prosperity. This fallacy challenges the idea that wealth is created by the mere act of redistributing resources through eminent domain.

Defending Home and Hearth: Stories of Courage in the Fight Against Eminent Domain

Below are incidents where activists have fought against eminent domain.

Kelo v. City of New London (2005): In this landmark case, activists fought against the use of eminent domain for private development. "Your home could be next. If the government decides your property would generate more tax revenue as a shopping center or a hotel, it could take your home, too." - Dana Berliner, attorney for Susette Kelo (plaintiff in the case).

Atlantic Yards Project, Brooklyn (2003-2010): Activists protested against the use of eminent domain to make way for a sports arena and high-rise development.

Columbia University Expansion, Manhattan (2007-2009): Local residents and activists opposed the university's expansion plans, which relied on eminent domain to acquire properties. "It's a fight for the soul of our neighborhood. We're not going to let a private institution, a private university, take it away from us." - Nick Sprayregen, property owner opposing Columbia's expansion.

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Pennsylvania (2010): Landowners and activists resisted the use of eminent domain for a natural gas pipeline.

Texas Border Wall (2008-2020): Activists and landowners along the U.S.-Mexico border fought against the use of eminent domain to build a border wall. “The question is: Do they run the fence through the middle of my property?" he says. "Or do they run the fence back toward the highway so I can’t get to it without going through a locked gate?” said Trxas rancher Tony Zavaleta.

New London, Connecticut, Fort Trumbull Redevelopment (1998-2005): Before Kelo, activists fought against the use of eminent domain for a redevelopment project. "This isn't just about my house; it's about everyone's house. It's about the right of people to be secure in their homes." - Susette Kelo, plaintiff in the case

Brooklyn Bridge Park Development (2004-2010): Activists and residents opposed the use of eminent domain for a waterfront park and luxury housing.

Sunoco Mariner East Pipeline, Pennsylvania (2018-ongoing): Eminent domain was used for a pipeline project, sparking protests and legal battles.

Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Council (2008): Activists and landowners resisted the use of eminent domain for levee improvements.

These incidents represent a range of eminent domain conflicts across the United States, where activists and individuals have passionately defended their property rights and communities.

You