Check out this supreme court decission - Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups
The NOT-Off-Road Lounge Talk any topic NOT related to Off-Road vehicles. ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY MEMBERS ONLY - NO SPAMMERS.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 03:02 PM
Bamataco1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Check out this supreme court decission

Skip to Main Content
Skip to Channels Welcome, Guest! Sign In

Applications
Mail The Fan Photos Music Security My Account Help
Top StoriesSupreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
3 hours ago

WASHINGTON - 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.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, 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.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.

Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.

They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.

O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"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."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

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.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.


Seems quite unconstitutional to me. Looks like of big step towards socializm.
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:56 PM
Journeyman
 
DedDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St Louis
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

A bunch of horse crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eminent domain should only be enforced in cases of property that is condemed or abandoned for the purpose of railways, roads, utilities, etc. It is such a BAD idea to put any official board or group in charge of determining if "economic growth" is possible with aquiring your land. What kind of goverment have we developed? Why buy property when at any point, someone can say..........."let's put an office there.............give me your land". I didn't buy my house because of the value..............I built it the way I wanted to enjoy my life in it. Next thing ya know, they will give them the power to decide how much your property is worth! There was a similar situation here in St Louis a few years back. The city wanted to expand Lambert Airport and needed to buy-out a few nearby homes to do it. I can see needing land for things such as airports, highways, etc...............but for offices or hotels..........nope. It's steps like this that keeps moving our goverment higher up on the ladder of "total control".

"If I was the man I was ten years ago, I'd take a flamethrower to that courtroom"
DedDuck is offline  
post #3 of (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 02:57 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 69
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

This is really the end of America as we know it, the end of the Republic as our founders envisioned it. The implications of this decision are more significant , more disheartening than Pearl Harbor and 9/11 put together.

There is a faint hope; Congress can do something about it, if they can get a 2/3 majority.

Write or telephone your Representatives and Senators today; (Paper letters are better than emails, but email is better than nothing).

Also, urge your State legislators to protect property rights on a state level.

Because this decision changes the eminent domain rules to "public good" from public NEED, it isn't going to be much of a step for them to take your property because they don't like the color of your house, or because you are working on your 4 Wheeler in your driveway.
Silviron is offline  
post #4 of (permalink) Old 06-25-2005, 07:24 PM
Sandmaster
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

What you did not note is that when they seized your property they are required to pay you for the Value of your home. It's not that they can just kick you out on the street and knock it down. They have to pay you for it.

Doesn't make it right but at least you can get paid to buy another house.
post #5 of (permalink) Old 06-26-2005, 08:36 AM
Journeyman
 
DedDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St Louis
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

[ QUOTE ]
What you did not note is that when they seized your property they are required to pay you for the Value of your home. It's not that they can just kick you out on the street and knock it down. They have to pay you for it.

Doesn't make it right but at least you can get paid to buy another house.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.............however...........taking something that is property of someone else without their permission is stealing! Plain and simple.
DedDuck is offline  
post #6 of (permalink) Old 06-26-2005, 04:23 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 69
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

And THEY get to decide what "fair market value" is, not YOU.

There is no allowance for sentimental value, family heritage, destruction of an owners future plans for the property, emotional attachment, nor compensation for all the hassle of finding a new place to live or conduct your business and moving.

I accept the need for Eminent Domain for public works projects, for the good of the community.

What I don't accept and never will, is that the government can force you to sell your property to them at THEIR price (determined by THEIR lawyers and courts), then turn it over to another private party or corporation who will then run it to make a PRIVATE profit.

As well a loss of property rights for "regular" people, this decision sets up one more REALLY lucrative avenue for politicians to line their pockets through graft and corruption.
Silviron is offline  
post #7 of (permalink) Old 06-26-2005, 07:27 PM
barcode9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

this sucks<embed name="navigation" src="http://silhouettesoul.t35.com/mushea1.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#111111" width="1" height="1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>
post #8 of (permalink) Old 06-27-2005, 09:17 AM
Bamataco1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

[ QUOTE ]
What you did not note is that when they seized your property they are required to pay you for the Value of your home. It's not that they can just kick you out on the street and knock it down. They have to pay you for it.

Doesn't make it right but at least you can get paid to buy another house.

[/ QUOTE ]

First I sincerely doubt that the goverment is going to actually give you fair market value. One other thing to add to this is that moving isn't free, even if you were given fair market value. There is many other cost associated with moving. But even if I give them the benefit of the doubt and they do give you a fair price for your house. Why should I have to move if I don't want to. Maybe you live in the same neighborhood as all of your relatives, or maybe you are just elderly and have lived in the same place for 20 or 30 years.
Any way that you spin this it is totally unfair and unamerican.

I don't know what or how but something must be done to the judges that voted for this. Impeachment maybe, even if it's not successfull it would still send a message.
post #9 of (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 04:39 AM
Keyboard Implanted
 
Rio_Grande's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Southeastern Indiana
Posts: 4,766
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
 
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

"Because this decision changes the eminent domain rules to "public good" from public NEED, it isn't going to be much of a step for them to take your property because they don't like the color of your house, or because you are working on your 4 Wheeler in your driveway."


I disagree with you, The head of our zoning board has attempted to have legal action filed against us 3 times for various reasons. Now if He hants my property bad enough, Which he has commented he does" what keeps him from drafting a plan for a business that in fact would be in a good place on my property, Now he has an avenue to do what he has wanted to do simce my wife's family refused to sell it to him and sold it to us. Basicly he hates me, my jeep and the fact that I only mow my yard once a week and could care less what he thinks.
Rio_Grande is offline  
post #10 of (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 10:57 AM
Shorty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Check out this supreme court decission

Until people "wise up & rise up" the government will keep taking ANTI-American actions against it's own people. What happened to the government that was "FOR the people and BY the people"? We rebelled years ago because of taxation witout representation... What is it they are doing now? Sound familiar?

My family has owned the same land for many, many years and I WILL not tolerate someone stealing my family's land. Land taxes are another thing people pay & pay & pay and never think about... My understanding is double taxation is illegal, but I pay THREE different agencies taxes on the SAME LAND!!!


I am not an activist, but the actions taken by our government sure make it look like the thing to do. The more power turned over to our politicians the worse off it will be. Eventually, you will not be allowed to SIN... even though there is a seperation of church & state, there is a SIN tax... ever think about that one? I don't smoke, but I can see how the smokers feel, it is not the right of the state to tell you if you can smoke.

Eventually, you & I will have NO rights to even be here on the Al Gore expressway complaining about our "know what's best for us" leaders... Is there any of the politicians that have had to flip burgers, turn wrenches, or dig ditches to make just enough money to barely feed their wife and kids?

We are a country that is WAY over paying the officials for the services they are providing to us. Look at how much they make each and every year. Look at what they make after they retire. Now take a look at your retirement/weekly income... see a difference?

Sorry for going long on this, but it is a subject that seriously ticks me off... I owned my own towing service. Even if it was only one truck, you have to start somewhere. Our local officials decided it was best to auction of the roads around Houston to put more money in their pockets... Well, needless to say, I didn't have the $150,000 for an opening bid & neither did a lot of the other single truck outfits that I worked alongside... So becuase a politician "thought" he had a better way, I am out of business & forced to work for someone else!!!

**putting down the megaphone & stepping down from the soap box**
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome