On seizing Homes

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided 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.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated 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.

Full Story

---

right! tell me this doesn't open the doors for even greater corruption.

How surprizing! I'm sure they will say "Oh, but think of all the revenue it will bring to area businesses!"

I don't see how an office building falls under the category of "public use". Unless it's a utility.

And the arguement "at least you're getting something" (refering to fair market value), is weak, at best. Can you put a price on convenience, sentimental value, family history?? Not usually.

It's a damn slippery slope.

But atleast we'll have more sprawlmarts!

Quote:

---

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

---

hmmm... there must of been some big money against them on this from old Pfizer Corp. This is kind of interesting, because as you said Tedob is opens up a whole world of corruption for someone who could get kickbacks to authorize something of this nature. It might be a Walmart next for urban development...

I wonder if many local people will be given jobs at the Pfizer Corp. research center or the tourist attractions?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by hogfly
But atleast we'll have more sprawlmarts!

---

God knows we don't have enough of those. ;)

They're like white trash magnets.

And just when I tought they had reached rock bottom..... the scumsuckers start to dig.

Fight them all the way! this is an excuse for the "brown envelope" brigade to aggrandise their offshore accounts even further.

PUBLIC development, yes, PRIVATE development no! Unless of course, the courts rule quite reasonably that this sequestered (that means stolen) property has the average square foot value of downtown Manhatten?

If this is the way you lot intend to carry on then I want my people OUT OF IRAQ right now..........and I am deadly serious about that. You are not fit to be in our company. And to allow the supreme court to decide rather than force all elected representatives to vote on it is even worse.

:mad:

Is the NRA defunct these days? time someone started a cull?

You know Paris Hilton shops there.......... :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by !mitationRust
You know Paris Hilton shops there.......... :)

---

Heh heh....like I said.... ;)

It's also the epicenter of fat-America. Paris made a racist remark inside wal-mart. She said "dumb niggers", she was trying to fit in I guess?


****edit

The local gov forced my grandmother to sell some land for the development of an airport. They bought it for "fair value" translation: cheap.

Personally....

That is just WRONG!!!

How can a government be allowed to raze houses...for office buildings, casinos, walmarts.

Must be the current "nazi" administration at work. :eek:

Power to the people

Protest.....peacefully of course!!

My .02 cdn

MLF

Eminent Domain Law

Quote:

---

Abuses of Eminent Domain
In recent decades there has been growing concern about the manner in which some states and units of government exercise their power of eminent domain. Some governments appear inclined to exercise eminent domain for the benefit of developers or commercial interests, on the basis that anything that increases the value of a given tract of land is a sufficient public use. Critics respond that this is absurd, and that there are few properties, no matter how upscale, which could not be made more valuable if developed in a different manner. They also note that if a developer is unable to purchase the property on the open market, it is unlikely that the landowners will truly be offered the value of the property through condemnation proceedings. The governmental response to that point is that the law of eminent domain arose from the experience that some property owners are unwilling to negotiate a reasonable sale price, and such unreasonableness should not provide a basis to extort an above-market price or to prevent the completion of a public project.

For example, in one case a town wished to exercise eminent domain over a residential neighborhood, so that an upscale condominium development could be built on that land. To advance that goal, they defined any home within the neighborhood as "blighted" if it did not have three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an attached two car garage, and central air conditioning. The homeowners challenged the definition in court, and were ultimately successful in fighting the municipality's efforts to take their homes.

---

The "fair market value" thing bothers me...

Supposedly, they offer the highest price a buyer would pay. However, I bet it rarely works out that way.


Paris Hilton's remark.... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
Fight them all the way! this is an excuse for the "brown envelope" brigade to aggrandise their offshore accounts even further.

---

You mean Brown Shirts, right?

Quote:

---

Must be the current "nazi" administration at work.

---

You mean the Off Shoot of Bushes International Gang of Thugs? aka The BIG-T Vigilantes.

Eminent Domain my ass! This, People, is the beginning of the end. We're from the government and we're here to scare the hell out of you. But don't worry. With our new laws, if you follow them, you will be safe. BTW Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is contrary to the common good!

Hopefully, this only signal's the end of the Bush Gang - but the department of homeland security? Doesn't sound much different then the KGB (Committee for State Security) if you ask me.

Hi Dinowuff

Quote:

---

You mean Brown Shirts, right?

---

No, I am terribly sorry, the expression is from the construction/development industry over here. On a construction site, a white envelope is unusual and would attract attention.........."official", but brown envelopes contain plans, materials orders, variation orders and just about everything.

The ones I am referring to contain used $100 bills :cool:

I think you see where I am coming from :D

Well we learn something new every day. And I understand where you are coming from. I guess if I had read a little closer "aggrandise their offshore accounts even further." I would have got it the first time.

But this issue has really pissed me off.

