Wed
Apr 12 2006
10:58 am
By: rikki

 Write-in candidates for county offices are crawling out of the woodwork. As of this morning, there are 31 write-in candidates listed on the Knox Co. Election Commission website, including three running for countywide offices and the rest running for 11 different county commission seats. There are write-ins for both parties. Are you aware of all the choices you have in this election? Do you understand how the winners will be determined?

Chancellor Weaver ruled yesterday to allow this election to proceed as scheduled, but there may be appeals. Cases that will determine whether the recent Supreme Court ruling applies to the sheriff and other county officers are still pending. The courts may yet change the rules again. In fact, there is a good chance the courts will change the rules prior to the August general election.

Knox County voters would be wise to hold off on casting their vote until they are sure they know who they can vote for and whether they want a write-in ballot.

SayUncle's picture

I don't vote in Knoxville

I don't vote in Knoxville and have no dog in the fight but how did the Supreme Court change the rules? Seems they said the rules were valid. It could have been timed better.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

rikki's picture

Jesus, Uncle, are you

Jesus, Uncle, are you deliberately trying to be a dickhead? Why don't you ask the candidates who have been raising and spending money and running campaigns and suddenly found themselves disqualified whether the rules were changed? Why don't you ask all the potential candidates who decided not to run against an entrenched incumbent whether the rules were changed? Why don't you ask voters staring at a ballot half-filled with disqualified names whether the rules were changed? Let me know if you find anyone who gives a shit about semantics.

SayUncle's picture

Applying the rule of law

Applying the rule of law is not changing the rules. So, yeah, if that makes me a dickhead, guilty as charged.

So, we should just ignore the law because, gosh darnit, to do otherwise is just too hard and inconvenient?

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

rikki's picture

Who are you arguing with,

Who are you arguing with, Uncle?

SayUncle's picture

Who are you arguing with,

Who are you arguing with, Uncle?

Is that what that was? I thought I asked a question and was called a dickhead for it. Then, I made my case since you seem to think that applying the rule of law is inconvenient or not politically expedient or something.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

Number9's picture

Pot, kettle, you know the story

Rather comical for you to be accusing anyone of being a dickhead, Rikki.

Do you live in Knox County? No, you don't. Yet you find the need to constantly be an apologist for the incumbents of the political machine.

They were disqualified because of a voter referendum 12 years ago. Catch up. No laws were broken. In fact this is a great chance for real democracy to take hold in Knox County.

You could mind your own business but that would be too much to ask for.

You can find a list of the write in candidates here:

(link...)

Knox County May 2, 2006 Ballot - With Term Limited Commissioners and Write-Ins Noted

County Mayor
(R) Steve Hall
(R) Mayor Mike Ragsdale

Knox County Commission Candidates
1A (D) Commissioner Diane JordanTerm Limited
1A (D) Stacey Diamond Write-In
1A (D) Stephen Dupree Write-In
1A (D) Jim Garland Write-In
1A (D) John B. Foster, Jr Write-In
1A (D) Charles Frazier Write-In
1A (D) Stan Johnson Write-In
1A (R) Albert O. Baah Write-In
1A (R) Clarence Cash Write-In
1A (R) Nick Della Volpe Write-In
1A (I) Pete Drew

1B (R) Ann Dingus
1B (D) Commissioner Thomas "Tank" Strickland

2A (R) Commissioner David Collins Term Limited
2A (R) David Oatney Write-In
2A (D) Mark Harmon
2A (D) George Steffaniak Write-In

2B (D) Commissioner Billy Tindell Term Limited
2B (D) Amy Broyles Write-In
2B (D) Johnathon Wimmer Write-In
2B (R) Deborah W. Porter Write-In

3A (R) Commissioner Wanda Moody Term Limited
3A (R) Rex Norman
3A (D) Michael Daugherty
3A (D) Brenda J. Riley Write-In

3B (R) Commissioner Ivan Harmon
3B (D) Clovin Idol Write-In

4A (R) Commissioner John Schmid Term Limited
4A (R) Mike Alford
4A (D) Joan M. Wagner Write-In

4B (R) Commissioner Phil Guthe Term Limited
4B (R) Lisa Bogaty Write-In
4B (R) Holly Foutch Wolfe Write-In
4B (D) Elaine Davis Write-In

5A (R) Commissioner Mike Hammond
5A (I) John R. Sadler

5B (R) Commissioner Craig Leuthold
5B (R) Kyle H. Phillips

5C (R) Commissioner John C. Griess Term Limited
5C (R) Alexander Crain Write-In
5C (R) Larry Danner Write-In
5C (R) Gary Strand Write-In
5C (D) Tom Salter Write-In

