Topic awaiting preservation: Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development (Page 1 of 1)

Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development

quote:

---

WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.

---

This raising alarm bells with anyone else?

What the hell is going on in America?

Now the local government can legally just seize your home, your land, and your businesses?

I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with this!

Mmm, crazy...crazier, anyways.

Nothing wrong with this. It creates jobs and increases tax revenues.

Unbelievable. Now if you have the money to grease the local city council or mayor's palm you can basically do whatever the hell you want, eminent domain just leapt ahead from so-called public use to private. This is why democracy is bad and a republic as fashioned by the Constitution is good, as it protected the individual's rights over the whims of the majority, or in this case self-serving bastards in a vain attempt at social engineering.

And how the courts could misconstrue the Constitution and Bill of Rights to justify this is beyond me.

*sigh*

Just a 'nother day in America.

quote:

---

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." _ Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing in dissent.

---

As I understand it... this screws with your 5th amendment. The bill of rights was designed to put limits on gov't... not the people. This is only the 2nd time it's been 'put' to the people if you will... the other was prohibition. And we know how well that one worked out.

On the bright side tho'... I'm thinking walmart is probably looking closely at a certain piece of property on Pennsylvania ave.

quote:

---

The bill of rights was designed to put limits on gov't... not the people.

---

*nods* Seems some of the higher-ups have forgotten some very basic tenets.

I would have to disagree that this is only the second time they have 'put' it to the people. With every new piece of legislation which deprives individual rights at the behest and/or benefit of government they are 'putting' it to us.


Ramasax

Power and Deceit and Greed, Oh my!

Canada is looking better and better.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Yet another rebuke of the government to it citizens, another issue where so-called liberals and so-called conservatives could come together, but most are more concerned with Rove's latest bashing of liberals or Durbin's analogies twisted out of context.

Yet again, the divide and conquer 'reality show' tactics prevail over real news, and a lot of media is more than happy to oblige. My hometown paper this morning, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, had the headline "Court Upholds Eminent Domain." Totally off-base. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05175/527821.stm

quote:

---

In a major blow to the so-called property rights movement, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday made it easier for government to condemn private property and turn it over to private developers in hopes of creating jobs and increasing tax revenue.

---

"So-called" propert rights movment?!? Time to write a letter to the editor...

The worst thing is that these people will recive the assessed value of their homes. Anybody with half a brain knows that the assessed value is only a portion of the actual market value. In a true free-market, without government involvment, the wealthy developers would eventually have to pay these people much, much more, and that is how it should be for "just compensation," for not only their property, but displacment and loss of ones home or business, in some cases handed down through generations.

So what happens to these people and the many others that this decision is likely to affect? They will be forced into something less that they previously had, and perhaps they can get a minimum wage job at the many wal-marts that are sure to pop up in the new plantation zones of Amerika. Ok, I'm sorry I keep ranting on this one folks, but to me this is the worst decision I have ever been witness to.


Ramasax

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

Power and Deceit and Greed, Oh my!Canada is looking better and better.

---

Canadia is cold, though.

quote:

---

Ok, I'm sorry I keep ranting on this one folks, but to me this is the worst decision I have ever been witness to.

---

I agree with that with every fibre of my being.

Just to be clear... emminent domain has been with us from the start whether it be the US, Canada, France, Great Britain wherever.

Holding title to a piece of property allows you to sell it, buy it,and so on but, ultimately that bit of dirt belongs to 'the state' and that's where 'expropriation' comes in. That of course is done all the time. Roads, hospitals...schools etc. ... many are built on land the gov't (at whatever level) expropriated obstensibly for the good of the public.

What the US Supreme court has done is to broaden the definition of 'public good' to include 'economic' well being. Very dangerous imo.

I could for example take a look at your property decide I could do a better job with it than you... create more jobs... park more cars pay more taxes... everybody's happy... until you realize the property I'm eyeing up... is your 'church! Think about it. A developers wet-dream I should think.

Mmmhmmm... over here it's called compulsary aquisition, whereby the government can pay you out a 'fair and reasonable' amount for your home and property and tkae it from you, all without your say-so. Oh deary me yes. Very nearly happened to my family a year or two ago when the proposed path for a new freeway went right up our driveway. Thankfully they thought better about that one.


Justice 4 Pat Richard

quote:

---

Canadia is cold, though.

---

True. But there are many ways to stay warm. And I wouldn't have to worry about Wal-Mart kicking me out into the cold.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

"compulsary aquisition" Same deal... but I think you'll find that it's 'eminent domain' that makes this possible in the first place. Or is that what you're saying and I'm just not fully awake yet? =)

As for the 'fair and reasonable amount'.... boy what a can of worms there especially with 'economic well being' now in the mix. If memory serves, one of the parties to this case is the owner of a gas station just on the outskirts of town. Family business forever but Walmart or similar wants the property and it seems that will be so...the result of this ruling.

The question becomes 'fair and reasonable amount' for what?
(Scenario)
You took over the gas station from your father and it's time now for you to retire and your eldest son has been working at your side for the past 10 years and he's ready to take over.

Fair and reasonable price for the property should be straight forward enough but what about the 'business' ? This piece of property has provided a good living for 5 generations of the Smith/Jones clan and there's nothing to suggest this business could not do the same for another 5 generations. Fair and reasonable compensation for 'future earnings' ?? Somehow I can't see Walmart or similar going for that.

One thing seems certain tho'... Full blown 'free enterprisers' can't complain too loudly because this is afterall the epitome of free enterprise. In this case the 'business' is the city/town/district which has found yet another way to harvest more money from the same bit of land.

I certainly like the 'church' scenario.... probably a perfect site for a gas station. Why not... I think the city would be hard pressed to say no... but of course would.

quote:

---

Skaarjj: Very nearly happened to my family a year or two ago when the proposed path for a new freeway went right up our driveway. Thankfully they thought better about that one.

---

Skaarjj, I'm not sure about Australia, but the fact that it was for a freeway, i.e. public use, has long been accepted in the states as perfectly fine for "eminent domain" cases. Doesn't make it any better for the person or persons on the receiving end, but they have been taking property in this fashion since the beginning as ascribed in the US Constitution. Nowadays though, with a lot more privatization of the roads, there may be a rethinking in order. Then again, maybe that is one of the reasons for this ruling. Hmm.

quote:

---

NoJive: One thing seems certain tho'... Full blown 'free enterprisers' can't complain too loudly because this is afterall the epitome of free enterprise.

---

I have to disagree there, this is a major distortion of free enterprise, just like NAFTA, CAFTA etc. The free market is defined as an economic system in which supply and demand are not regulated. If government were impartial on these issues, as it should be, the people would receive 'market price' for their properties, meaning the longer they hold out coupled with the extent of the developer's desire to acquire the property, the more money they would receive, AND they would have the option of not selling. Now, they will receive 'just compensation,' which happens to be the estimated value, a value set by the same municipality that is trying to take their property. They set the price at which they force you to sell. I feel really bad for people with prime real-estate on beaches, lake fronts, and river fronts. But IMO nobody is safe now, you may be safe today, but changes over the next decade or so could place your home in the firing line.

This is corporatism, a joining of government and corporate power to oppress people of their rights, in this case one of the most fundamental rights, that of property. At least we still have the 2nd amendment, because we may need it fairly soon. Perhaps this is why GWB has stated the war on terror could last up to a century, because now someone defending their homestead against an abomination can be classified as such. How many Ruby Ridges and Wacos are in the making now?

The last remnants of the Republic, IMO, were officially swept away on Thursday, and this nation as it was is gone, replaced by a system of neo-feudalism.

I just found this, very interesting: The Road to Serfdom, in cartoons. heh


Ramasax

There is a local conservative talk show host here in Pittsburgh called Jim Quinn, and he had a stinging rebuke of this decision which is both motivational and very imformative for those who need a primer. I asked his permission to distribute it around the Internet and got his ok, so here it is. Please spread it around to anyone who may need a wakeup call. I am posting this in a bunch of places, so hopefully my bandwidth keeps up. If by chance anyone wants to mirror it, feel free.

He does have a bit of partisanship, but his main points are worth listening to.

The file is 1.5MB and is located here.

Ramasax

Also, there is a petition going that I recommend all US Citizens go and sign if they are against this.

Ramasax

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html :

quote:

---

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

---

Let's keep our fingers crossed that the town of Weare does what's best for the economic well being of its community. After all, the controversy of this hotel alone should be enough to improve local business.

With regard to the Lost Liberty Hotel, here are the emails of the Selectmen of Weare, NH. Be sure to send them a letter and let them know what a wonderful I dea you think this is.

Laura Buono, Chair Person
lbuono@weare.nh.gov Term Expires - 2006

Leon Methot, Vice-Chair
lmethot@weare.nh.gov Term Expires - 2006

Heleen Kurk
hkurk@weare.nh.gov Term Expires - 2007

Joseph Fiala
jfiala@weare.nh.gov Term Expires - 2008

Donna Osborne
dosborne@weare.nh.gov Term Expires - 2008

Here is a copy of my email, feel free to plagerize if you want.

Dear Selectman:

I understand that a developer, Mr. Logan Clements, has started the process with your city's Selectmen to discuss using the recent eminent domain ruling to acquire the property on 34 Cilley Hill Road in order to build a theme hotel there.

I live in Pennsylvania, but have always wanted to take my family to visit New England. I have heard great things about the area, and if such an attraction were built I would make a point of visiting Weare, New Hampshire to stay in the Lost Liberty Hotel.

I am very excited about the theme hotel proposed by Mr. Clements and I hope you will give due and favorable consideration to his plan. I'm sure it would be an asset to the area and an definitely draw a lot more tax revenue than the current land holder. Additionally I have long admired New Hampshire for its special role in establishing and preserving the unprecedented freedom enjoyed by Americans. I think this proposal offers a unique opportunity for your city to strike a blow in that fine New Hampshire tradition.

I look forward to staying in the Lost Liberty Hotel.

Sincerely,

x

hehe

Thanks for posting that Ramasax, I sent my emails.