Since November, where is the city's enforcement of this law?

It appears to be on private property, which the city cannot enforce.

That is partially my point. An underfunded challenger can't put up signs around town unless he knows property owners. If his friends want to help but don't own commercial property or homes on big streets ( LA, Royal, Erringer, Cochran etc.) they are at a disadvantage.

BUT, Peter Foy can campaign year around if it is private property?

I bet if the sign was for a business someone might harass the business to get a permit.

It seems whenever the city sees a problem instead of using a surgical knife they use a hatchet.

The end result is that campaigns are more expensive but there is the same amount of trash around town.

If a potential challenger can't get support from commercial property or home owners, they have no business running for office.

Likewise, if they do find the support, they, too, can run year-round.

Owen:

Do you have the support from commercial property and homeowners to be on this blog?

If you don't why should we listen to you?

Well Owen I guess that the interests of Commercial and Property owners comes before the interest of the people. How about those people who rent commercial property or rent residential property my geuss they may not have a say in who they would like to support for any public office.

We live in a democracy where all candidates and issues should be heard, considered, and debated. We may like or not like what we hear, but at least it is a democracy.

Perhaps you guys should find a few candidates to run for local City Council seats who will pledge to undo this ordinance as part of their campaign platform. That would seem to be the democratic way to address this issue. Let the voters decide.

Owen,

1. The law gives an advantage to the property class. Although many laws do this there is no need for this law.

Pretend ( although it isn't currently an issue) that there was a ballot vote on unions vs. big boxes. The city council just sided with big boxes.

If all of this needed to be done to cut down on clutter it would make sense. But the city doesn't cut down on clutter anyways.

2. You could be right about home owners ( although it sounds again favored to property owners) but there is a distinct type that is needed. Those that live on really busy streets. This law benefits the incumbents and hurts any apartment dweller or anyone that lives not on a busy street for that matter.

Bubba Kidd,

2. Your point is valid and makes sense. Although, a potential candidate would have to get their name ID up. The easiest way to do that is with signs. The city council just passed an incumbent protection law. They can get their name in the paper for every little story flying around town. But a challenger cannot.

Point taken. Though I do have to say that I am uncertain of the effectiveness of signage in local political races. It seems to me to be just one of many ways to build name recognition. Plus a sign doesn't really inform the voter about anything other than the candidate's name. Based on how many phone calls and political flyers I receive in the mail during election years it seem inconceivable that I wouldn't be aware of the names of the candidates. I would be troubled if I thought that people were actually casting ballots based on the number of signs they see while driving down the road. During the past election I also saw some clever ways to get around the ordinance, such as mobile billboards and magnetic signage attached to cars. Seems to me that democracy is still alive and well and only waiting for the public to get involved.

Bubba,

You are right. There are numerous ways to get your name out there. Including apparently leaving your sign up year around if it is private property!

But seriously, it isn't that someone votes based off of a sign, but it is the first step to build name ID before mail pieces with issues come out. Most people don't vote for what they think is the best candidate, but instead the best viable candidate. Signs help establish that.

Seems the council is gearing up for a fight against panhandlers too...

Barbra,

Can we outlaw the homeless outright? My problem is with how poor people look in general. They look really poor and unkept, especially their skinny chip-toothed children. What can we do about the nuisance created by malnourished unsightliness in public?

Why can't the council just create a minimum salary that will be accepted here. If you don't make at least 100K, let's boot them.

Can we pass an ordinance that says your not allowed in public without being deemed clean by the government?

The sign ordinance was the best thing to ever happen to sign twirlers. I'm not sure why no one has accussed sign twirlers of being major financial backers of the council.

Brian:

Do you think it is time to ban certain clothing, which either advertises for companies or for candidates or causes? I think the council should establish a dress code for our community.

I also dislike bumper stickers. Should we ticket people for having bumper stickers as many create the same public safety issue that signs do?

There are also certain hairstyles I don't like either. Do you think it is time to crack down?

I find it odd the government keeps mentioning traffic issues but when pressed admits they are potential traffic issues. As in it has never happened yet!

They want to ban free speech activities on the theory they might cause a problem.

Newsflash---------Restricting freedom is a problem today!