6A (R) Chuck James
6A (R) Scott Russell
6A (D) Commissioner Stephen M. Cawood Term Limited

6B (R) Mike Corum
6B (R) Greg "Lumpy" Lambert
6B (R) Jimmie Shelton
6B (D) Margaret Massey Cox
6B (D) Jamie Price Payne

7A (R) David Amburn Write-In
7A (R) Commissioner Mary Lou Horner Term Limited
7A (R) James McMillian
7A (R) R. Larry Smith
7A (R) Steve M. Rogers Write-In

7B (R) Leo J. Cooper
7B (R) Commission Chairman Scott Moore

8A (R) Phil Ballard
8A (R) Commissioner Mike McMillian Term Limited
8A (R) James C. Eubanks Write-In
8A (D) James Brian Pirtle Write-In

8B (R) Kay Frazier
8B (R) Commissioner John Mills Term Limited
8B (R) Gary Sellers
8B (R) Roger William Bates Write-In
8B (D) Thomas Michael Pressley Write-In

9A (R) Commissioner Larry Clark Term Limited
9A (R) Peggy S. Lofin Write-In
9A (D) Steve McGill II Write-In

9B (R) David Kiger
9B (R) Commissioner Paul Pinkston
9B (I) Martin Pleasant

Sheriff
(R) Sheriff Tim Hutchison
(R) Carl R. Seider Write-In
(D) Randy Tyree Write-In

Register of Deeds
(R) Register of Deeds Steve Hall
(R) Charles Tetstone
(D) Scott Emge

Circuit Court Judge
Div.IV (R) David Lee
Div. IV (R) Judge Bill Swann

Criminal Court Judges
Div. II (R) Judge Ray L. Jenkins
Div. II (D) Ken Irvine

General Sessions Court Judge
Div. IV (R) Jimmy Kyle Davis
Div. IV (R) Andrew Jackson, VI
Div. IV (R) Chadwick B. Tindell
Div. IV (D) Ursula Bailey

Criminal Court Clerk
(R) Gail Jarvis
(R) Clerk Martha Phillips

Knox County School Board - These seats are non-partisan, but candidates typically lean one way or the other, I will post their known party preferences later.

District 6 - Thomas A. Deakins
District 6 - Fred Dillon
District 6 - H. Lee Martin

District 7 - Joyce Collins
District 7 - Diane Dozier
District 7 - Rex Stooksbury

District 9 - Robert Bratton
District 9 - Jim McClain

The following races are unopposed and will face no opponent.

Trustee
(R) Trustee Mike Lowe

Public Defender
(R) Public Defender Mark Stephens

District Attorney General
(D) Randy Nichols

Chancellor
Div. I (R) Chancellor John Weaver
Div. II (D) Chancellor Daryl Fansler
Div. III (R) Mike Moyers
Div. III (D)Jim Andrews Write-In

Circuit Court Clerk
(R) Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Quist

Circuit Court Judges
Div. I (R) Judge Dale Workman
Div. II (D) Judge Harold Wimberly, Jr.
Div. III (R) Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm

Criminal Court Judges
Div. I (D) Judge Richard Baumgartner
Div. III (D) Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz

General Sessions Judges
Div. I (R) Judge Chuck Cerny
Div. II (R) Judge Geoff Emery
Div. III (R) Judge Bob R. McGee
Div. V (R) Judge Tony Stansberry

Juvenile Court Judge
(R) Judge Tim Irwin

County Clerk
(D) Wm. Mike Padgett
(R) Kelvin Moxley Write-In

Knox County School Board
District 1 - Sam Anderson
District 4 - Dan Murphy

tennesseevaluesauthority's picture

If I recall correctly, you

If I recall correctly, you don't live in the City, so do not comment on any City matters.

The above is a joke, right? I understand there is some sort of dust-up between some folks from another blab that tends to drift over here sometimes. And, frankly, I'm not that interested in the backstory. I've read a few posts about it and moved on when boredom set in (usually by the third or fourth post).

 However, I can't seriously see how someone can suggest that they shouldn't post a comment on "City" matters because they don't live in the "City." (It's a "County" election, by the way.) Given that the suggestion to not post on "City" matters because one does not live in the "City" was made by someone living in New York and not Knox County, I figured the author was attempting to convey some sort of sense of irony.

rikki's picture

In fact this is a great

In fact this is a great chance for real democracy to take hold in Knox County.

 If you consider a ballot littered with names that are nothing more than black holes in which votes can disappear to be "real democracy," sure. If you think an election in which organizations that are not even defined in the Constitution, namely county parties, can overrule the will of the voters is "real democracy," then you are absolutely right. This election is a shining example of democracy in all its glory!

