Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Isn't this the kind of Crap the founding Fathers went to war over!?!

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by grimjaw, Jun 23, 2005.

  1. grimjaw

    grimjaw 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Posts:
    944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seymour, TN
    High court OKs personal property seizures
    Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

    Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)

    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.
     
  2. Bubba Ray Boudreaux

    Bubba Ray Boudreaux 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Posts:
    20,716
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Undisclosed Location
    Sort of, kind of, not really............................................

    Hopefully, we won't have an influx of Bush hating losers on this thread blaming him for it when it was all the liberal judges who voted for this pile of crap decision.......................
     
  3. 89GMCSuburban

    89GMCSuburban 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Posts:
    3,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Thornton, CO
    Nah, I think most people here either don't care if Bush is president or they actually support him... I'm a supporter :D
     
  4. grimjaw

    grimjaw 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Posts:
    944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seymour, TN

    Er... the Liberal Justices voted against it. I have voted for a Bush for President 4 times in life and Reagan before that.

    My point is what if your family had a place in the mountians. It had been in the family for 150 years. Now if a Rich developer wants to build a Hotel on the top of the mountain. You do not want to sell because the land and home have been in the family forever. All the Developer will now need to do is get the local government to take the land 'for the increased tax base'.
     
  5. jekbrown

    jekbrown I am CK5 Premium Member GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Posts:
    45,031
    Likes Received:
    366
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    O'connor and scalia/rhenquist/thomas on the same side of a big constitutional issue? wowzers, who'da thunk it?! :blush: cases like this are why we need more conservative judges and less BS fillibusters.

    j
     
  6. Bubba Ray Boudreaux

    Bubba Ray Boudreaux 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Posts:
    20,716
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Undisclosed Location
    No they didn't.........................

    Those justices tend to show a left of center bent and they voted in agreement with the goverment in this case of imminent domain. The justices that tend to show a right of center stance voted against the government in this case.............................
     
  7. jekbrown

    jekbrown I am CK5 Premium Member GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Posts:
    45,031
    Likes Received:
    366
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    no they didn't... read it again. The conservatives on the court are Scalia, Rhenquist and Thomas... all of them voted against government land grabs. The 4 leftists/liberals on the court (plus one "centrist') voted in favor hence winning the vote 5-4.

    agreed... keep voting conservative and chit like this won't happen.

    j
     
  8. jekbrown

    jekbrown I am CK5 Premium Member GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Posts:
    45,031
    Likes Received:
    366
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    damn you bubba, beat me too it. lol. you even used a quote. ;)

    k
     
  9. Bubba Ray Boudreaux

    Bubba Ray Boudreaux 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Posts:
    20,716
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Undisclosed Location
    I'm actually surprised to see this case get decided like it did. I figured that the basis of the government in this case was enough to get it shot down. It's understandable that the government needs imminent domain for several purposes, but those cases should be more of a public need than this one. Unfortunately, the amendment in question is so dang vague in this instance that I'm sure the justices that sided with the government on this could successfully argue their point....................................
     
  10. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    I'm surprised this was actually a case!

    A few years back our city decided they needed a new city hall. There was a (new) vacant building that they wanted, but the owner wanted more than the city was willing to lease it for or whatever. So the city condemned the building and guess where city hall is now?

    My friend is a city planner for an adjoining town, and deals with the permits and such for developement. They changed the zoning that determines land usage through a "neighborhood", (to commercial) where of course 50 years ago the major road wasn't major. While they didn't condemn the property, it can't change hands without being converted to commercial usage.

    I can understand the "good of the many" necessity, but taking someones property for a venture as risky as business, is pretty rough. Wait them out, give them fair market value when they want to sell. 25 years isn't a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but the government acts as if it can't wait when there is money to (potentially) be had.
     
  11. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    I did a little research on emminent domain a few months ago, and even read up on this case. I'd forgotten about it, I was surprised this had to go to court. The "Public Use" is clearly being distorted for benefit of one private party over another.

    This makes me angry beyond words. If youdidn't believe liberal meant communist before, maybe you will now (said to no one in particular).

    This is going to open up floodgates for corrupt local governments that have wanted to abuse eminent domain for years, and have always been shot down on it or not brazen enough to push it to court.

    The New York Times building did this to some store owners in New York City, too.
     
  12. google

    google 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Posts:
    805
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Arizona
  13. cbbr

    cbbr 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    14,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High velocity, Low altitude
    Even with that decision, my guess is that public seniment will keep the politicians in check. I damn sure would vote against, and spend money and time to oust any politician who pushed the type of deal going on in this case. I would also refuse to do business with whoever took over the property.
     
  14. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    Interesting bedfellows is all I can say.

    Liberals had to choose business/profit along with the "collective good" and increased governmental control over us, while the Conservatives voted against business and profit, and for the individual.

    At least as the case has been presented here. :)
     
  15. afroman006

    afroman006 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    College Station & Kingsville, Texas
    Personally, if that happened to me, whatever was built on the ruins of my place would mysteriously burn to the ground. Just the idea of this pisses me off, even if it is for "public good." I dont give a **** if they want to build a free school for retarded parapelegics on land that I own, they have absolutely no goddam "right" to take it, muchless for less than fair market value. Goddam commies I hope this **** stays in the pinko-****** laden northeast.
     
  16. grimjaw

    grimjaw 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Posts:
    944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seymour, TN
    There was a guy on FOX talking about this. His fear was for churches. They do not pay any taxes (this is a different issue) so any thing could replace them under this ruling.

    And before you says no one would ever use a stupid ruling like this. Remember Miranda was a Supreme Court ruling too. How many killers, thugs, and other scum walked free because of it?
     
  17. joez

    joez 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Posts:
    2,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Lenox, Illinois
    This has NOTHING to do with Bush, it is the liberals moving one step closer to communism.
     
  18. Can Can

    Can Can Pusher Man Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    15,552
    Likes Received:
    136
    Location:
    Cochrane, Alberta, Canada
    Good thing that's an American decision.

    I own a nice piece of rural property in BC. God help the person/company/government that ever tried to take my land away from me.

    :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
     
  19. i8yrsuv

    i8yrsuv 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Santa Rosa,NOR KAL-IFORNIIA
    I was just at a church in Sacrameto that had a yearly budget of $500,000.00 a year ...That really sounded like a business to me !!!! ??????????????
     
  20. i8yrsuv

    i8yrsuv 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Santa Rosa,NOR KAL-IFORNIIA
    I think that CK-5 ERS will take the world first !!!!!
    P.SS The liberals will only take "one step closer " in Berinkenstocks !!!!!
    Bush is no better President then his Dad !!!
    Really guys,????? What Do you thing a liberal is ??? Are we talking welfare states that support other states ??? [blue states] .......Is it giving our tax dollars and getting losers off to go get boze to lead unproductive lives ?
     

Share This Page