Lily Star
Sheryl WeikalBelieve it or not, there's already a mechanism in place for the federal government to seize and appropriate the assets of billionaires and redistribute them for the public good. SCOTUS accidentally created it with one of its worst decisions of the 21st century, Kelo v. New London.
In 2000, New London, Connecticut decided to gentrify. It was one of the poorest cities in the state and everyone who could afford to leave had long since done so. So New London passed a development plan that, among other things, seized the homes of many of the people who remained,
and gave them to developers to build luxury apartments, shopping malls, parking lots, and a research facility for Pfizer. This would, of course, mean that the people who lived for years in those areas would lose their homes through emininent domain, and because the area was so depressed,
they wouldn't get very much at all in compensation for their houses and probably would be left homeless. Of course, New London considered this a small price to pay, because luxury condo owners pay more in taxes than poor people. There was just one problem for the city:
fifteen of the homeowners didn't want to be homeless. They sued, saying that eminent domain is for taking private property for the public good like highways and hospitals, not for developers to build luxury condos and shopping malls. Economic development, they argued, wasn't a "public good."
In 2004, the case went to SCOTUS. And in 2005, by a 6-3 margin (and a rare case where Scalia and Thomas were arguably correct in dissent), the Court ruled that economic development is a public good justifying emininent domain. In other words, held the court,
the government CAN transfer private property from one owner to another for the purpose of economic development.
In Kelo, that was for private developers to build shopping malls and parking lots. But in theory, this also meant, as Sandra Day O'Connor noted in dissent,
that any house might be razed for any apartment building.
Justice Thomas, in a rare show of prescience, noted in dissent that "urban renewal" projects result in Black people being "forcibly removed" from their homes.
What does this have to do with billionaires?
Actually, a lot. See, in a concurrence, Justice Kennedy emphasized only a "conceivable" public purpose was necessary. Under Kelo, it's completely permissible legally for a government to, say, seize the farmland owned by Bill Gates (the largest single private landowner in the US),
and deed it to Indigenous farmers for "economic development." SpaceX could be nationalized or made part of NASA for the same reason. (The Ellisons' new media conglomerate being seized and redistributed would raise separate First Amendment concerns, but as a taking, it would be fine.)
Chuck Darwin@theleftistlawyer
There's already a mechanism in place for the federal government to seize and appropriate the assets of billionaires and redistribute them for the public good
@mastoreaderio unroll please
Masto Reader@cdarwin here's the unrolled thread: https://mastoreader.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fc.im%2F%40cdarwin%2F116336656105085578
Next time, kindly set the visibility to 'Mentioned people only' and mention only me (@mastoreaderio). This ensures we avoid spamming others' timelines and threads unless you intend for others to see the unrolled thread link as well.
Thank you!
Annelies Kamran, Ph.D.@cdarwin I sent this to myself with a note saying "eminent domain" and each time I type the first word my phone tries to auto complete "Eminem" 🤣
Amgine#Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
AIRI, after the decision there was an effort to turn Justice Breyer's home/estate into an amusement park which, obviously, would have had greater financial benefits for the community.
Nazo@theleftistlawyer So let me guess: if they got it in their heads to use this, they could also do the opposite — seize assets of normal people and redistribute them to billionaires?
tkissing@nazokiyoubinbou @theleftistlawyer That's just regular capitalism.