The Foy sign is still up because a majority of Council members in Simi supported Foy, during the campaign Foy signs were all over public property and not taken down, but Dantona signs and others were taken down.

Who cares if a sign is up? What is it taking away from the splendor that is der weinerschniztel?

Very funny.

Is the sign still there?

Bam: Yes, yes I do.

Tim: What are the interests of the people? Are property owners not people? Those who don't own certainly do have a say. What's your definition of "democracy?" Will you really spend your time listening to EVERYONE who has something to say about politics. Shouldn't there be some form of discrimination somewhere along the road to an office? I would contend that if you find anyone willing to put up a sign for you, you're not adding anything worthwhile to the conversation.

Brian: If the city allows signage on public property, then it will just be a huge jumble of signs, and nobody will pay much attention anyways. Any unknown individuals will be crowded out of the field by the sheer quantity of signs and the observers eye will likely be drawn to the more known names.

Are you seriously saying that spending a few hundred bucks and putting up signs on government property is the magical first step to name recognition? I would contend that doing something in the community is far more important. A sign without a reputation is meaningless.

I agree a name without a reputation is useless. I thought it was good that individuals chose whether to have a sign on their property, it served as a personal endorsement. I remember hoping my supporters were friends with their neighbors.

When I considered bumper stickers some of my supporters told me with the way they drive I wouldn't win any votes. LOL

I found it enlightening to see how many commercial properties had signs.

You are starting to get the point. The sign policy was put into place because there was too many signs.

Signs are symbols of democracy. The city said there was too many symbols of democracy!

But they don't have an interest in keeping a clean city as shown by the fact that signs on hot dog stores can stay up all year. If your neighbor had his Christmas lights up still they would get funny looks!

So, same amount of signs, but now only displayed by the property class.

It doesn't matter if its private property or not. You can't leave a temporary sign up for over a certain amount of days. I think, 120 days. There are campaign rules, city rules, all sort of rules governing that sign. Of course, Foy doesn't know about them though, he barely knows where to show up in the morning....

Looks like the city council doesn't care if elected officials keep signs up year around but if a challenger puts up a sign in the wrong place a city squad takes it down, locks it up,and threatens fines.

I guess some signs are more equal than others.

I am happy the city has put themselves into the business of regulating free speech.

Why is it that this sign violates the old law and the city does nothing about it but instead passes a new law?

How about we enforce the laws we have now before we pass more of them?

Awesome, I have my own "Not," a person who defines themselves solely in relation to me. You are fixated on the most minor details. It's like listening to a rich kid whine. If you can't get the support of at least some private property owners, you're not a viable candidate. Give up on this dream of some guy who makes a sign in his garage, puts it near a freeway exit, and wins an election. It's absurd.

That said, if you really want signage on public property, why limit it to electoral campaigns? Why can't we put up advertisements? That seems to me to be more an actual issue of speech than "Foy '06!"

Glad to see you still don't see the importance of political speech versus commercial speech. The chasm between the two was obvious to our founders. The 1st Amendment was clearly intended for political speech, not to advertise the latest bedroom furniture blow out.

Welcome to the club Owen. As I see it, having your own "Not" stalker means you have made it in the blogosphere. If your opinions were irrelevant people would simply ignore you.

Political speech should be protected at all costs. In Simi they had a sign ordinance that was very good, problem was that they did not enforce it. Because they did not enforce it they were geting complaints, so they took the easy way out by just banning all temporary signs. Same thing with the peddlers ordinance, they did not enforce what they had, they got some complaints, so they just outlawed all peddlers. They should now go back, re-do the ordinances to allow political signs and peddlers but with common sense rules that still allow free speech and allow some peddlers.

And here I thought it was meant for all speech. After all, it says "no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Maybe they left the "political" out of my version. In fact, it could be argued that commercial speech is more primally related to one's livelihood than political speech. And what, exactly, is "political speech?" If I want to put up a sign criticizing a candidate, should that be allowed?

Not all speech is protected, for example, shouting fire in a crowded theater. Making death threats, etc. In terms of criticizing a candidate, in Thousand Oaks there were many signs up this past election criticizing other candidates. Having signs up around election time, pro and con, should be part of the fabric of our society, unless of course you live in Simi Valley I guess.