It COULD be worse ............ :eek:

one word Zimbabwe ........

some more words one party state
how long do we let him get away with it

His explanation, is that these people are destitute, and illegally 'squatting' in his cities .......

as an interesting side note, 'they' are the opposition tribe, they are 50% of the population
HIS tribe control ALL the food
HE has declared that those who voted against him are not entitled to Zimbabwean food ????
He has stated that the country is over-populated by approx 6 MILLION .........
total population is around 12 million

look at the side note again :eek:
THEY are 50% = 6 million
HE says that 6 million is the number

Some people just live TOO long :(

Not sure how the supreme court are the thugs of the Bush administraton. The last president to appoint one was Clinton who appointed the lovely and talented laywer of the silent Elite, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then Clinton got another one... nominated in 1994 the San Fransican A. Justice Steven Breyer. But regardless, they have been making some BS rules lately. Both for the right and the left and I don't know where this falls in the mix, and don't care. Removing good homes for an office building is purely the interest of money, and money only. Especially off the misfortune of others. Is it a hospital or needed road or a right of way for a public utility or some urban renewal to replace old abandoned building or unsafe building. No, and it's ****ing bullshit.

Nihil, we need your help over there . But you are right the supreme court has too much power. It's meant to check and balance poor decisions on either the legistalion or the executive branches (congress and the president). Pundits have been using them for years to reduce the voting power and the voice of the people. I ranted about them here before... why is the supreme court even hearing these cases?

"Dissenting judge, Sandra Day O'conner" Reagan appointee. "...for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue" GENERATE MORE TAX REVENUE! :mad:

Here in the D/FW area...in a city called Arlington, the city is seizing homes and businesses to make room for a new football stadium for the Cowboys.

The Dallas Cowboys is a private company. What is worse, is that the residents of the city of Arlington have to pay for part of the cost of the new stadium!

It seems from this article that those who opposed the stadium were hoping the Supreme Court's recent ruling would have gone the other way.

No Jones Tax

Quote:

---

Ebertin also pointed out that an eminent domain lawsuit could be brought against the Cowboys as a means for the opposition group to deter progress of the stadium project. He said the Supreme Court is presently dealing with a case involving private property being taken for commercial development.

"A ruling against this practice could effect Arlington's ability to take property through eminent domain for the site they intend to erect the stadium," Ebertin said.

---

Seems to me that if a private company like the NFL comes in and steals your home. You shall forever be entitled to a small percentage of revenue from the coffers of those who took what was once yours. Say a million a season?

Quote:

---

Seems to me that if a private company like the NFL comes in and steals your home. You shall forever be entitled to a small percentage of revenue from the coffers of those who took what was once yours

---

Do the Cowboys still have THOSE cheerleaders .................

A different one each month for me please :D



It does seem to be a most unusual state of affairs.
Of course, here in the UK, we NEVER get laws that make you want to puke :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by foxyloxley
Do the Cowboys still have THOSE cheerleaders .................

A different one each month for me please :D

---

Yep. :)

I don't understand how the supreme court ruled this way. They are supposed to 'interpret' the constitution. The constitution is pretty clear that personal property is just that.

This whole "I'm taking your house away and giving you pennies on the dollar" seems pretty socalist to me.

Quote:

---

This whole "I'm taking your house away and giving you pennies on the dollar" seems pretty socalist to me.

---

No old chap, the "socialist" bit I can handle................we need 100 yards off your bottom field for a new school/hospital..............no problems with that.................20 feet to widen the road and make it safer?.......no problem.............

Ack phtt! It vexes me to see a great democracy being corrupted by hypocrisy :mad:

Hell I have had the phone call " can we use your airfield for an airfield defence exercise"............"of course you can Group Captain..........just shoot any bugger you don't recognise, my wife and I will be on a pilgrimage to Spain".........."OK Sir, thank you very much"............"hang on old chap, must get you the numbers............the main pit is still licenced for up to 40mm the two side ones for 20mm" the lads may want some fun?

"Thank you sir"

Airfield defence is RAF Regiment..........ranges are approved by the Army :D If you have the facilities you let them go for free?

Now, if something is being left to go derelict and attract vermin..........steam in there!!!!!, but a property that is "being quietly enjoyed by its inhabitants"

We have "compulsory purchase" over here, but it is for public projects

What amazes me folks is that the UK has a population of about 62 million living in an area about a half the size of Oregon.............yet you seem to be having these problems? HELL! is the country to small for y'all?
:D

Quote:

---

The constitution is pretty clear that personal property is just that.

---

From what I know of the U.S. constitution, there are no personal property rights ingrained in it.

Now, as for expropriating property, the city where I live has needed a freeway extension for over 10 years now. It is at the end of a major artery leading into Toronto. The only reason the freeway has not been extended was because of one lone holdout who refused to sell. Everyone else, although reluctant to sell to the state, realized the greater good it would achieve when they saw the road they lived on brought to standstill every rush hour. This is a two lane road extending for 10 miles where there should be a limited access, high speed, high volume freeway. You can imagine the gridlock it causes.

Finally, after 8 years, the province expropriated the land to build a road on it. We're still waiting for the bridge work to finish so the actual road can start, and we're still gridlocked. It continues to be a major problem since the city extends past the end of the freeway and commercial transport trucks are forced onto secondary roads day and night to make their way onto the freeway. There was no way to build this *very essential* road without forcing that one holdout to sell.

Now as for doing the same to put up condominiums or office towers, we as well have a downtown core riddled with substandard housing. This has held that core back for well over 20 years now. There has been no major developments in that area in that time. As such, our downtown core consists of two street corners - for a city of half a million (or thereabouts). This is because the mayors in that time have refused to expropriate land for that purpose. Had this been done, we would have a proper downtown core with sufficient businesses to allow people to walk instead of drive in the downtown area. But going on foot for the fifteen businesses there is more than most are willing to do. Hence adding to our current traffic problems.

There evetually comes a point where low density housing must be replaced with higher density commercial or residential use. It's part of the normal growth of a ctiy. Any city refusing to appropriate land for this purpose is evetually holding itself back.

That said, this power can obviously be abused, as stated in the many posts above. But coming from a city that doesn't appropriate enough land, I fully understand the need to do it.

As far as I know, this practice is relatively common in many places in Europe. The governmant needs to renovate buildings or replace them, and simply sends a letter kicking all the residents out. I'm not sure whether they finance the lodging for those citizens during that time, but it is an accepted fact of city living that buildings need to be renovated, imporoved, and sometimes replaced, for the greater good of the city.

A city cannot grow beyond a certain point when it continues to be full of low density housing. Eventually, buildings must be replaced with new, higher capacity buildings. Sometimes, land must be appropriated for this. It's a fact of urban life.

Keep in mind that it was the so-called "liberal" judges that took the
authoritarian position on this decision. I guess "liberal" doesn't mean what it used to.
:cool:

this made me think of Robert Mugabe even before I read Foxyy's post.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4123286.stm

Striek made some strong points also that compulsary puchase can be used in positive way.
The US would have to ensure that controls were in place to prevent powers such as these being abused.

The reaction to this news is just as interesting as the news itself. Quite shocking to see the levels of distrust we all have in our own and each others governments.

Quote:

---

The US would have to ensure that controls were in place to prevent powers such as these being abused.

---

Actually, the controls are in place, at least we thought they were.

Quote:

---

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.

---

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

Most honest people thought that meant that the property had to be
taken for public use, not to give to well-connected corporations.
But when the gov't chooses not to honor the constitution, what
can the little people do?
:cool:

Hi Striek,

There is a need to take land for the public good. Freeways, hospitals, air ports, urban decay, etc. You could make a weak argument for property in the constitution. In fact the sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. So given the circumstances, the justices agree with you. There is no protection within our constitution for property. But what they have done is set a daunting precedence for anyone fighting to have their land kept within their families. That precedence is, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Each city and each state should set their own limitations and controls and once the high court rules that is pretty much it. If one’s own individual case goes to court they will use the ruling as a gauge and it applies to the entire USA.

I guess this has been happening all along "under the radar"

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

So finally the bush regime master plan is revealed. Take us to war, drive us in to poverty, buy our houses for $1, raze them, build stores on top of them, give the contract to a haliburton subsidiary, in time to collect the money as he steps down from his presidency.
Brilliant!
As for being "under the radar"..this whole f****ing presidency has been under it.

Bush regime?

He must be using the secret mind control beams.

hogfly you could blam bush if he ever gets all his judges appointed but he hasn't. really the supreme courts need to be stopped. they use forign laws as presidence for making decisions and are completely ignoring the constitution. they think they are above the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by hogfly
So finally the bush regime master plan is revealed. Take us to war, drive us in to poverty, buy our houses for $1, raze them, build stores on top of them, give the contract to a haliburton subsidiary, in time to collect the money as he steps down from his presidency.
Brilliant!
As for being "under the radar"..this whole f****ing presidency has been under it.

---

Wow, I don't want to come off negetive, but that's a very ignorant view. This choice had nothing to do with Bush, or the war, but had everything to do with the Supreme Court justices that decided to stomp the little guy. I don't see how the Supreme Court legitimately made this choice. They didn't take the land for public use and the betterment of them--they took what the little guy legally owned and gave it to someone else.

I think I'm going to go to the Supreme Court and see if I can get that Walmart torn down so I can build my house there, or am I just being rediculous?

Quote:

---

Supreme Court and see if I can get that Walmart torn down so I can build my house there

---

Lol, never though of that. I think we should tear down all the run down K-marts in my town and build parks with hocky rinks.

//EDIT oh the "supreme" beings are going to rule on P2P soon, if not already since I haven't checked any news today. Is file sharing copyrighted material legal or not, will their answer be. MMMM.