SunwayLED        
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: High court expands home seizure right

  1. #1
    Flashaholic* Wits' End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Remote NEast Minnesota, next to Lake Superior
    Posts
    2,317

    Default High court expands home seizure right

    High court expands home seizure right
    [ QUOTE ]
    WASHINGTON A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
    --- was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are scheduled for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.

    As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

    Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
    ---"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

    New London, Connecticut, residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
    ----

    [/ QUOTE ]
    So what do you think? We had this done in our neighborhood to widen a road. An obvious 'Public Good'? What about for a commercial building though? I think it is another erosion of property rights.

  2. #2
    *Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,158

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    This is wrong!

    right to take away someone's property should be reserved for public good, not profit motive.

    this means local government, meaning city councelors at my end. A very_political group, would be deciding who's property is to be taken for someone else's good.

    yet another step further favoring the extreme powerful. following recent trends of allowing large corp's to become more dominant than they already are.

    since this is a supreme court decision, it goes no further. unless the law is changed.

    not good...

  3. #3
    karlthev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,802

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Local government officials are elected by the people to work on behalf of their constituents. When these elected officials do not represent those whose trust they held, they should be voted from their positions. This decision is clear indication that "we" have gone in the wrong direction.

  4. #4
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    3rd Stone
    Posts
    2,234

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    About 75 years ago satirist Will Rodgers said it correctly...

    "We have the best political system money can buy."

  5. #5

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Well…

    Edit: Comments removed as inappropriate - Empath

    It won't help those poor homeowners, but if some of them read the novel "Unintended Consequences" it might give them some great ideas that will certainly make the next crooked city council in the pocket of developers think twice.

    Eminient domain isn't a complete crock. If it was, there would be no roads, airports, bridges or anything. I'm completely sympathetic that public infrastructure has to be built. However, for private commercial development, the standards ought to be a lot higher. Maybe eminent domain seizures for commercial development ought to be 150-200% of fair-market value...

  6. #6
    Flashaholic* powernoodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    secret underground bunker
    Posts
    2,514

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    The first order of business should be to confiscate the homes of the 5 leftists Justices who wrote or concurred on the majority opinion. When they complain, we'll show them the opinion they wrote which says that the seizure is constitutional.

    Edit: Comments removed as inappropriate. - Empath

    best regards

  7. #7
    Flashaholic* powernoodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    secret underground bunker
    Posts
    2,514

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    double post

  8. #8
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,096

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    [ QUOTE ]
    cy said:
    This is wrong!

    right to take away someone's property should be reserved for public good, not profit motive...

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Actually, the text of the 5th Amendment:

    [ QUOTE ]
    Article [V.]
    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 offence 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.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    For the last couple of hundred years, it was "public use", now it is "public good"...

    Welcome to the world of the Constitution being a "living document" and the tyranny of the majority.

    I can’t build a ten story apartment or an office building where my house is because of zoning… However, a developer can force the sale of my property in collusion with the city, change the zoning, and build that apartment or office building on my property. All with court approval with the only condition is that the city gets a cut of the profits (real or imagined).

    -Bill

  9. #9
    Flashaholic Tom_Dunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fuquay-Varina NC
    Posts
    102

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    This is on every forum that I frequent, and those forums vary considerably in focus. I have not come across a single post that supports this type of action. Invariably, they support the concept of eminent domain for "public good", but not for "economic development".
    Reminds me of the Clint Eastwood movie where the rich miner is trying to drive off some small time prospectors. He makes the statement that they "are standing in the way of progress". To which Clint replies "Whose progress? Theirs or yours?"

  10. #10

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Threats of violence against either our elected representatives, or appointed officials, are far beyond permissible in this forum.

    It really should be possible to discuss current events here, but lack of consideration before posting has robbed us of another potentially great topic. I appreciate the contribution of those that posted acceptably.

    Those contributing to such a closure this time was:
    Powernoodle
    AJ_Dual

    Thread closed.

    Edit: After considering my actions, I feel that my closure of the thread is depriving the members of the opportunity to discuss an important and current event, just as much as the behavior of the few that brought it to a halt. Instead, I'll attempt to handle it another way.

    I've removed the offending comments. I'm reopening the thread for discussion, with the hope that others will not take advantage by either making inappropriate suggestions and comments nor level attacks against any member that expresses a difference of opinion.

  11. #11
    *Flashaholic* PlayboyJoeShmoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shepherd, TX (where dat?)
    Posts
    11,042

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif[/img]

    'twas a dark day indeed in America...

    I think I live in a pretty safe place. We'll see....

  12. #12
    *Flashaholic* gadget_lover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Near Silicon Valley (too near)
    Posts
    7,113

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    There are two things that bother me about this decision;

    First, it's the cavalier way in which a person's plans for the future can be wiped out by the local governing bodies. I'll explain; Many people have bought land, homes or busineses with the idea that, at some time in the far future it will be sold at a profit, used in their retirement or even passed on to their children. Financial planners will often advise a person in their 50s to hold assets till they retire when the tax bite is lessened. All of this is nullified if your land is siezed so that it can be sold to someone else who will make an immediate profit.

    In California, there is a tax law that keeps your property taxes from sky-rocketing. It was to prevent cases where people have paid off theoir house but have to sell it bacause the taxes had outgrown their pensions. The taxes eventually go up when people sell their homes. The difference in taxes, over 20 years, can be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is not compensated when you are forced to sell.


    My other fear is that, in some areas, forced "redevelopment" will target people whom the local officials dislike. This can be racial, religeous, or just plain onery. It's bad enough that pissing off the local zoning commission may result in a 15 minute parking zone in front of your hardware store. Imagine what they can do with this ruling? Decide that your hardware store is not generating enough taxes and should be replaced with a Starbucks? Decide that the part of town with the most black people should be an industrial park? Yuck!

    This is just a bad law. I urge everyoone to contact their government officials to ask that a law be passed to make it illegal, in their jurisdiction, to declare imminent domain except to enact public works such as roads.

    Thanks to empath for re-opening this thread.

    Daniel

  13. #13

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Those looking to the federal government as the law maker, for what should be decided on the state level, will no doubt be upset at finding the responsibility bumped back down to state level. Consider the difficulties involved with bringing about change in federal dictates, and you may see a silver lining in the decision. In general, I prefer state's rights to make laws and govern themselves as much as possible, unless there is justifiable reason that federal coordination and cooperation between the states are essential. Eminent domain is not one of them.

    The Supreme Court has in essence said they aren't concerned with what the states do regarding eminent domain, beyond the assurance of proper compensation for lands seized. They've said it's up to the states to do as they wish. The media apparently, for whatever reasons, seem to think the decision was an elimination of rights. It's not. It's an empowerment, enabling the people to govern themselves at a level that can't be achieved on the federal level.

    The last few centuries have demonstrated the ease with which grassroots political reform can be achieved for justifiable reasons. Our mobility and the frequenting of popular retail centers and such, en masse, have permitted successful petitioning efforts to a degree that is nothing short of phenomenal. State level politics have been given to the people to a degree that the federal level will never be.

    I'd suspect that the next few years will yield many states with ballot measures by the people, and restrictive definitions from state legislatures, all attempting to create a fair application of eminent rights. It likely wouldn't happen without the court's recent decision. It'd be as it has been; slow moving court challenges, with appeal after appeal, and then finding that the majority of the cases were actually negotiation maneuvers for a better price.

  14. #14
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Uh, no...

    Read BB's post again. The whole 'empowering states' thing is a liberal smokescreen to hide the fact that the Supreme Court DID just take away individual rights via its re-interpretation of the Fifth Ammendment. You can apply Empath's line of logic to any of the ammendments as a test. If the SC decided tomorrow that cruel and unusual punishment was perfectly legal and that its up to the states to decide, would you still consider it a valid 'empowerment'? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif[/img]

    Mark

  15. #15
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,096

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    It will be very interesting to see what happens next... New London was trying to lure Pfizer into this redevelopment area by helping the developers with this eminent domain case.

    Please note this case is really about all private property, not just physical homes, business, and land.

    Pfizer should be down right scared that they were one of the major reasons for this case and its eventual outcome. Pfizer makes its "living" on patented drugs. And, other countries such as Canada, India, and even regions such as Africa have either threatened or already out right violated drug patents as being needed for the greater good (such as HIV control).

    The US is (will have been?) one of the last major centers of development for new drugs just because of patent protection and the willingness of people to pay the "price" for these new drugs.

    Does this mean that every state in the country will now be able to "take for the public good" any drug they want (produced locally or imported from a foreign supplier?) to keep their medical costs down?