You analytical skills are so weak that you can't even see that your natural constituency, the eminent domain bedwetters, is being screwed in this election. Mike Alford will likely lose to a disqualified incumbent, get the brush-off from the Knox GOP, and the nomination will go to a party insider. With better timing or a little more respect in the courts for the interests of the voters, Alford could be running against a newcomer, and it would be the voters, not party officials, choosing who gets the nomination.

There are plenty of reforms that could reduce the advantages of incumbency and the two-party system, and plenty such reforms that I favor. Badly timed court decisions that create chaos, empower the two parties, and rob fresh candidates of an opportunity to run for an open seat don't make my list of important steps toward a stronger democracy.

Number9's picture

A simple solution exists

rikki, thanks for your concerns about my analytical skills. Much appreciated.

There is a simple solution. Each ineligible incumbent should stand down and ask their supporters to vote for one of the eligible candidates. Uncle was right when he wrote that no laws were broken. The names must stay on the ballot and the election must go forward.

The simple solution is the personal integrity of the ineligible incumbents. Mary Lou Horner has lead the way. She has shown what should be done. Stop the campaign and thank the voters for the terms she had. Don't be a tool of the party and voter disenfranchisement.

This is a great chance for real democracy to take hold in Knox County. 41 write-in candidates have come forward to bring new energy and purpose to Knox County.

But you originally supported the ineligible incumbents and wrote how unfair it was to them. I don't get it. They have served multiple terms and their time is up. What about the 41 write-in candidates who will be disenfranchised by the actions of the ineligible incumbents who refuse to do the right thing and stop their campaigns since they cannot serve? Do you have any compassion for them or does your compassion only extend to the Knox County political machine?

By the way, you old pal at the Metro Rag has a pitiful unsigned editorial today that promotes voter disenfranchisement and Republican toadyism. Why you and Toolman defend that jerk I will never understand.

(link...)

You are correct that political parties are not part of the Constitution. Good job. At least you get that part.

For a hippie kind of guy you are a complete sell out. And of course, you don't live here and cannot vote. But thanks for sharing.

Number9's picture

Knoxblab, the Constitution, & Dollar General

I am glad you are saving the world. Thank you. But you are still a major tool, hence the name.

I stopped posting at Knoxblab after my 10,000 view post was locked by Hi-Top. I saw this as an infringement of freedom of speech. Of course he was bowing to your wishes so I questioned how much value the Blab really had. That was the only reason I stopped posting there.

My so called "know-nothing constructionist view of the Constitution" is still superior to your "collectivist" view of what is not in the Constitution. Only the most far left radicals see Libertarians as the new Republicans. Your self loathing angst is showing, again.

Nothing wrong with Dollar General stores. They have many fine products and I shop there once in a while. I have had jobs like that being a clerk at a Dollar General store but I was a teenager. You should stick with the story about my mom's basement. Has more punch to it.

Go get those bureaucrats Super Toolman.

skirob's picture

Sorry sir, but you now

Sorry sir, but you nor anyone for that matter, had anything to do with your thread being locked.

#1 The thread had grown into something totally different that what it started as

#2 Lots of people were complaining from both sides (yourself included, you have contacted me on more than one occasion and I was more than cordial)

#3 Here's the biggy so hold on......That thread was locking up on repeated test conversions to the new board. Upgrading Knoxblab turned into one big fiasco. More than one thread was locked but obviously this one was the only one that was noticed.

 

Feel free to come visit at anytime. 

rikki's picture

But you originally supported

But you originally supported the ineligible incumbents and wrote how unfair it was to them. I don't get it.

 No, you don't get it. I said it was unfair to Knox County voters, who are now looking at a ballot full of holes. Normally when you have an open seat, whether due to term limits or retirement or whatever, you get a fair number of candidates. Larry Stephens gave up his 6th Dist. seat, and there are two Dems and four Reps on the ballot. We could have had a rich slate of contestants in all these races where the incumbent is now ineligible, but we don't. That sucks.

A reasonable solution would be to postpone the election and open it back up to new candidates, but Chancellor Weaver seems to think sticking to an arbitrary schedule is more important than finding a way to make the election fair. Frankly, given that it seems impossible to postpone this election, I'd rather let the incumbents run one last time and replace them next time with a full slate of candidates than allow the parties so much power. The write-in campaigns are exciting, but far from ideal, and standing down is an empty gesture that will have little impact on voters. Mary Lou is one of the few incumbents who actually has opponents on the ballot she can defer to.

