High court OKs personal property seizures

[jczeroman]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/2....ap/index.html

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005 Posted: 1450 GMT (2250 HKT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They 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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

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

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

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, Connecticut, 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.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

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

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

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

[jczeroman]

Here you go you idiot lefties. This is what giving the govenrment power of individual rights gets you. Now corporations, in order to compete, are going to have to consolidate as much land as possible through immoral, unethical violations of basic rights. This legislation will be pointed to in the future as one of the reasons America became an oligarchy, based on an exclusive landowning nobility class.

This is a terrible day for liberty in this country. The idea that Wal-Mart can just muscle in now, USING GOVERNEMNT SIZED-FORCE and steal anyone's homes and land they want is absolutely insane. Again, this is how socialists in this country help big business and destroy the very ideals they pretent to espouse.

[Debaser]

Yeah, on the surface, I don't understand why the left judges went for this. I'd have to sit down and read their opinions. But this decision definitely doesn't make sense to me right now.

[Nimrod's Son]

Jesus, this is horrible

If this starts in San Diego, kiss beachfront property goodbye for more resorts

[Nimrod's Son]

For the record, once again I agree with Scalia. Man, he and I agree about 90% of the time it seems

[Nimrod's Son]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," right?

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Debaser
Yeah, on the surface, I don't understand why the left judges went for this. I'd have to sit down and read their opinions. But this decision definitely doesn't make sense to me right now.

Ginsburg and her pals saw a chance to put more power into the hands of the government. Simple as that.

[BeautifulLoser]

That's unbelievable.

So, how does this work exactly? Do the people who have their homes destroyed get some sort of compensation from the state, or from the corporations that take the land?

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
That's unbelievable.

So, how does this work exactly? Do the people who have their homes destroyed get some sort of compensation from the state, or from the corporations that take the land?

It basically allows companies to force peopel to sell at a value that they don't agree with. For example: I have a house that has been in my family for generations. My whole family bled to keep it in our family. Obviously it's worth a lot more to me than just the $100k that the market values it at. Wheras before, Wal-Mart could offer me maybe even $1,000,000 and I wouldn't go for it. Now I am forced to sell to wal-mart, no matter what the value of the land is to ME, THE FUCKING OWNER OF THE LAND.

[jczeroman]

You know what's goign to happen now 10-15 years from now?


There's going to be a ton of companies with local monopolies because of this law, and peopel are going to be screaming for EVEN MORE government legislation to "fight these monopolistic companies." Despite the fact that these companies were enabled and encouraged by this legislation to create local monoplies. Jesus Fucking God. Don't you people see how this works? This is how the Left creates their own problems and solves them with more of the same. (by the left I do not mean "democrats")

[spa ced]

Fuck this. I'm with O'Conner and her strong dissent.

[Debaser]

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
That's unbelievable.

So, how does this work exactly? Do the people who have their homes destroyed get some sort of compensation from the state, or from the corporations that take the land?

It's an expansion of eminent domain to in-clude the appropriation of private property to sell to a private developer. Eminent Domain is quite common by governments (it's addressed in our fifth amendment), and originally intended to be only used if the property is needed for "public use", such as roads, highways, parks, etc. Apparently in this case, they've interpreted this private developer's plan for this property falls into the category of "public use".

[spa ced]

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
That's unbelievable.

So, how does this work exactly? Do the people who have their homes destroyed get some sort of compensation from the state, or from the corporations that take the land?

if my understanding is correct the government pays you the market value of your home and even in some situations pays some moving expenses as well.
they can't just boot you out and give you nothing in return.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by spa ced


if my understanding is correct the government pays you the market value of your home and even in some situations pays some moving expenses as well.
they can't just boot you out and give you nothing in return.

Actually I know someone who owned a house. Appraised at $140k. His grandfather had paid off the house years ago and it was passed down. The municipality wanted an office complex there, and his house was to become a parking lot.

The city offered $60k. After a long battle he eventually got $100k.

[Corganist]

Can it be? An issue that everyone on this board agrees on? Wow.

I'm with you guys. This decision sucks.

[dreamsofdali]

Originally posted by jczeroman
[b]Here you go you idiot lefties. This is what giving the govenrment power of individual rights gets you.

How do you blame this on lefties? Republicans are more on par with corprations and stamping out of personal rights. And arn't you a libertarian? Doesn't that mean an unchecked free economy? Shouldn't the people decide, through commerce, whether they agree with this practace.....do I hear a boycot in the winds? I really don't understand how this is liberals fault. Republicans gave corprations rights not liberals

Now corporations, in order to compete, are going to have to consolidate as much land as possible through immoral, unethical violations of basic rights.

Not to sound like a bitch but this has been going on for quite a long time.....and for the record, IT TOTALY SUCKS.

This legislation will be pointed to in the future as one of the reasons America became an oligarchy, based on an exclusive landowning nobility class.

Once again I really want to know how you can put the blame on liberals.

Again, this is how socialists in this country help big business and destroy the very ideals they pretent to espouse.

Yeah that argument would work if we were a socialist country, but where not....it's capitalism that's doing this. Jesus you guys bitch about government regulation on big business one minute while telling off every liberal warning you of the wrongs of corprations...then get pissed when it blows up in your face!

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by dreamsofdali


How do you blame this on lefties? Republicans are more on par with corprations and stamping out of personal rights. And arn't you a libertarian? Doesn't that mean an unchecked free economy? Shouldn't the people decide, through commerce, whether they agree with this practace.....do I hear a boycot in the winds? I really don't understand how this is liberals fault. Republicans gave corprations rights not liberals

If you still believe left/right=Democrat/Republican, you're more naive than I thought.
However, if you look at who voted on the Court and which way they went, it's obvious the liberal judges said yes.
Typical leftist behavior is more power to the state and less to the individual. this is a great example of that.

Yeah that argument would work if we were a socialist country, but where not....it's capitalism that's doing this. Jesus you guys bitch about government regulation on big business one minute while telling off every liberal warning you of the wrongs of corprations...then get pissed when it blows up in your face!

This isn't capitalism. A capitalist society would force any corporation that wanted said land to buy it from the owner at the owner's discretion. A true free market would not allow the government to sieze land (even for roads, although that is a worthwhile addendum). This is not capitalism, it is much closer to corporate socialism, if anything, but even so this is a leftist-style ruling as it allows for a stronger government and weaker individual rights.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by spa ced


if my understanding is correct the government pays you the market value of your home and even in some situations pays some moving expenses as well.
they can't just boot you out and give you nothing in return.

The idea that the govenrment can force people to sell a home or property at whatever THEY DECIDE is market value is crazy. Market Value is noty soem arbitrary number that teh government can just determine. Market Value is when supply meets demand, that is when the buyer and seller agree. Wal-Mart can get a person's home to make a parking lot only when they pay that person an amount they agree to -- nto what some independed party believes it is worth.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by dreamsofdali

How do you blame this on lefties? Republicans are more on par with corprations and stamping out of personal rights.

Because it was the lefties on the Court who voted for this travesty. I doubt Ruth Bader Ginsburg really had the Republican agenda in mind when she joined this opinion.

Shouldn't the people decide, through commerce, whether they agree with this practace.....do I hear a boycot in the winds?

You don't understand. There's nothing to boycott here. Once the government takes your land, its gone. No amount of boycotting whatever business gets built on that land is going to get your property back.

I really don't understand how this is liberals fault. Republicans gave corprations rights not liberals

Sure. But that was a hundred and twenty years ago. If you're going to blame "Republicans" for things that Lincoln and Grant's judicial nominees did, then I would surely hope that you'd also give Republicans credit for winning the Civil War and eliminating slavery. It works both ways.

Doesn't matter though. This case didn't have anything whatsoever to do with corporations having individual rights. It just barely has anything to do with corporations at all. This case is about the government infringing on property rights. Just because in this case the land went to a corporation doesn't make corporations the bad guys. They're not taking the land. This case opens the door for the government to take land and give it to whoever they want, corporation or not, as long as they can fit it into their very loose definition of "public use". That's what the problem is. Not the fact that corporations want land.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by dreamsofdali


How do you blame this on lefties? Republicans are more on par with corprations and stamping out of personal rights. And arn't you a libertarian? Doesn't that mean an unchecked free economy? Shouldn't the people decide, through commerce, whether they agree with this practace.....do I hear a boycot in the winds? I really don't understand how this is liberals fault. Republicans gave corprations rights not liberals

No, they didn't. Watch the Aviator. Look at city planning in the 30's-60's. Monopolies cannot exist unless government enable them to. Legislation that gives corporations or anyone, power of govenrment force to infringe upon basic rights, is what has strengthened corporations to exploitive proportions.

Originally posted by dreamsofdali
Yeah that argument would work if we were a socialist country, but where not....it's capitalism that's doing this. Jesus you guys bitch about government regulation on big business one minute while telling off every liberal warning you of the wrongs of corprations...then get pissed when it blows up in your face!

Again, this is the results of leftism and the strengthening of the collective over the individual. Corporations cannot push people around if the government, by force, ensures that everyone has protection of basic rights to life, liberty and property. You have to stop thinking about this as a class struggle ("corporations vs. workers") and as a freedom struggle (collective versus individuals). Building a big collective entity that can be centrally controlled will lead to dictatorship, monarch and autocracy. Even done under a democracy, it will become an oligarchy of elites that rule it, until one emerges. better to have rights distributed equally so that even the wealthy and powerful cannot infringe upon people's basic rights.

The reason I don't like legislation against business (say higher taxes) is because it uses the majority to trample on a minority. Just because peopel are rich doesn't mean they should have less rights. When the govenrment is given principel to say to one group, "you have less rights than another group" (no matter what group we are talking about) they will someday use that precident, which is a power in and of itself, to trample on the weak. This is what we are seeing here. It is the result of the left's precident of "rights by class" beign turned around, as is bound to happen when such immense power is given to a body that can be so easily bought.

This is why I believe in a small government.

[Debaser]

the opinions of the court:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...friend=nytimes

[Mayfuck]

Hey jczeroman, don't you jack off to the Constitution? What they did here was perfectly constitutional. Stuff like this has been going on forever. Citizens--nay, POOR, plighted citizens--have always been displaced and evicted from their homes in favor of freeways, strip-malls, baseball stadiums (Dodger Stadium anyone?), etc. I'm not saying I support this but to treat this case as the sign of the forthcoming liberal apocolypse is false because this practice has always been quite common. In fact, it has always been the battle cry of the radical left to protect lower-income peoples as well as the environment from exactly these types of corporate invasions.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Debaser
the opinions of the court:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...friend=nytimes

Welcome to 1984:

Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose."

Insane.

[jczeroman]

I like this guy Thomas:

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."

[GlasgowKiss]

Ahaha, thats fucking bonkers.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by GlasgowKiss
Ahaha, thats fucking bonkers.

[Andrew_Pakula]

So basically say if you lived in a small town somewhere that had fallen on hard times and had a lack of jobs, then along came Wal Mart who promised a few minimum wage paying jobs and wanted to build some huge complex but only problem was that some poor peoples houses were in the way. Basically the local officals there could bulldoze and take over that land if they wanted to please the Wal Mart development. Would a few measily low paying jobs justify uprooting several families and kicking people out of their houses? Would a Wal Mart store development really be a public interest now?

[Mayfuck]

Originally posted by Andrew_Pakula
So basically say if you lived in a small town somewhere that had fallen on hard times and had a lack of jobs, then along came Wal Mart who promised a few minimum wage paying jobs and wanted to build some huge complex but only problem was that some poor peoples houses were in the way. Basically the local officals there could bulldoze and take over that land if they wanted to please the Wal Mart development. Would a few measily low paying jobs justify uprooting several families and kicking people out of their houses? Would a Wal Mart store development really be a public interest now?

Yeah exactly. Economic development needs to be integrated into the community and not over it. This is something for urban strategists to tackle and not the government just to say 'the hell with it.'

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally posted by jczeroman

Im having trouble understanding your objection to speed cameras.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by GlasgowKiss


Im having trouble understanding your objection to speed cameras.

We'll have that discussion some other time then.