The fact that Owen thinks commercial speech is the same as commercial speech shows he has no understanding of the our fundamental rights.

There was not a threat to the rights of the founding fathers for putting up a 24 hour only furniture liquidation sale. There was a threat to their political rights of free expression.

Voltaire was willing to fight to the death for your political speech not your spa warehouse close out sale.

There is nothing wrong with making money. But the 1st amendment was not created for protecting commercial speech.

Of course signs attacking a candidate is political speech! That is the point of the 1st amendment.

There is a whole body of law that governs political speech different than commercial speech. For example, look at laws stopping alcohol companies form advertising to kids.

Is that a violation of free speech?

In a June city council meeting, I went down and spoke against the sign ordinance the night it passed in it's current form. No offense to people writing about the problems with the ordinance, but I was alone in opposition and the place was packed with people that night.

I was happy I could be heard and still wish they could change the political sign portion of the law, but unless individuals are ready to form an alternative position and meet to discuss with the council face to face, I'd say it's sort of beating a dead horse.

Do you think that it was really open to debate that night? it sounds like they already made up their mind.

I am still astonished none of them thought of creating a window of 60 days before an election where all signs could be up.

I don't expect a council to make it easier to run against them, but I also didn't think they would be this blatant. It is like none of them understand the basic principles to our founding documents.

Shouldn't they realize they can't be the most popular people around? I think they doa decent job but do any of them ever wonder why there are no challengers?

Challengers run for all sorts of office before Simi Valley City Council because of the restrictions they have made.

I assume a fair amount of the people are satisfied with the job the council does but no elections since the 1990's? Any rational human being wouldn't say it is because their approval ratings are all at 70% plus. I would bet they are closer to 50% for most of them.

Thanks for telling people when they are wrong even when they don't plan on listening.

Any word if this sign is still up?

What part of "no law" do you not understand? Apparently it means "any law that we deem appropriate." In a free society, advertising seems to be a pretty fundamental right. Are you seriously trying to say that the government has the right to tell me I can't advertise my furniture sale? The 1st Amendment was created for all speech. Yes, those laws are a violation of free speech. Worse yet, it's just one more example of the abdication of individual responsability in our society. "It's not my fault that my kid is drinking, I'm not a bad parent, it's the evil beer companies!"

Approval ratings in this context is a bit misleading. I would bet that less than 10% of the city's population actually knows who any of these people are. You are acting as if a sign by a freeway exit, in the middle of a huge throng, is going to change the world. This is a very strange idee fixe, and the passion with which you defend it is downright bizarre. If what Scott says is true, where were you all when deliberations were being held.

I'm sure the reason they made up there mind was because the city had originally put the sign ordinance forward a year and a half earlier if my memory serves me right and it had gone through the process. I was at that meeting too, but was caught off guard by it as many people were. The city council voted against it saying they wanted it to go out to neighborhood council before approving it.

Those meetings were open to the public as well.

I believe I sent an email or two to council members saying that I was concerned about the impact on local elections as I was involved with the Tim Keaney school board race and signs played an important role in our precinct walking strategy.

If we had local TV coverage or TV competition and radio, I'd feel more comfortable with the sign limitations, but unfortunately we do not. It's all about retail in this city.

If this was really a grand conspiracy to try to subvert freedom of speech as many are claiming, why wouldn't the council just approve it the first time instead of sending it back for more review.

It was reviewed by neighborhood council with no disagreement or outrage. Keep in mind all the neighborhood councils executive members represent about 60-80 or so people with very differing opinions. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on the number)

It went open session beginning of May last year after hearing really no opposition as I was out of town on business. And in June finally past with just me speaking against it, so it's not like the city didn't give enough opportunity to speak about the ordinance.

We keep quoting the founders. One of the things I know about our founding fathers is they showed up when it mattered. Maybe, no leaders emerge to run for city council in opposition because they know the only support they will get publicly are people who post on a blog anonymously.

I think West Wing's President Bartlett said it best, "democracy is about showing up."

There are many things that you view in simplistic terms Owen.

No law? So the government can make no law about speech? Owen is in favor of it being legal to advertise porn, cigarettes, and booze to children? But I can't put up a sign without a government permit in an open field for a week or two before an election unless I own said field? You live in a bizarro world. Have you seen Thank you for Smoking?

I like most citizens don't look at the agenda calendar so I missed the first time it was discussed. When it came up for what Owen naively thinks was a discussion I had to work that night. The council meetings can last for hours and there isn't a clear schedule. I could take off work at 6PM only to find out it wasn't being brought up until 9PM. Sorry, but I have a job.

But to recap:

Owen thinks it is your freedom of speech to advertise cigarettes to grade school children.

What about on the back of cereal boxes or during Saturday morning cartoons?

Also, since Owen thinks there shall be no law you could put up a 30' by 30' sign at the entrance to a jr. high telling the kids that when they turn 18 the coolest kids smoke as long as you own the land.

I am not claiming the city council doesn't like the 1st amendment, I am saying they don't understand it.

SV Council has a history of limiting discussion AND democratic participation. Neighborhood Council 4 used to include the Knolls area, because the City claimed hegemony over that community as part of its "sphere of influence". Knolls representatives on the Council participated well within the system for years but when those representatives began to object too often and too successfully against city projects that had a negative impact on the Knolls the council members voted to take away the Knolls' vote on the Council. As I remember, this happened at the time objections were mounting to the City's successful attempts to extend the hillside ordinance borders farther up the hills around Simi Valley.

Scott makes a very important point. The sign ordinance was sent to the Neighborhood Councils and open for discussion in our community for over a year. All I see is people griping after the fact and complaining how the City Council has trampled on the Constitution. What I don't see is people getting involved in the process and having their voice heard.

There is that old saying that freedom isn't free. If this is such an important issue then people need to stand up and fight for it. Believe me, if the City Council felt that the community did not support the sign ordinance they most likely would have voted it down. That is how democracy works folks. But when nobody shows up to Neighborhood Council meetings or City Council meetings when the item is on the agenda we have nobody to blame but ourselves. I've served on the Neigborhood Council I can say that, aside from a few meetings, most were attended by only one or two people from the public. We discussed many important issues and the members of the Executive Board, who also have busy lives, took time out of their schedules to participate in the process and get involved in what is going on in their community. Sadly, aside from the Executive Board itself very few people seem interested.

I don't buy the argument that people don't have time because of their jobs, or that they can't get information on the agenda. Those are just excuses. I also have a job and a family, yet I still managed to show up at every meeting for two years. It is simply a matter of making it a priority. As far as the agenda is concerned, all this information is available online as well as the email addresses of your Mayor and members of the City Council. It has never been easier to stay informed or to have your voice heard.

The lesson here is to get involved. If you don't then you are just muttering to yourself.

The 1st Amendment says "no law." It really doesn't get much simpler than that. Don't tell me you're the brave defender of the 1st Amendment when you want to undercut it yourself. Just because something is a bad idea doesn't make it illegal. There are lots of things that are legal but shouldn't be done. Cheating on your spouse, for example. Bad idea, but completely legal.

You're looking for a band-aid solution instead of addressing the real problem. Kids aren't having sex at 13 because they like the Playboy bunny. They're doing it because the adults around them and our general culture says its normal and good. Teenage sex is advertised everyday on TV in the content of the actual shows. Clinton cheats on his wife, and politicians defend him with "boys will be boys." Ditto with alcohol and cigarettes. If Mom and Dad, and myriad cultural icons, weren't using, they wouldn't either.

Yes, it is an infringement on free speech to ban a sign advertising smoking. However, it's a bad idea, and the responsibility falls on citizen groups to boycott it. There is plenty of competition in the cigarette market, and collective action would bring down the sign pretty quickly. You, however, would rather that a few people with power make the decision of who gets to say what. And, not surprisingly, you seem to know exactly the correct course of action to force on others.

The 1st Ammendment is NOT the final word on Speech. Neither is it the final authority on ANY issues related to what is and what is not constitutional. In their wisdom (or folly, depending on your perspective) the Founders gave the judicial branch of government final authority on what the Constitution means. Historically the Supreme Court's allowed a broad interpretation of the term "speech" but it can, at any time, narrow that definition on a simple majority vote.

That is ridiculous to use the name of another person when you are posting. Do you have nothing to do than to make up stuff under someone else's name? The post at 3/1 at 10:08am is a fake.

"I like to watch"

It wasn't me, but I do have to say this... welcome to my world.

It always annoys me when they do it to you. We may not agree on much, but that is just childish and not fair to that person.

"I like to watch"

Owen, you want to repeal laws that stop cigarette companies from advertising to kids?

I know you come from a conservative/libertarian camp but I can't believe you don't see a difference between advertising products that ere illegal for kids to buy to kids and putting up a sign for a candidate you like.

You really don't think further limiting political signs is a bad idea but want to repeal laws stopping companies from selling Playboys to kids?

If someone ever posts under your pen name e-mail me and I will try to find and delete it.

I will not reveal your e-mail address or true identity.

If the products are illegal for children to buy, then what's the business sense in advertising to them? When did I say I wanted it to be legal for kids to buy Playboy? Though that still fails to address my point that many people's priorities are in the wrong place. Every night on network TV the coolest high school kids are having sex. That affects children far more than any pictures on an internet site might. Why is that allowed to be shown? Moreover, citizen boycotts are powerful things. But as Scott said, you have to show up.

I'm not a supporter of the sign law, and I would favor some sort of time window in the run-up to the election. However, I don't think this law violates free speech. If for no other reason than that the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress, not to local governments. However, as in the previous example, I would contend that many here have their priorities mixed-up. I sincerely doubt that the fiercest opponents of this law also oppose McCain-Feingold, which much more drastically limits free speech.

I'm not sure I understand your comment regarding that the 1st amendment only applies to Congress and not local governments.

If your claiming that the constitutional case that serves as a foundation for Simi's law should not have been granted writ of cert from the Supreme Court in the first place, then I sort of understand where you're going.

It was precisely the Federal Supreme Court in a majority opinion written by Justice Stevens (the same justice who wrote the government had a right to take private property for economic development) that decided the sign ordinance as designed by our city council past constitutional muster.

I think it's interesting that a sign ordinance challenge came out of Riverside from a local Republican group in Temecula/Murrieta rather than from people in the ACLU.

According to the link, political signs in the public right of way go back as a campaigning method prior to the Civil War. I could just see Lincoln now pounding signs in the ground for the election of 1860...

In terms of public space and free speech, I'd even go back further stating the public space in around "liberty trees" and "liberty poles" cropping up throughout the colonies prior to the Revolution gives deference to the public to communicate issues (signs) of public concern on public property.

While the current ordinance is constitutionally sound, from reading the reasoning in the 1980's case, it is absolutely divorced from our heritage and traditions to communicate issues of public concern.

The recent SC ruling on the Connecticut emminent domain issue did NOT directly address the right of municipalities to take property. The Court simply ruled that the municipalty was within its rights because existing laws allowed them to use ED powers to generate higher taxes. Members of the Court also stated that Connecticut voters could rectify the matter by passing new laws ending such practices but until they do...tough cookies, they need to obey the laws THEY voted for.

Far from it being an issue of the Court stepping on property rights, the ruling affirmed the right of the People to decide when and how ED tools can be used.

GS:

Are you saying you agree with the Kelo decision? So long as 51% of the population says it wants your property for a new shopping mall, it's acceptable?

While I understand from past posts your motivation for a weak to non-existent judiciary and unfettered legislators able to do as they will, I think the SC should have narrowly drawn the concept of "public use" in this case to send a larger message that an individual's property rights should be protected.

While I don't always agree with these Justices, I tended to favor the dissent of Clarence Thomas, Scalia, O'Connor, and Rehnquist as did 93% of the population.

Your notion that Kelo did not directly impact decisions at municipalities is incorrect as it enlarged the definition of "public use" to a very robust takings clause.

Second, those who are least politically powerful or live in the least desirable areas have now had their properties opened up to be re-evaluated by bureaucrats motivated by redevelopment tax increment financing dollars.

I'm just a little surprised by your support for Kelo.

I don't believe ANYONE's property should be subject to confiscation for ANY reason except to address an immediate public emergency. The Court was NOT asked to rule on government's right to take public property in the Kelo case but instead was asked whether or not the state law inre eminent domain was constitutional and thus did the municipality have the right to exercize its power of eminent domain. It rightly ruled that since the existing law had been accepted by the Voters, as the state constitution allowed, there was no violation.

In his remarks Stevens clearly stated that it was the right of the people to change the law at any time. It also clearly said that the ruling did not set a precedent because it did NOT address the issue of public takeover of private property but only the legitimacy of the state law that permitted it. None of the other states' eminent domain laws have been affected. No one's property is placed at greater risk because of the ruling.

For the record...the Kelo ruling is correct. The law it ruled on is terrible and should be removed from the books. The case raises the issue of voters being careful about what they ask for...because they just may get it. Californians should be particularly concerned about majority abuse of the law making tools available to them, since its relatively easy to create such problems here at the ballot box.

Owen, the 1st amendment hasn't meant only congress for generations. Otherwise states could ban all political expression if they felt like it. Likewise states could ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

Remember the flag burning case in Texas? It was a Texas law the Supreme Court declared was a violation of the flag burners first amendment rights.

You don't really think local councils have the legal right to govern speech, right? Do you think state governments could ban speech?

Advertising to future customers makes economic sense. Don't you remember the tobacco companies admitting to it? Do you think it is their 1st amendment right to advertise to children?

Someone explain what the link was to for me in real simple words.

GS:

So what happened to Susette Kelo in this case was appropriate or as you said "correct"?

Also, after the case, the city of New London charged Susette Kelo and other residents 5 years back rent because she lost the court case and was effectively living on public property, she just didn't know it yet.

The residents eventually settled, but I just believe the role of the Supreme Court should have been to overturn the law and created a minimum level of definition to "public use". Such a broad interpretation solely based on the will of the majority in a legislature or a municipality leaves the door wide open for all sorts of abuses.

GS:

The current decision could essentially lead to a majority concluding they want the whole city to be condemned correct?

Sort of reminds me of forced collectivization in the Ukraine in the 1930's by Stalin.

Scott Blough and Donna Prenta for Simi Valley City Council! They would have my vote!

The original Bill of Rights only restricts the abilities of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has decided, through the Incorporation Doctrine, that most of the restrictions should apply also to State governments. The idea is that if these rights are so fundamental, state governments should also be prevented from infringing on them. It's a pretty logical step in protecting citizens from the government. However, there is some disagreement on whether it should also apply to local governments, and serious disagreement on how much it applies to private organizations.

If Camel wants to have a cartoon mascot, then yes, I think they have a right to do so. Again, seeing one's parents/heroes/older siblings smoke promotes smoking far more than a cartoon. You're not addressing my argument about the ability of people to boycott anything that they think crosses the line. I thought liberals were supposed to believe in people power, but it seems that they think people are too ignorant and lazy, and must be protected. The government clearly has too much time on its hands if it is telling companies what advertising campaigns they can or can't use.

Scott, you're now attributing conclusions to me that I haven't made. I never said that what happened to Kelso was correct. I said that the Court correctly ruled that when the voters use their state constitutional powers to create laws (which Connecticut voters did during a wave of urban redevelopment furvor) they are bound by those laws until they choose to change them. In effect the Court ruled that the People have the last word on issues like local land use and eminent domain. If you believe the Kelso ruling was incorrect then you obviously believe that all state constitutions are moot and subject to federal decree, via the Court.

Upon entry to the Union all states are bound by the US Constitution and they enter into a contract with all the other states under the provision that every state constitution is subordinate to the US Constitution. I believe the only two states that are bound in a different manner are Massachusetts and Virginia. Since all our local municipalities (except Los Angeles and San Francisco) owe their existence to state constitutional provisions, their rulings too are subordinate to the US Constitution.

GS:

You wrote "Kelso" and I'm wondering if we are talking about the same case. The case I'm talking about is Kelo v. City of New London.

In your writings you are talking about how states enter into contracts with the federal government, but the Bill of Rights is a contract directly with the people.

I do not say I am a Californian, I say I'm an American.

So here goes,

The 5th amendment states,

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you suggesting that the laws of Connecticut preempt the American Bill of Rights?

I never said federal decree make state constitutions moot, but I do believe the 5th amendment should have been brought to bear in protection of Susette Kelo and the others who lost their properties.

