Emminent Domain 8

[PSE]

The recent US supreme court ruling regarding property seizure has significant implications.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

As an engineer, would you think it ethical to work on a private works "development" project where the original property owners have been displaced due to this ruling?

Regards,

 

[CajunCenturion]

The principle of eminent domain have been around since the birth of the USA. However, I think this, in my opinion, extremely liberal interpretation of eminent domain has gone too far.

In answer to your question, yes I do think it's ethical to work on such a project for a couple of reasons. First, you have an ethical obligation to support yourself and your family. From a practical matter, that decision would be after the execution of eminent domain; therefore, would really serve no purpose. If you don't work on it, someone else will and the damage will not be alleviated.

The ethical thing to do is to do what you can to change the Law, or the Court, so that it cannot happen.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[PSE]

CajunCenturion

Part of the reason the USA came into being was rebelling and going to war against property seizure.

While I agree with your statement that it is an extremely liberal interpretation of eminent domain, I would have a difficult time rationalizing to myself that it would be ethical to work on a project that forcibly displaces a portion of the public that supposedly I am to help serve so that a private enterprise may utilize that property for (primarily) it's own benefit and perhaps provide a secondary benefit to the public through "economic development" It smacks once again of bean counters being put in charge.

If I don't do it, someone else will is one of the altars on which ethics are sacrificed. Such projects at least to me have a taint of dishonesty about them and I have taken an oath "I shall participate in none but honest enterprises". A private company wishing to displace property owners for a development project should purchase that property directly. If not all affected are willing to sell, so be it, project cancelled or moved somewhere else. One of my concerns is a developer going to a municipal government up front and talking them into seizing the property directly without first approaching the current owner(s).

Regards,

 

[BobPE]

I think it is a travesty, to think an American can lose their home to a private interest....I do not believe the supreme court has heard the last from the average American citizen....

But I agree with Cajun, it is the law of the land and we as engineers are obligated to continue forward and work within the law....

Bob

 

[monkeydog]

PSE,
It is ethical to work on such a project, but the ethics of an individual are not only to obey the law of the land, but also their moral standards. If "your" moral standards prevent you from working on such a project, then you have an ethical obligation to "yourself" to not work on such a project. There are engineers out there that will not work on military/government contracts because of the implications of human casualties that can occur due to their contribution to the project. That is perfectly OK.

 

[TheTick]

This is truly frightening. Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote a pretty scathing dissent, effectively saying this makes it possible for anyone with power and influence to take any property they please.

Some of the cases are particularly disturbing, such as neighborhoods confiscated to make parking lots. City governments are complicit, too, basically telling citizenry that they are not productive enough as a tax base.

I could be the world's greatest underachiever, if I could just learn to apply myself.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help

 

[CajunCenturion]

Let's correct a couple of things.

==> I think it is a travesty, to think an American can lose their home to a private interest.
Americans cannot lose their homes to private interests. This case is about a public city administration exercising eminent domain. The government has been doing this for years to build highways and public schools.

==> If I don't do it, someone else will is one of the altars on which ethics are sacrificed.
Whether or not you choose to act or not is in accordance with your own ethics, but has no bearing on the choices and ethics of another. I fully understand why someone would choose not to work on such a project, but in my opinion, this would be case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. What's done is done, and no amount of protesting will undo the acquisitionn. As a citizen, I rile against the decision, and will use my voice and vote to change the government so that it doesn't happen again. However, I would much rather see an engineer with good ethics insure that the land, which has already been taken, is not abused by those who don't care.

Your point about such a project having a taint of dishonesty is very valid, and probably true. All the more reason for ethical engineers to get involved. This is not a situation where corners should be cut.

But remember, private companies do not have the power of eminent domain, and this is not a private matter. This is a city appropriating the land.

In case there is any doubt, I do not like the decision, nor am I in favor of it, it is what it is. Now, it is incumbent on us to change the people who made the decision.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[IRstuff]

CajunCenturion,

I think you need to re-read the decision. The decision effectively allows cities to transfer property from one private party to another, not just to build public schools, etc.

This means that a city can seize private property to allow a developer to put up condos or build a mall for profit, on the basis of public benefit, which migh be very marginal.

