The W
Views: 95612772
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.4.14 1346
The W - Current Events & Politics - Supreme court rules cities may seize homes for private devolpers
This thread has 24 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.84
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
(706 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.56
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property


    The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will for private economic development.


    It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

    The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.


Promote this thread!
Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.38
In Tampa, BUSCH GARDENS has been wanting to buy out a good section of houses to make a parking lot bigger... I think they have a easier way to do it now.

Also, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS in Orlando wants to expand more, why not take a few city blocks east and bulldoze over a few hotels.

This is just bad news all around.

Then again, hell, I want to build a mall. It'll bring in new jobs to what ever area I decide to put it in... give me land!



Cerebus: RIP 1977-2004.

"What do you think it's like being created by a manic-depressive, paranoid schizophrenic, hypochondriac, misogynist with delusions of grandeur and a messiah complex?"
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2653 days
Last activity: 2381 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.98
The Supreme Court gets another one wrong here. I'm not comfortable with the concept of "eminent domain" under any circumstances, but I certainly don't think that the government has the right to uproot a family and violate their property rights so that a filthy rich developer can build an office complex. Does anyone exercise any common sense anymore?
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 18 min.
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
I understand the need for eminent domain laws. I have been a long-time supporter of the project here to try and expand O'Hare Airport despite the need to take over a good chunk of private land to do so.

But I really can't support forcing people to give up their homes simply because a developer wants the land for below market value (which is inevitably what happens with this sort of thing). I mean I guess if a city really wanted to do it they could always re-zone the land to something industrial/business instead of residential, but it still just seems really shady. For once, I'm with Scalia on a decision.



vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2845 days
Last activity: 59 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Also in the "what the fuck, I'm a liberal agreeing with Scalia" category here. It feels itchy.

I'm not opposed to eminent domain in _all_ circumstances. If you're building something vital (roads, hospitals, etc.), that's one thing. But uprooting families to build an office complex and a health club? Fuck _that_ noise. I hope that the five majority justices live on properties that'll be targetted when Wal-Mart decides they want to expand and points to this as a precedent.

Down the road from me, there's been a huge legal fight for years about a township trying to seize a farm that's outside the township's boundaries to build a municipal-owned-and-run golf course. I hope this doesn't pave the way for the farm to be paved over.





Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2047 days
Last activity: 914 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22
A clear example of where our capitalist principles cojoin to superceed our constituional limitations. The 5th Amendment was never meant to give local authorities this type of power. I do love portions of O'Connor's dissent:

    Originally posted by CNN.com
    "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

    She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.




bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 611 days
Last activity: 1 day
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.06
Woohoo, all hail the end of property rights as we know them!!

Seriously, if it's acceptable to take away your private property in order to give it to a different private citizen, then there are no more property rights. Instead, it sure looks like any piece of property you want is yours for the taking if you know who to pay off and how much they want. Probably the worst thing about the whole decision, which can be found here, (straylight.law.cornell.edu) is that it appears to explicitly make the standard for review governmental intent. In other words, as long as the government says that this is being done for the right reasons, which apparently include paying off campaign contributors, then there isn't grounds for a legal challenge and you, the putative owner, are left with the option of accepting the low ball bid from the developer or accepting the low ball bid from the developer after eminent domain and getting to pay your legal fees and, most likely, his.

And some people wonder why I'm a strict constructionalist when it comes to the Constitution. Well done, Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg , and Breyer. Between this and the abomination known as McCain-Feingold, you've managed to make corruption not only fun, but profitable. A plague on all their houses.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 561 days
Last activity: 561 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.69
Gosh, that's a really poor decision, in my opinion. I do support the taking of private property (properly compensated) for public projects. (As a civil engineer I'd kind of be stupid NOT to support that.) However, allowing the government to take private property for other private uses is just...not right (took me a while to come up with a non-profane word).

I can totally see this being abused by wealthy individuals/coporations to bully their way to development. (And I'm one who normally argues against such "slippery slope" logic.)



I'm ScreamingHeadGuy, and I approve this post.

BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2653 days
Last activity: 2381 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.98

    I can totally see this being abused by wealthy individuals/coporations to bully their way to development. (And I'm one who normally argues against such "slippery slope" logic.)


I totally agree with you on that. I don't normally go for the "slippery slope" argument myself, but I think in this case, there really is no slope to slide down. The Court has foolishly said that any use of eminent domain can be justified on account of saying that seizing the property will "increase the tax base" or something equally vague and stupid. Now it would seem that it's all up to how local officials apply eminent domain.

(edited by BigSteve on 23.6.05 1407)
Oliver
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: Derkaderkastan

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.54
There has to be some form of compensation package above and beyond the cost of the house and relocation expenses, should this really happen...

If anything, there should be some form of an appeal board in the matter. That's just not right for the government to swoop in like that.

Remind me...this is happening in a DEMOCRATIC country, right? Sounds oddly socialist.



I play chicken with the train, play chicken with the train train, uh-huh uh-huh!
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2642 days
Last activity: 2485 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by DrOp
    A clear example of where our capitalist principles cojoin to superceed our constituional limitations. The 5th Amendment was never meant to give local authorities this type of power. I do love portions of O'Connor's dissent:

      Originally posted by CNN.com
      "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

      She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.



The government stepping in and sanctioning what amounts to theft isn't capitalism, or anything close. What a horrid decision.

And for those on the left who wake up in a cold sweat thinking of Bush judges, how does this one make you feel? This was all from the "left" side of the bench.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 291 days
Last activity: 291 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.22
This is up there pretty high on the idiotic decisions of the Court. Government taking land for the public good can be justified in some instances. Government stealing, and it is stealing as they'll be paying people pennies on the dollar, land for private use is criminal. Well, it would be criminal except for the 5 stooges, I mean Justices. And, god knows there will be no corruption occurring between developers and the government with the money being saved due to eminent domain. That would never happen.
Considering changing the Constitution appears to be a fun thing to do, maybe Congress will amend the Constitution so that eminent domain can't benefit the private sector and thus invalidating this Court decision. I'm sure that will be on the agenda after the next lobbyist three martini lunch.

(edited by redsoxnation on 23.6.05 1745)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネケポăƒȘă‚č

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.44
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    This is up there pretty high on the idiotic decisions of the Court. Government taking land for the public good can be justified in some instances. Government stealing, and it is stealing as they'll be paying people pennies on the dollar, land for private use is criminal. Well, it would be criminal except for the 5 stooges, I mean Justices. And, god knows there will be no corruption occurring between developers and the government with the money being saved due to eminent domain. That would never happen.
    Considering changing the Constitution appears to be a fun thing to do, maybe Congress will amend the Constitution so that eminent domain can't benefit the private sector and thus invalidating this Court decision. I'm sure that will be on the agenda after the next lobbyist three martini lunch.

    (edited by redsoxnation on 23.6.05 1745)
Your cynicism will CHANGE THE WORLD!

Speaking of cynicism, how's this for a paradox - I'm left to wonder why the thread was started...and yet I don't want to invite a second post from the author in this thread. Man, I'm a real dick.



©CRZ™
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 358 days
Last activity: 224 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.18
I assume this thread was started to let us know of a pretty imporant Supreme Court decision that leads to some pretty large possibilities, but who knows what sort of wacky ideas I might come up.

Yes, though, to change this, letters to Senators and Reps are needed, who can introduce bills changing eminent domain laws. I know in Missouri, eminent domain changes have Democrat and Republican support, but it's just not been a big enough issue for our legislature to focus on it. With this Supreme Court decision, that might change.



Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Nag
Landjager








Since: 10.1.03
From: Enter your city here

Since last post: 1989 days
Last activity: 44 days
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.37
In related news, you're still allowed to bear arms.
OndaGrande
Kolbasz








Since: 1.5.03
From: California, Home of THE LAKERS!

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.82

In related news, you're still allowed to bear arms

Yes, to a point. In California, we are not allowed to own certain guns and accessories (state "assault weapons" ban) that are legal in other states.And the Federal government has ruled some types of shotguns to be "destructive devices (the same category as grenades and land mines.)And many states have restrictions on carrying in public and the manner in which weapons are transported.

All this going on while freedom and democracy are supposed to be on the march.



LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT!
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 sec.
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.34
Cowboys vs Indians part II ... uproot us and put us in reservations.



DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2047 days
Last activity: 914 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.20
    Originally posted by Nag
    In related news, you're still allowed to bear arms.


Yes, because in America--we think it is more important to own a gun that can't be taken away from you than a house and land that can.

*sigh*

(edited by DrOp on 24.6.05 1143)


DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 25 min.
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.55
The Supreme Court, as I understand it, really said that this wasn't a good thing but that it wasn't unconstitutional. It was also stated that the way to stop this is for the state legislature to act.





Perception is reality
jwrestle
Lap cheong








Since: 4.4.03
From: Nitro WV

Since last post: 195 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.37
Emanate Domain...I thought was all well and good until this Supreme Court ruling. Building a school, expanding a road, or making something good with for public use was cool with just compensation.

Now...a developer can walk up to your door step and ask if you want to sell you house/land so he or she can build something.

You say no. He or she goes to the politician that they have in thier back pocket. Tell them they can make the government more money with development on your land. The politician, usually in the best intrest of making more money for the already power hungry government, has someone call you to say that your house and land are condemned. They pay you no where near the market price as "just compensation". You move and the developer takes the "private land" that was yours but isn't anymore due to utter stupidty the Supreme Court.

The "individual freedoms" are slowly being taken away in this country. Also if you happened to have made a investment in an undeveloped piece of land you might have just lost your stake in it. Just a fair warning to you.




Fear Prophet.

J.J. Dillon: "I'd rather flip burgers at McDonald's than work for Vince McMahon again." July 3, 2004
New Era Of Wrestling
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 4.84
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Fox News - Bastion of Deep Thought
Next thread: London hit by explosions
Previous thread: Canada: Same sex law passed 158-133
(706 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I have heard the racist version, but I always thought it really was "catch a tiger by the toe", and that was just some stupid redneck attempt at "humor".
The W - Current Events & Politics - Supreme court rules cities may seize homes for private devolpersRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.214 seconds.