Justice is about correcting wrongs and I'm not totally sold on the idea of justice being turned over to state legislatures and municipalities who wish to only take care the will of the majority as was designed.

This is precisely why Justices have lifetime appointments, so as to protect them from the whims of popular opinion.

My mistake in having added the "s". I WAS referring to the New London case however.

Upon acceptance into the Union states do NOT enter into a contract with the federal govt but with all the other states.

I am NOT saying Connecticut's (nor any other states') laws supecede the Bill of Rights...just the opposite: Connecticut's laws must pass a Constitutional compatibility test, as do the laws of all states (though there are complications with the original thirteen states because their constitutions were based on age old precedents that existed BEFORE the Republic). The Connecticut laws being tested in the Kelo case did pass that test due to the manner by which the voters and the state legislature brought them into being. At the time all the state needed to do was to show that it had follwoed a course of "due process". You know Connecticut's laws are unjust. I agree with you. But Connecticut's ancient constitution, approved by all the other states by default when they formed the Union, allowed for the bizarre circumstances that allowed the voters to inadvertantly make a victim of Susan Kelo. Should the law be changed? I think so. And the Court agreed that redress can be made if the people of Connecticut choose to do so.

As a case in point, California has comparativelty stricter conditions that need to be met for a municpality to take private property and a Kelo-like case would be unthinkable here. And though CA's love affair with propositions and initiatives could change that, any such change in property laws would be subject to Constitutional review (except, in some instances, in Los Angeles & San Francisco, whose city charters were founded long before the state's constitution).

Justice is a very subjective notion. Sometimes the majority acts justly. Sometimes they don't. the same can be said of legislatures and courts. We agree that Susan Kelo was a victim of laws gone bad. The Court was only asked to rule on whether Connecticut's voters acted within their rights to make the laws that victimized her. I'm certain that when they were asked to support urban redevelopment legislation those voters had the best of intentions. I'm also certain those same voters now sympathize with Kelo.

GS:

Let's just agree to agree... :)

I do agree with you that Connecticut state law was a bad one and is ultimately responsible for hurting Susette Kelo and other residents. With that being said, I would have liked the court to set a minimum standard of "public use", so maybe we disagree there.

Currently, the concept of public use is being redefined by states and municipalities everywhere, so maybe it's a good thing, but clear guidance on what public use means is needed at least to provide a floor for residents and attorneys as now we are most likely looking at more court cases as a result. (More a hunch than factual on my part)

One common use for eminent domain law is environmental remediation such as brownfields and environmental contamination. I know you've spoke heavily on Rocketdyne in the past and I wanted to know your thoughts on whether you believe it falls under your classification of an "emergency" requiring eminent domain. The GAO reports this as probably the most common practice of eminent domain law.

Would you support the government performing a "taking" of the areas you've discussed at Rocketdyne before?

And just so everyone knows, I'm not totally sold on pursuing condemnation procedures.

BTW: It's GAO-07-28 for any home-gamers who want to do their own thinking. I've never discouraged that...

I consider Rocketdyne's problems a POTENTIAL public health menace but even if it was a more immediate problem I would still not support public takeover of the property. I do, however, support public pressure to force the owners to mitigate any present hazards and to do what needs to be done to make sure there won't be any future hazards. If the owners won't do that then the public has a right to do it themselves and send the owners the bill.

The easiest way to fix Rocketydne and other such sites is to work with willing owners in a positive manner. Imagine what New Orleans would look like today if immediately after Katrina's devastation the Feds declared the region a Tax Free Zone. Private industry would have had the incentive to create an island of commerce and property owners would have shared in the rewards. Govt can do the same with a site like Rocketdyne, perhaps encouraging a working, world class, tax-free business campus dedicated to natural science research and environmental remediation...even as the tenants work to research and clean-up the mess. As the owner and landlord, Boeing would reap the profits and maybe set aside a share to local governments. The State and Feds could take a piece of the revenue from all new royalty streams that spin out of the campus. The point is, everyone gets something, the mess gets addressed and no one has to take the big hit.

It;s tough to imagine any situation where the public's need to take private property can't be turned into a win-win situation. And if it can't, then the public will have to do without.

A Foy sign being next to a Weiner restaurant is very appropriate.