TTFN

 

[BobPE]

CajunCenturion:

Yesterdays ruling sided with a public entity that was furthering the interests of a private developer (the public entity was just a political front in this case) and not for a road our public works project...for a hotel and conference center......And those people lost their homes to that private entity...who craftfully used eminent domain to their benefit.....This was what the case was about....Read up my friend....It is a new world out there today....

Bob

 

[CajunCenturion]

Again, I am NOT not in favor of the decision. I merely point out that it is legal. The question was not whether the decision of the Supreme Court was ethical, nor whether it is ethical for a city to take property under these circumstances.

The question was whether or not it is ethical to work on a project after such action has been taken.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[zdas04]

IRSTUFF,
The point that you took exception to is important--CajunCenturion was absolutley accurate that the government took the land. What the government does with the land they took is immaterial to the people who lost their land (at prices dictated by the government). This decision allows marginal politicians to interfere between landowners and developers.

I can and will work to get rid of any local politician that takes advantage of this stupid decision and will hope every day that several of the Supremes will suddenly feel that their health won't allow them to continue on the court. Giving them a position for life was the single stupidest thing that the framers of the constitution did.

David

 

[BobPE]

zdas04...let me present the way i use to view the situation. Prior to yesterdays ruling the government siezed land for the benefit of the public. As of today the government siezes land for the benefit of the public or private entity.

I was always ok with the process before yesterdays ruling...it helped a lot of people whether they liked it or not. Now, the process can theoriticaly be tailored to help on person, the one who profits from the private development. My fear is that our process of elections will not allow us to protect the vulnerable citizens quickly enough....

Bob

 

[Heckler]

Zdas04,

I can and will work to get rid of any local politician that takes advantage of this stupid decision and will hope every day that several of the Supremes will suddenly feel that their health won't allow them to continue on the court. Giving them a position for life was the single stupidest thing that the framers of the constitution did.

I can't agree with you more on this issue of a few agenda driven (bought with developers $$$$$) politicians sticking their heads into something they know very little about (most politicians are not land developers). Their is nothing wrong with the land developers doing their own footwork acquiring the land. I've seen that lately since I live among some real sweetheart 10 acre parcels but they pay a market price for the land and so they should. But in this case (I haven't read the articles) it seems like joe public is getting screwed.

 

[EddyC]

My employer would certainly take on a project that originated from such an unfortunate property seizure. And I would work on it if my employer so decided. But I would also welcome any legal revocation of this latest interpretation of the eminent domain law. You can be rest assured that there will probably be protests (some violent) if this latest eminent domain law really goes into effect.

 

[PSE]

Monkeydog,

Implicit in my statement is that I would not work on such a project and indeed it is my choice. I am in fact glad to see various views on the decision come forth as I feel it will have a direct impact on how some of us do our work.

Regards,

 

[PSE]

Thought I would throw another twist (or log on the fire). This ruling could also allow one corporation to have the property of another corporation seized if they can convince a municipal government that by doing so they could provide a better economic benefit.

Regards,

 

[BJC]

Here's a good look at the facts. It's not as bad as Rush Limbaugh may have told you.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4716118

We have to cut the funding for PBS, those damm people keep insisting on telling the truth.

 

[CajunCenturion]

To discuss the actual issues of the case, please consider the following:

[li]This community was declared a "distressted community" 15 years ago, with high unemployment, and population on the decline.[/li]
[li]The property in question was condemmed in 2000, and the condemnation was upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court[/li]
[li]In this case, the property will be leased for business devleopment. It not a transfer of ownership.[/li]
Again, I am not in favor of this decision, as it is a far more liberal interpretation of the 5^th Amendment than I'm comfortable with, but let's not paint it to be something that it's not. Nor I might add, is this a precedent setting decision. In 1906, eminant domain was used to aid a gold-mining company in Hawaii, and 12 years ago, the city of Las Vegas took private land to build a public parking garage.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[BobPE]

I am not a fan of PBS, but that is about as black and white as you can make the issue....thanks BJC


I use eminent domain a lot in work I do...I fear for people now that I no longer need to worry about such insignificant things as property lines....

I will let you know how business pans out with the new ruling as we engineers will be on the front lines....

Bob

 

[Heckler]

I will let you know how business pans out with the new ruling as we engineers will be on the front lines....

I'm sure it will affect you somewhat. I'm working on a MS/MBA in Urban Land Development and this an extremely interesting topic in that area of study. I'm sure some day I will be involved in long term land management and usage.