You are free to accuse me of being an apologist for the political machine. I wouldn't expect a dull, opportunistic hypocrite like yourself to pass up a chance to anonymously slander me. For example, I'm not surprised that even though I have defended you against the not-from-around-here argument several times, you have now twice told me to shut up because I live in Blount Co. Kiss my ass.

Oh yeah, I agree that the MP endorsements are pitiful. In particular, the phrase "to stave off any write-ins" is startling. 

Number9's picture

"Take back the government"

A reasonable solution would be to postpone the election and open it back up to new candidates, but Chancellor Weaver seems to think sticking to an arbitrary schedule is more important than finding a way to make the election fair. Frankly, given that it seems impossible to postpone this election, I'd rather let the incumbents run one last time and replace them next time with a full slate of candidates than allow the parties so much power.

Weaver can do nothing. State election laws mandate that the names cannot be taken off the ballot and that the election must go on as scheduled.

The idea to give the incumbents "one more election" violates the State Supreme Court ruling. You are quite the idealist. State Supreme Court rulings don't care about timing and they shouldn't.

Will the Republican or Democrat party select the write-in candidate that receives the greatest number of votes, assuming they receive the 5 percent minimum, or will they anoint the final candidate for the general election with a party favorite?

When they select a party stooge for the general election is when this will get interesting.

You still haven't gotten the idea behind the "Take back the government". Remember when you asked who we should take back the government from? Now you know.

rikki's picture

Let me know when you make up

Let me know when you make up your mind about whether I'm an idealist or a sellout.

Number9's picture

Make up your mind

Let me know when you make up your mind about whether I'm an idealist or a sellout.

Since you are both at different times you could be very flexible or maybe just bipolar. I like it better when you are an idealist. That part I understand a little.

Your defense of ineligible incumbents makes no sense to me. If they had any understanding of the law or devotion to their constituents they would stand down. It does not surprise me that they chose to support party over principle. When your master is a political machine you have little sense of loyalty to actual voters.

JustJohnny's picture

.....

....isn't there a better forum for this discussion?

Number9's picture

Your defense of ineligible

Your defense of ineligible incumbents makes no sense to me. If they had any understanding of the law or devotion to their constituents they would stand down. It does not surprise me that they chose to support party over principle. When your master is a political machine you have little sense of loyalty to actual voters.

Do you defend the action of the ineligible incumbents? What part of term limits is unclear? I think rikki's pat answer of "give them another term" is ridiculous. How is that any different that the Metro Pulse position of "let the party decide"?

It is an important discussion. Since you have done a "drive by comment" why don't you voice where you stand? What do you think the ineligible incumbents should do? Should they stay or should they go?

JustJohnny's picture

hardly a drive by

...I just think when it comes to 'personal words' it is better done in an email and not in blog comments.

My stance on it?

The ineligible incumbents should resign. Will that happen? Not Likely! I am all for a government elected by the people for the people and not 'county party appointments'.

My only question to any and all of these write-in candidates is this: Where in the hell were you before when the county party was begging for people to run? That is for the D's and R's alike. I'm glad thrilled to see more people interested in their government, but it all does look a bit like buzzards hovering over road kill if you ask me.

.....I always enjoyed taking the number 9 from mid-town to the village--but then again, the number 1 was okay too.

rikki's picture

Since you are both at

Since you are both at different times you could be very flexible or maybe just bipolar. I like it better when you are an idealist. That part I understand a little.

That's because you are an idealist. In fact, you are an anarchist. I'm more idealistic than most, but I'm a scientist and engineer by training, so when I see problems, I look for solutions. Your solution to every problem is to destroy something, usually the government, or just bitch.

Solving problems is a lot harder than noticing them or bitching about them, and it often involves compromising principles. Because I'm willing to talk about solutions that fall short of revolution, I'm a sellout in your eyes. I have better solutions for fair and democratic elections, but they are not relevant to the case at hand. Just like with this term-limits crap, to be fair and effective, they'd have to be implemented long before filing deadlines passed and ballots got printed to actually solve anything.

Your solution (ineligible incumbents stand down) and Johnny's (ineligible incumbents resign) are both meaningless. Neither solution puts a coherent ballot in front of voters. My solution is based on the precedent set by the courts when the City of Knoxville instituted term limits, and it has the advantage of making the ballot coherent. I'd prefer a delayed election, and I think Weaver's loyalty to arbitrary scheduling "mandates" over the fundamental need for fair and meaningful elections is perverse. Rescheduling an election is not an affront to anyone's civil rights. Making citizens vote on a ballot full of ineligible candidates and giving voters' power away to political parties is an affront.

JustJohnny's picture

realism

Rikki --
Great take on it. In an ideal world, that would be nice. However, the election isn't going to be postponed --that is my realistic take on it. We have to deal with what we have instead of what we want. The next best thing would be for the disqualified to bow out of the race (which I mistakenly called resigning before) to keep party officials from hand picking their candidate for the fall.

Finally, can we move away from personal-esque remarks? It doesn't do anyone any good to turn this blog post into a he-said she-said thread.

rikki's picture

The next best thing would be

The next best thing would be for the disqualified to bow out of the race to keep party officials from hand picking their candidate for the fall.

There is nothing candidates can do to prevent party officials from picking who gets on the August ballot. They can't have their names taken off the ballot. They can't magically assign their votes to another candidate. Basically, you're talking nonsense.

And if you want this discussion to keep from being personal, you're asking the wrong person. I'm more than happy to keep it civil. If you'll look back through the replies, you can see who turned the discussion into a venue for personal attacks.

Number9's picture

In fact, you are an anarchist

That's because you are an idealist. In fact, you are an anarchist. I'm more idealistic than most, but I'm a scientist and engineer by training, so when I see problems, I look for solutions. Your solution to every problem is to destroy something, usually the government, or just bitch.

rikki, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how mistaken it might be.

What you advocate is against the Tennessee State Election Law and the U.S. Constitution. In fact the decision from Nashville that should the ineligible incumbent win, that the party can choose a replacement candidate for the general election is a violation of the 14th amendment. Your idea to delay the election or to open the ballot is against Tennessee State Election Law.

Why is advocating personal integrity from the ineligible incumbents an "anarchist" thought. It seems to me to be just the opposite. They have been term limited. What part of that is hard to grasp? The law says they stay on the ballot. It does not say that if they win the party can choose a replacement. If Mike Moyers had any guts would this problem exist?

You are a simple binary creature with zeros and ones. You are right and everyone else is wrong. If only it were that simple.

When looking for your solutions remember that any solution that violates the law or the Constitution is not a valid solution. Judges who have the same flaws as you interpret the Constitution to the point where it loses meaning. Kelo is a prime example. You are a collectivist and I am an individualist. That is why you keep mistaking me for a Libertarian. That is where your confusion comes from.

My solution is less idealistic than yours. It obeys the law and the Constitution and simply asks the ineligible incumbents to do the right thing and honor the will and the 1994 vote of the people.

It seems we both agree the voters have been disenfranchised.

Number9's picture

it is no surprise that you support Kelo

You have no idea what was decided in the Kelo case. What was decided? What was the ruling? Have you even read it or do you just regurgitate Libertartian fantasies all day?

You still to this day have not defined "collectivist." If you assent to the rule of law, are you not acting in concert with others? It really comes across as some sort of word that you either pulled out of your ass, or read on Free Republic or WorldNetDaily.

Kelo ruled that private property could be taken for private use by another private entity, group, or person. The misguided see Kelo as an expansion of "public use". It was a re-definition of "public use" and is not Constitutional. It is one of the worst rulings in the history of the Supreme Court but it is no surprise that you support Kelo.

Everyone else in class understands what "collectivist" means. Get a dictionary if you do not.

Number9's picture

not exactly

If you paid attention in Tennessee, you'd notice that they are tightening takings for public use for all property except in one special case. You don't even have a clue what that case is.

Prove it. You do not know what you are talking about. You don't have a clue what is happening in Tennessee.

The first paragraph of your rant is so flawed I don't know where to begin. So I pass. You never admit when you are wrong so what is the point of endless typing? Like Uncle I have to remind myself it is impossible to discuss anything with you.

I do get some solace however that you are saving the world fighting bureaucrats. It must be the ninth level of hell to be in a meeting with you. I despise bureaucrats so you do bring some joy to this world.

Number9's picture

Don't quit your day job Perry Mason

Nope. I know what I am talking about. I have the TN statute, as under consideration, right here in front of me as part of the brief we are writing.

It is not statue until it is voted on. You are looking at a House or Senate Bill. Don't quit your day job Perry Mason.

As for Saroff. He is neither rich or lazy. How you extend compassion to some and withhold it for others is a mystery. So if a person doesn't have enough money to finance a 10 million dollar condo project his property can be taken from him? Where is it written that you must have enough money to turn the property in to a tax generating property in order to keep the property? Sounds like Kelo?

You see, that is an example of collectivism. KCDC working for the greater good of the common man. Yeah right. When KCDC then gives his property to one of the oligarchy and pays him a fraction of its value it becomes imperialism and theft. You are the great interpreter. Only you have the wisdom to decide who should keep their property. If Saroff was poorer would you have compassion for him? You see the world through you own self loathing angst.

Rachel's picture

Where the heck did Saroff

Where the heck did Saroff come from? Were we talking about him?

Metulj is right about Kelo. SCOTUS did *not* say - contrary to what you and all the other alarmists are claiming - that it's legal everywhere in the U.S. for local govts to take private land and sell it to developers for the purpose of economic development absent a finding of blight. It said that doing so didn't violate the U.S. Constitution - and, in this particular case, the Constitution or laws of Connecticutt. The majority opinion clearly stated that states were free to impose restrictions on the use of this power by local authorities.

Many have done so.

Currently in Tennessee, it is legal to use eminent domain to take private property in blighted areas under the Tennessee Community Redevelopment Act. It is *not* legal, as it is in Connecticut, to take land that is not blighted strictly for economic development purposes. If you don't believe me, go read the Act.

Scotus' ruling in Kelo is consistent, BTW, with many court rulings involving land use law. Courts in general are loath to second guess local goverments on things like rezonings etc. and usually defer to them in land use cases unless their actions are clearly arbitrary & capricious, discrminatory, or deny someone due process.

As for my credentials, I'm no lawyer - but I have a degree in planning, which required that I take a course in land use law in which we studied all the precedents for the Kelo case. And I really try to understand all the implications of an issue before I take a position on it.

Note to whoever asked for the personal sniping to stop - we try, oh how we try, but the more you hear from #9, the more you will realize how difficult it can be to have an intelligent, civil discussion with the digit. (Randy, you can delete this graph is you like.)

Number9's picture

how difficult it can be to have an intelligent, civil discussion

Currently in Tennessee, it is legal to use eminent domain to take private property in blighted areas under the Tennessee Community Redevelopment Act. It is *not* legal, as it is in Connecticut, to take land that is not blighted strictly for economic development purposes. If you don't believe me, go read the Act.

You and metulj are among a large group of people that interpret Kelo in a framework that fits your world view. I hope the following helps. I doubt it will because it is alien to your view of the world.

(link...)

Astute readers will quickly note that the phrase "public benefit" is far broader than the constitutional words "public use." That latter phrase clearly covers only two situations. The first arises when land is taken to build government facilities, such as forts, or to construct infrastructure, such as highways, open to all. The second covers those cases where property is taken by, or conveyed to, private parties who are duty bound to keep it open to all users. Private railroads and private grist mills, both of which are subject to the common carrier obligation of universal service, are two obvious examples. Note too that once a given use is properly identified as public, it does not matter for constitutional purposes whether the project is wise or is as foolish as New London's redevelopment program. The constitutional inquiry is over once it is proved that the project falls into these categories. Factually, the standard of review hardly matters, for it takes little genius to prove that a given structure is a fort or a highway.

The great intellectual blunder of the public use law over the past 50 or so years is that it has wrenched the public benefit language out of this narrow holdout context. In the mid-1950s, the Supreme Court held that takings were for public use when they were intended to relieve various forms of urban "blight"--a slippery term with no clear constitutional pedigree. Thirty years later, the court went a step further by allowing Hawaii to force landlords to sell their interests to sitting tenants, as a means to counteracting ostensible "oligopolistic" market conditions. Now any "conceivable" indirect social benefit would do, without regard to the attendant costs.

Rachel's picture

You and metulj are among a

You and metulj are among a large group of people that interpret Kelo in a framework that fits your world view.

I'm not "interpreting" Kelo; I'm simply telling you what the Court held.  Again, it held that taking private land by eminent domain for economic development purposes absent blight did not violate the U.S. Constitution.  To that extent, it expanded the possible definitions of "public use" (the old definition not including the "absent blight" part).  And I agree with the author of the opinion piece you posted in that the Court has expanded the definiton of "public use" in this century.  That's a fact.  Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

However, and I'm repeating myself here, the Court also explicitly stated that States were free to restrict such use of eminent domain as they saw fit.  Connecticut had not; Tennesse, under the Community Redevelopment Act, only allows eminent domain of blighted areas for economic development purposes.  This is exactly the same standard that the Supreme Court endorsed way back in 1956.  In effect, Kelo changed NOTHING for Tennesseans.

I've told you before that you are completely entitled to your opinions.  You are not, however, entitled to your own set of facts.

And BTW, you have no idea what my opinion of the Kelo decision is; that is, I haven't told you whether I think the Court made a good ruling or not.  I've only told you what they said; not what I think of it.

I'm sorry too, Randy.  But you see how it is.....

 

Number9's picture

Misuse of eminent domain is exactly the reason

Misuse of eminent domain is exactly the reason yada yada

You are incredible. There has been "misuse of eminent domain" in Knox County for decades. Here is a shock, some of these people were poor and some were minorities. Where were you?

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Well put Toolman. You must be very happy.

Number9's picture

Kelo changed NOTHING for Tennesseans, yeah right

However, and I'm repeating myself here, the Court also explicitly stated that States were free to restrict such use of eminent domain as they saw fit. Connecticut had not; Tennessee, under the Community Redevelopment Act, only allows eminent domain of blighted areas for economic development purposes. This is exactly the same standard that the Supreme Court endorsed way back in 1956. In effect, Kelo changed NOTHING for Tennesseans.

Do you have any idea what is happening in Nashville on eminent domain? Kelo changed everything. We have been over this ground before. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. What you wrote above is YOUR opinion.

Before you go any further devote a small amount of time here:

(link...)

JustJohnny's picture

wasn't this post...

....about Knox County elections?

Number9's picture

As far as the Knox County

As far as the Knox County election is concerned it is done. It may not be fair but it goes on as scheduled. The simple solution is for the ineligible incumbents to have the integrity to stand down. Don't hold your breath for that to happen.

Rachel's picture

Do you have any idea what is

Do you have any idea what is happening in Nashville on eminent domain?

Yeah, mostly a lot of political grandstanding.  And have you actually read the Tennessee Community Redevelopment Act?  Get back to me when you have.

 Rikki, sorry we've hijacked your thread.  Back to the election.

While I'm really happy with the Tennessee Supreme Court decision, the timing really, truly sucks. I like the solution you suggest; I just have no real idea if it's legal under Tennessee election law.  A lot of folks seem not to think so, but then a lot of folks were opining for the last ten years that term limits weren't constitutional.

 Are there any folks on this blog with experience in Tennessee election law?  I'd like to hear from you.

Number9's picture

House Bill 3450

Yeah, mostly a lot of political grandstanding. And have you actually read the Tennessee Community Redevelopment Act? Get back to me when you have.

Grandstanding is not the best word. Theft is a better word. Even Blake Wylie is on the case of House Bill 3450. Written by Joe Fowlkes it is a bill that can allow any farm or rural property to be taken for any reason. The heat is so hot that even the TML is deserting the bill it sponsored. Only the Farm Bureau and a couple of Democrats remain loyal to the bill as written. Fowlkes decided not to run for reelection. You see, Kelo does matter in Tennessee.

(link...)

House Bill 3450 states:

2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 13­20­201, is amended by
adding a new subsection (c) as follows:

(c) Under no circumstances shall land used predominantly in the production of agriculture, as defined by §1­3­105, be considered a blighted area. SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 13­16­207, is amended by adding a new subsection (e) as follows:

(e) A city or county may exercise the power of eminent domain for development of an industrial park only with respect to property located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city or county; or in the case of a city, also with respect to property within an urban growth boundary as defined in §6­58­101, or in the case of a county, also with respect to property within an urban growth boundary or planned growth area as defined in §6­58­101. Before a city or county may undertake to exercise the power of eminent domain for development of an industrial park, it must obtain a certificate of public purpose and necessity as provided in subsection (a) even if no funds will be borrowed for the project.

Number9's picture

agrees with Richard A. Epstein's analysis

Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6—13.

The link you provided:

(link...)

agrees with Richard A. Epstein's analysis. Mr. Epstein is a professor of law at the University of Chicago and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution. Please note where the link you provided states, "Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” You are a bright guy but you see what you need to see instead of what is there. Kelo was a broad interpretation. If you don't agree with Kelo why do you agree with the ruling? This idea of kicking it back to the States will result in wide spread abuse of eminent domain. It was one of the worst rulings in the history of the court.

Epstein wrote:

Astute readers will quickly note that the phrase "public benefit" is far broader than the constitutional words "public use." That latter phrase clearly covers only two situations. The first arises when land is taken to build government facilities, such as forts, or to construct infrastructure, such as highways, open to all. The second covers those cases where property is taken by, or conveyed to, private parties who are duty bound to keep it open to all users. Private railroads and private grist mills, both of which are subject to the common carrier obligation of universal service, are two obvious examples. Note too that once a given use is properly identified as public, it does not matter for constitutional purposes whether the project is wise or is as foolish as New London's redevelopment program. The constitutional inquiry is over once it is proved that the project falls into these categories. Factually, the standard of review hardly matters, for it takes little genius to prove that a given structure is a fort or a highway.

Rachel's picture

This idea of kicking it back

This idea of kicking it back to the States will result in wide spread abuse of eminent domain.

This is your opinion, and you are, of course, entitled to it.

But my observation of what is happening is that many states are addressing exactly under what conditions they want eminent domain to ocurr.  That seems to me a good result, not a bad one.

As for Kelo itself, I think the ruling was correct.  However, I also think taking non-blighted land by eminent domain and selling it to a developer is wrong.   I think it's wrong; I just don't think it's unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

 I'm happy that it's not legal in Tennessee, and I'm glad to see other states working on it.

BTW, just curious - aren't you one of those guys who want to take back the government?  Doesn't that mean taking it back from "unelected judges" and the Feds and devolving as much responsibility as possible to local governments and directly elected officials?  Someone with that philosophy should agree with this ruling.

Or does philosophy go out the window when it conflicts with the desired result?

 

Number9's picture

which ruling you are speaking about

But my observation of what is happening is that many states are addressing exactly under what conditions they want eminent domain to occur. That seems to me a good result, not a bad one.

I don't know as much about other states but what Jimmy Naifeh and Joe Fowlkes are doing in Nashville with HB3450 is a disgrace. You can ignore it and say that Nashville is working on eminent domain reform to protect property owners but that is not was is happening. They are working to pass a law that makes taking private property for private development by eminent domain possible.

As for Kelo itself, I think the ruling was correct. However, I also think taking non-blighted land by eminent domain and selling it to a developer is wrong. I think it's wrong; I just don't think it's unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

I disagree with your assessment. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

BTW, just curious - aren't you one of those guys who want to take back the government? Doesn't that mean taking it back from "unelected judges" and the Feds and devolving as much responsibility as possible to local governments and directly elected officials? Someone with that philosophy should agree with this ruling.

Or does philosophy go out the window when it conflicts with the desired result?

I would respond but I do not understand which ruling you are speaking about.

Oren Incandenza's picture

Got the list?

I'd like to wait and study the write-in hopefuls, but for now I can't open the list link -- it's not a PDF and nothing else I've tried seems to work.  Could someone please post it in a more accessible format?  Or get Greg Mackay to do it?

rikki's picture

The list is a Flash file,

The list is a Flash file, which is bizarre. You ought to be able to install Flash for free. Otherwise, name your commission district and someone would probably be willing to type those few names and the countywide write-ins instead of the whole list.

JustJohnny's picture

.swf flashpaper

Yo: On the flash format --that is Macromedia's Adobe's version of PDF's. I suspect that now Adobe has taken over Macromedia that Flashpaper will go away.

R. Neal's picture

I just wish they'd learn

I just wish they'd learn HTML over there at the KCEC. The website is a hundred times better than it was, and there is less PDF than before. But Flash? Sheesh!

R. Neal's picture

Huh?

Huh?

R. Neal's picture

Ahh, yes. I'm guessing

Ahh, yes. I'm guessing you've also heard the old joke with the punchline, "oh, that was the demo."

Car Guy's picture

Metropulse's endorsements

Metropulse's endorsements are on the web site now and Betty Bean's column is up at the Shopper's web site.

R. Neal's picture

Wow. So, Glenn Reynolds

Wow. So, Glenn Reynolds endorses Harold Ford, and Harold Ford spent more time with Glenn and Dr. Helen than with the D voters of E. TN?

Guess that seals it for me. Corker for Senate!

(Which was probably Glenn and Dr. Helen's strategy. They are smart/sneaky that way, poisoning the well for any potential D Ford voters who might be paying attention.)

As for that trashy local tabloid's endorsements, I'm having trouble digesting it all at the moment. (Which was apparently the intent -- "yeah, we know it's confusing, just trust us!" Yeah, right.)

But whoever they are for, I'd be against, because their picks are more than likely (and obviously in some cases) against the people and for the GOB status quo and assorted hangers on.

Except maybe Dupree. Sad to seem him get mixed up in all that.

rikki's picture

Except maybe Dupree. Sad to

Except maybe Dupree. Sad to seem him get mixed up in all that.

Who happens to be one of the write-in candidates hoping to inherit Diane Jordan's cowboy hat collection...

Rumor is MP is going to use next week's Earth Day/EarthFest issue to introduce a new environmental columnist. I wonder what sort of TVA apologist, pro-developer twit they've dredged up for that. 

R. Neal's picture

Rumor is MP is going to use

Rumor is MP is going to use next week's Earth Day/EarthFest issue to introduce a new environmental columnist. I wonder what sort of TVA apologist, pro-developer twit they've dredged up for that.

Bill Baxter?

Just kidding. Let me guess... they offered you a corner office in the Sunsphere?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives