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.

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...

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.

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

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

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...

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

double post

[ 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

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?"

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.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif

'twas a dark day indeed in America...

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

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

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.

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'? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

Mark

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

[ 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.

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

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

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 ]
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