    Words mean something. The Constitution was written to limit government's "right" to reign over its people (now subjects).

    Will things get immediately worse? Or is this just another drip, drip, drip in the old water torture. I don't know.

    One point of view:

    Kennedy's Vast Domain The Supreme Court's reverse Robin Hoods.

    [ QUOTE ]
    The Supreme Court's "characterization deleted by BB to protect the young" wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses.

    No one disputes that this power of "eminent domain" makes sense in limited circumstances; the Constitution's Fifth Amendment explicitly provides for it. But the plain reading of that Amendment's "takings clause" also appears to require that eminent domain be invoked only when land is required for genuine "public use" such as roads. It further requires that the government pay owners "just compensation" in such cases.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    -Bill

  16. #16

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    [ QUOTE ]
    Minjin said:
    If the SC decided tomorrow that cruel and unusual punishment was perfectly legal

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Arguments of "if" are poor form, and can't be answered. All anyone can say is "if" doesn't apply, since it isn't reality.

    Placing the same merits of a falsely imagined scenario that the Supreme Court decides "cruel and unusual punishment" was legal, would be like trying to imagine the Supreme Court decided property seizure without compensation was legal. Both scenarios are absurd, without merit, and didn't happen.

  17. #17
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Are we descending to pedantic logic arguments now? Individual rights were taken away. Period. It doesn't matter if the states MIGHT give you those rights back.

    Mark

  18. #18
    *Flashaholic* gadget_lover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Near Silicon Valley (too near)
    Posts
    7,113

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    I have to disagree with Empath. The plaintiffs in this case were not allowed to place a price on their belongings. The city did it for them. At what point is it "without compensation"? At what point is it cruel to throw people out?

    I put to you the assertion that if one is not free to put their own values on their own belongings, they are not being compensated. My house may be "worth" $500K on the open market, but that does not mean that it's right to force me to sell it for that. The fact that I have NOT opted to sell it means that it's worth more to me to stay in my home.

    It's sad when the businesses and city become more important than the citizens. I wonder if New London has realized they can make a killing if they can corner the market for street drugs and prostitution.

    Daniel

  19. #19

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    i dont underst6and what im reading can some one give me a easy expalntion does this mean they can take my house and not even pay me?

  20. #20
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    [ QUOTE ]
    raggie33 said:
    i dont underst6and what im reading can some one give me a easy expalntion does this mean they can take my house and not even pay me?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    No, they have to pay you.

    Its always been that if you lived in a house and the local government needed your land to build an important road, they could take it and compensate you for it. That is a public use. Now, they have decided that if you live in an area that they think can be improved, either by building a hotel there or some condos, they can once again take your home and compensate you for it. This is for the 'public good'.

    In other words, we're getting closer and closer to socialism every day.

    edit: it would be like if someone wanted one of your flashlights, took it, and gave you however much one sold for last on B/S/T.

    Mark

  21. #21
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    North East Arkansas
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    This don't sound good to me, I wonder about "local" that sound different from "state" heck it is spelled different.
    Federal I got Federal law stops States from goofing up the people (sometimes) State law stops Local from goofing up well locals.So I see alot of wiggle room here. It appears
    that we are needing to be hoping that the "local" boys and girls
    do not dislike you or you might become a parkinglot for the good of the "local Leaders" not good at all. I am tolerant of others thoughts on this but it looks bad to me.
    Scott

  22. #22

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    ok i understand now thank you .i do recall once i lived in a place that became lots a trafic so they made it more lanes on road but the people at the end closet to the town center wouldnt give upo there property so the road bottle necked man it was a mess.but i guess they all got totger and did something in court to stop the road

  23. #23
    *Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,158

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    [ QUOTE ]
    Minjin said: The whole 'empowering states' thing is a liberal smokescreen to hide the fact that the Supreme Court DID just take away individual rights via its re-interpretation of the Fifth Ammendment.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    where do you get increasing power to already powerful entities is liberal? this would be more typical of far left actions.

    don't get me wrong, don't aprove of extremist in either direction.

  24. #24
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    It was the liberal leaning judges on the SC who won the decision. And liberals lean towards socialism, which is what this is. Good of the people over the good of the individual and all that...

    Mark

  25. #25
    *Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,158

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Minjin, where do you get this is socialism?

    giving more power to already powerful entities is trademark of far left actions.

    perfect example is allowing huge corporates that normally compete to merge. laying off thousands of folks and raising prices for all.

    who do you think benifited from AT&T being purchased by Cingular? it certainly was not the consumer!

    what about allowing huge Oil to merge. like BP purchaseing Amoco. Conoco/Phillips, etc. Don't you think this had a little something to do with current high prices?

    as a result of far left actions, we now have a few entities that control virtually all media in the US. be it print, TV, movies etc. with internet being the only exception.

    according to friends in refinery consulting. A large entitie is trying to win regulatory aproval to buy out refinery capacities. if successful they will control aprox. 60% of all refinery capacity in US.

    This I don't aprove of, anymore than far right actions.

  26. #26
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    North East Arkansas
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Power given to take from the people. I agree with Minjin on this point.
    Scott

  27. #27

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Gadget Lover, being able to set your price has never been the case, and I'm not aware of that point being involved in the court decision at all. If one is unhappy with the terms of compensation, I would imagine legal challenges can still be initiated, just as they always have.

  28. #28

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    [ QUOTE ]
    Minjin said:
    Are we descending to pedantic logic arguments now?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Nah... I'm just trying to convince you to stay out of make believe situations, and deal with what's real. Make belief rulings and what if's aren't real, nor have any bearing on the situation.

    I might add, that your labeling of opposing comments as liberal, and calling people pedantic are not conducive to good dialog. The name-calling isn't necessary, and is one of the contributing factors to the break-down of otherwise good conversation.

  29. #29
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,096

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Regarding the New London case, I believe that the Price of the Property was never at dispute in this particular case before the SC. The plaintifs specifically have a separate case to decide if the valuations were fair.

    Now, in a country as big as the US, it is a no-brainer to find specific instances like this:

    Couple was not paid for seized land

    [ QUOTE ]
    Kruses didn’t take $5,000 offered; now city says project benefits will be only payment

    Some might call Stan and Diana Kruse greedy. Others might accuse them of trying to block the inevitable march of progress.
    But to the Kruses, the city’s seizure of land needed to run a new sewer line past their Rothman Road home – without paying them a cent for the property – is about far more than money.

    Because the Kruses have appealed the condemnation approved May 18 by the Board of Works, Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley Levine will decide whether things such as a new fence and the ability to trade a septic tank for city sewers is adequate compensation for nearly three-quarters of an acre of what is becoming prime real estate. But State Sen. Dennis Kruse – a distant relative of Stan Kruse – believes the fact that the dispute has gotten so bitter indicates “the city has not handled this properly. It looks like somebody just got upset (with the Kruses for rejecting the initial $5,000 offer) and simply cut off negotiations and communications (with them).”…


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Unfortunately, the city can do whatever they want, and it is up to the “little people” to try and find a lawyer (and pay big bucks) to get their rights enforced.

    The Supremes have just eliminated one of our constitutional rights. There will be no way that the citizen will come out ahead (or even) in this mess. The powerful developers and City/Government Officials now hold all of the cards.

    -Bill

  30. #30
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    King of Prussia, PA
    Posts
    280

    Default Re: High court expands home seizure right

    Cy, this is "socialism" in that it eliminates the right of an individual to place his/her own price on their property. It transfers that power to the government. In essence, it institutes "price fixing" for commodities whose prices were formerly set by the market. (Markets, as you know, are a collection of individuals who choose to trade in certain goods). This was rather common in the former Soviet Union, where all wages and prices were fixed by the government. And Cy, I do agree with you that sometimes the political "right" tramples individual rights, but it was definitely the lefties on the USSC that made this decision. On no other day in my lifetime have I witnessed so many people lose so much, in such a short time period, to so few.

    Empath, I would like you to further consider your assertion that "...and then finding that the majority of the cases were actually negotiation maneuvers for a better price." Lets just say that I doubt the veracity of that statement, however, what negates this practice as a negotiation tactic in your eyes? I would like you to consider 3 points, please: 1.) in markets, if only one item is available, the one seller sets the price for that one item. 2.) In some cases, the seller may not be aware of his or her price before hand. (I.e. - Someone might say, I won't sell, not even for $ 10 million, and believe this to be true. But with an actual offer for $ 10 million, many people might waver, and sell). 3.) Your position implies that society is better off if someone like Donald Trump retains the $ 10 million dollars in my previous example, rather than having it go to the homeowner. Why? I look forward to reading your considered response. Thanks Cy, thanks Empath.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •