[IP] 2 on more on Supreme Court - "takings" tempest in a teapot

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: h_bray@globe.com
Date: June 24, 2005 10:10:49 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Supreme Court - "takings" tempest in a teapot


Basic economics, anyone?

If a developer knows he can get the government to order a property
condemned, suddenly the meaing of "just compensation" changes, big time.
There's no longer a truly free market.  The seller can't hold out for a
higher price, because the buyer can simply say, "fine, I'll just call my
buddy the mayor, and next week your house will be condemned."  Try  
selling
your property under such circumstances, and see if you're satisfied with
the results.

There's no fair dealing when one of the participants in the deal can  
clap a
pistol to the other fellow's head.  And that's just what this ruling
permits.



Hiawatha Bray



Begin forwarded message:

From: Chris Savage <chris.savage@crblaw.com>
Date: June 24, 2005 10:39:54 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Supreme Court - "takings" tempest in a teapot


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com] On
Behalf

> Of David Farber
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 10:01 AM
> To: Ip ip
> Subject: [IP] more on Supreme Court - "takings" tempest in a teapot

Dave,

Just a random observation:

State governments have not only long allowed "takings" for private
purposes, for decades if not longer they have in some cases authorized
private or quasi-private entities to do the condemnation.  I'm a telecom
lawyer, who used to represent ILECs and now represents CLECs, wireless,
ISPs, etc.  One of the standard things you do in this space is to check
state law to see if a new CLEC entity can -- by incorporating a certain
way or otherwise checking appropriate boxes -- obtain **FOR ITSELF** the
right of condemnation/eminent domain.  It seems that back in the late
19th & early 20th centuries many states concluded that the expansion of
public utility service (phone, electricity, etc.) was a sufficiently
valid "public" purpose that the phone company, power company, etc.
should have the right to condemn your land if need be for easements,
etc.

All in, while I can certainly understand philosophically why strong
property rights advocates are unhappy with this case, it does not appear
to actually be much of a departure from precedent.

Chris S.

************************************************************************
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged
information. If you believe that you have received the message in error,
please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message
without copying or disclosing it.
************************************************************************







-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/