Not if they sell the house and move into something more appropriate. The combination of people delaying marriage and childbearing, and oldsters staying in homes that are way too big for them after their children move out, is an underlying cause of the "professionalization" of child's play. Neighborhoods don't cycle like they used to, so the number of children who live within walking distance of playmates is way down from what it used to be, which is why parents have to pay for their children to play, whether it be soccer, gymnastics, amusement parks, etc. And all the driving around is a drag on parents' time, one of the unnoticed ills of modern America. (If bigmedia types couldn't afford nannies, IMO this would be a key political issue.) Of course, with the housing market being squeezed from both ends, it makes it harder for families with children to even afford a good home. It's probably a whole 'nother thread, but IMO it's a societal good if old people on fixed incomes move out of 4 bedroom homes, for whatever reason. And it's a societal good if a home is a less attractive investment for childless couples or singles.
I haven't seen all the details, and don't have time to look right now, it appears as though they were justifying the use of govt funds on the basis of a large park, including soccer fields, (yeah!!) on the concept that this would provide a substantial increase in revenues for the county/state. Summarily, this may not be much different than what has gone on in the past, EXCEPT for the citing of this recent decision that appears to change a good bit of the protection of personal property. At least it has created a firestorm of scrutiny, which is good.
Based only on my limited knowledge of "this case" (from what dj43 has posted)...yes, in Kelo there was an entire integrated development plan that supposedly had the public purpose of more jobs, higher revenues, etc., etc. Also factoring in was that the state had declared the entire community "economically distressed" several years prior to Pfizer deciding to build a plant or this plan being developed. Also (and I've mentioned this on the 2 other threads discussing Kelo), Stevens' opinion mentions the hypothetical of one to one property transfers with the sole purpose being a "better use" of the property and although it's dicta....he leads one to believe that such a use of eminent domain would not be allowed. Here's what he writes.... "It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use."
Question: Who gets to decide the definition of "something more appropriate?" Yeah, let's move any unmarried people under the age of 35 into 12th floor 2 room flats unless they promise to have 3.2 kids. That will do wonders for the world population. Of course I have no idea where the millions who then choose to have kids instead of living in a shoebox will live once they realize the alternative. However all of that might be offset by the fact that deadbeat fathers would be eliminated by the fact THEY would all have to move into a shoebox on the 12th floor if the didn't stay with their wife and children. I don't have any suggestions as to how to handle those stupid seniors who insist on staying in the house for which they have spent their lifetime equity just to enjoy their retirement there. And eliminating Prop 13 is going to make that even tougher. I'll save it for another thread, but that is a society I hope never happens.
So doesn't this mean that this decision is a "one off" deal? Is the court now getting into a micro-management area where each case will be unique until there is some substantial weight that would create a settled law based on accumulation? This decision continues to perplex.
One other thing to keep in mind in Kelo is that the plaintiffs were the losers in the political process over the project under consideration at every level. The project was approved at the county and the state level, as well at, I'm sure, several planning and environmental review boards. Furthermore, as Mike pointed out in the other thread, eminent domain only becomes possible after 51% of the property owners in the project area have sold out. There were something like 9 plaintiffs in Kelo out of a much larger number of property owners (63?) in the neighborhood. These people were not only unable to convince the local political structure that the project was ultimately a bad move, they were unable to convince their neighbors. As anyone who has experience with local redevelopment or urban infill efforts can tell you, significant local opposition is basically a veto on redevelopment projects today (this was not the case going back to the 1950s and early 1960s when projects like the Cross Bronx Expressway, the Lodge in Detroit, and whatever the highway in Miami was decimated urban neighborhoods for the convenience of suburban commuters). NiMBYism is the single most powerful force in local politics today. It's a big reason that suburban sprawl is more attractive to developers than infill development or urban redevelopment. That these plaintiffs weren't able to deploy the well-worn NiMBY playbook effectively should give us pause about the "universal" dangers of Kelo.
Well Bush aint the smartest cookie http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm even i have a higher IQ that George W bush it's interesting to see that The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5 The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. When Stevens' says "one to one transfer" deal, he is talking about a situation when a developer just wants to buy a few properties because he/she can make the property more productive or put it to a better use, etc. In other words, the legislature has not enacted/passed an integrated development plan but it approves of this one to one property deal. Stevens' opinion indicates that such a deal would be suspect and likely unconstitutional because it would be a purely private to private transfer. As for whether the Court is getting into micro-management.....well the fact that they only take cases on certiorari means that they do not have to take any case they're not interested in hearing. Certainly lower courts now have to interpret Kelo but given the language I cited in my earlier post, I think that lower courts have some guidance. Does that mean lower courts have to micro-manage? Well, it depends on whether a lawsuit is brought and that is going to be a factor regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled.