Yay

The City of Berkeley has once again seized property without compensation, because it lacks the balls to admit when it seizes property.

As a reminder to all other property owners: Whatever you do, don't make something of any value whatsoever to the community. If you do, the City may landmark it and you'll be stuck with the bill for eternity.

Update: By the way, some legal-types read this. Do the Iceland owners have any basis to argue that this constitutes a regulatory taking, and that they are thus entitled to compensation?

Update 2: It quickly occurred to me that the answer was probably "no," because the same people who pushed to render the space nearly useless are also offering a piss-poor bid for it. So I guess it still has some economic value. Genius.

Update 3: Tom Fletcher agrees. The first comment is comedy gold, though:

I'm not going to argue the merits of this particular issue as I don't know any more about it than the one-sided set of facts posted here, but I really love Berkeley, for better or worse. It has heart, and isn't afraid to do what it thinks is best, making values other than profit paramount.

It's a good thing there isn't more than one person in Berkeley. All people in Berkeley think so similarly that it's appropriate to refer to them collectively in their desires, fears, and values.

There are very few places anywhere in this world where that is the case. If Clif Bars wants to go somewhere else, that's fine.

If folks think differently, they aren't really part of Berkeley. They should just get run out of town. Oh, unless they own something useful. Then they have to stay, or give it away, first. Though, I guess, in the commenter's "defense," she admits she has no idea what she's talking about, so that might not be part of the message.

I don't need to exist in an echo chamber, but I'd appreciate a Boalt blog with Boalt's character, Boalt's spirit. One that would never, ever utter the words "good riddance, Berkeley."

Boalt's spirit: Best embodied by an absolute prohibition on certain speech.

While I'm at it, check out the third comment:

Berkeley really isn't to blame for the homeless problem. The city is in a damned-if-you-do -and- damned-if-you-don't position. So if Berkeley kicks out the homeless, everyone will decry how homeless people have the right to exist, yadda yadda. But if Berkeley does nothing (which is really the only option, because the city doesn't have the resources, nor should it be responsible for solving the Bay Area's homeless problem), then people decry how cruel it is to let people go homeless.

Which people are doing this decrying? Berkeley people? I guess here they aren't collective. But it's not like folks have no choice but to give in to decryers. I think blaming Berkeley is perfectly appropriate. Or at least blaming a significant subsection of its population.

Update 4: Woo! The comments keep getting better and better! (For those of you curious, I have a policy of not commenting on Nuts and Boalts. I don't remember why I have this policy.) The 10:50 comment asks:

But I'm a bit confused. What's wrong with preserving the ice rink? Are you (Tom) complaining about the slightly underhanded way they went about getting it?

Slightly?

Step 1: Make shitty offer
Step 2: Use government coercion (in violation of the law regulating that government coercion) to prohibit owner from accepting any other offer
Step 3: Profit!!!

There's not even a question mark step here.

I agree that the way the Save Icerink group handled this seems a bit haphazard, but what's wrong with maintaining a community recreation place, even if isn't as "profitable" as another venture, so long as people want it?

I think the part that's wrong here is that, even though these people want it, they don't actually want to make the sacrifice and pay for it (via their fund raising effort or through taxes for government purchase), and so are making someone who doesn't want it pay the bill.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 7/17/2007 07:34:00 PM #
Comments (7)

. . .

Comments:

That's not a fair comparison. It's actually

"YMCA for south berkeley youth or unusable skating rink..."

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 12:09 AM, July 18, 2007

 

Right, there is more than one person in Berkeley. In fact, the people of Berkeley, as a whole, elect a city council to manage the city on their behalf. The city council voted, 5-4 (a very close decision) to declare the ice rink a landmark. Crazy? Inefficient? Maybe. But it was a representative decision by Berkeley. You're not happy, sorry. You're free to live somewhere where there are more people who think like you who elect more people who vote like you so that decisions you like are more likely to be made.

# posted by  Anonymous : 2:53 PM, July 18, 2007

 

Another person without a concept of "rights." Yay. So, if the city council voted, 5-4 (or 9-0) to, say, deny the right to vote to black people, your response to critical folks would be "You're not happy, sorry. You're free to live somewhere else," right? Or do rights only apply when you want them to apply?

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 3:07 PM, July 18, 2007

 

I appreciate the comparison of the Zamboni family and its attempt to make a $6.5 million profit from the destruction of an ice rink Berkeley has decided is a historical landmark to the disenfranchisement of a racial minority. Very close, and not the least bit offensive, analogy, bravo. But, as a lawyer, I am very familiar with the concept of "rights." Just as the right to vote is limited to those over the age of eighteen, the right to use property within a city is limited. Property ownership is often described as a bundle of rights, granted by the government, which at the end of the day has total control over all the land in its dominion, that include some things (such as the right to transfer ownership) but not others (such as the right to impose a racially restrictive covenant to prevent the property from being subsequently sold to a racial minority, to bring your favorite analogy back into play). If the regulation here is such that the property no longer has any practical value or use, the owner has the right to be compensated. But just as if the area were zoned for residential use and he wanted to erect a nuclear reactor, he cannot tear down a historical landmark. That is not part of his "rights." Sorry. I know you feel very put upon and victimized by those crazy liberals trying to keep you down, but no one's rights have been violated here.

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:33 PM, July 18, 2007

 

And what value does the property still have to the owner?

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 5:08 PM, July 18, 2007

 

Also, despite your lawyerly intentions, the concept of rights is broader than what you might find legally recognized in a coercive governing structure run by majority rule. This is the reason I mention the (at the time perfectly legal) disenfranchisement of entire races. The fact that the owner was not completely robbed wouldn't change the fact that this is a violation of his rights, whereby a majority is taking control of the property of the minority without taking responsibility for it (as would be the case for eminent domain). It seems that if "the people of Berkeley" want it, "the people of Berkeley," should pay for it, not foist the cost off on the current owner who provided the benefit to "the people of Berkeley" in the first place. The fact that you describe the proceeds from a $6.5 million sale as a $6.5 million profit may be part of the reason you don't see any violation here.

So let me ask you: What would've been wrong with seizing the property through the process of eminent domain?

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 5:26 PM, July 18, 2007

 

"..an ice rink Berkeley has decided is a historical landmark.."

Please keep in mind that Berkeley has also designated as 'landmarks' parking lots and crumbling retaining walls. Also that onetime Landmarks commissioner Carrie Olson has described herself as a 'career obstructionist'.

# posted by  Anonymous : 9:58 PM, July 19, 2007

 

Post a Comment