What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

At what point do we start pitching tea......

  • Thread starter rattler
  • Start date
into the harbor?

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


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.

someone i know on another board posted thi:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]This supreme court decision has really got me pissed today.

Let me just throw this scenario out:

In the PR of Kalifornia, we passed Prop 13 years back that basically freezes property tax assesments at the value at which you purchased the house. In theory, those assesment values can only go up when the property is transferred.

Many homes in my home area have been owned by the same people for many years. I could use my parent's home as an example. They paid $60,000-ish for it in the 70's. It is now worth about $750,000 to $800,000 on the conservative side. Imagine that the city decides that it wants to realize more property tax revenue, they claim the property under emminent domain, sell it, and reap the benefits of the higher assesed value. After all, it's for the public good.

Further, in KA, redevelopment areas are structured so that much more of the property tax revenue stay with the city, as opposed to going to the county and state. Do you think there might be some incentive for cities to start new "redevelopment areas" all over the place?

We are fighting a big battle with the city government now over a ranch that has been in my family for generations. The city wants to take it and turn it over to a developer, even though that property is not addressed in the city's master plan. I think our case just got much weaker.

Government in this country just got much scarier!
 
only our souls....

dun dun dun the plot thickens
 
I posted this a little earlier, and asked you in my thread which box we are now on.
 
good question..........the supreme court is an appointed bunch. soap box aint going to help prolly wind up with you property siezed if you live in the wrong area, ballot box more or less got us into the mess, jury box: what good is it if the SC can over turn it...................which box does that leave?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (rattler_mt @ June 23 2005,3:08)]good question..........the supreme court is an appointed bunch. soap box aint going to help prolly wind up with you property siezed if you live in the wrong area, ballot box more or less got us into the mess, jury box: what good is it if the SC can over turn it...................which box does that leave?
You don't, perchance, live in a 10' x 10' shack in the woods, do you?
smile.gif
 
LOL! no a 10'x10' is no where big enough for all my junk and plants. i do live out in the country for the simple reason that i didnt care for the way the city council and powers that be treat my parents.

in all actuality i dont think its time to open up the ammo crate. if things dont start to change though it may happen sooner than later. The Patriot Act, the was the feds are treating the states that legalized medical marijuana, this SC ruling. things are going down hill my friends and the worst part of all of it as far as personal rights and everything else the USA is still the best place out there. our one saving grace is that i really dont think this SC ruling will hold up well in the court of public opinion. if you start taking away ppls homes and livly hood the powers that be are quite likely going to disappear, either through the ballot box or through the ammo box. never underestimate the desperate man with nothing left to loose: take away his familys roof, take away his buisness that puts his familiys food on the table and the crap will hit the fan. on a good note i do believe the vast majority of the judges in the SC are in their 70's, they shouldnt be around much longer. however that only works if judges with a good head on their shoulders are appointed to replace them. its kinda like the presidency these days. those who should be in office dont want it due to the public scrutiny, and those who want the office probably shouldnt be in there.................
 
the funny thing about the SC vote on this is that: the liberals AKA "the friends of the little man" AKA Democrats where the ones that passed this. the conservitives AKA "friends of buisness" AKA Republicans where the ones who voted against it. shows you cant blaim everything on the other party cause the vote should have gone the opposite way if they voted "along party lines"
 
That is appalling... I'm shocked...
 
  • #10
I would chain myself to a tree.
 
  • #11
I'm ready to start pitching tea-bags.  Justices are not supposed to vote along party lines, their job is strictly to interpret the constitution. It's a shame they decided as they did, I think it's wrong.  Glad my state does not permit takings such as this.  

I've always said...republican/democrat/conservative/liberal..it usually comes out as a wash..BUT what the Supreme Court decides will have the most impact on our day to day lives.  April
 
  • #12
The common thread in both of Rattler's original examples (New London, CT and Kalifornia) is that property taxes are a bad way to fund communities.  Residential areas cost a local government more in services than they generate in property taxes, so cash-strapped local governments need business development.  Which means they're almost forced to favor corporations over humans.  Both parties are corporate parties (Republicans more so, of course) and the name for strong central government favoring strong corporations is fascism.
 
  • #13
wow thats bad. i doubt anything can be seized in city areas though, especially nyc.
 
  • #14
Herenorthere...very good! May I quote you?
 
  • #15
Here in San Diego, they have a half baked idea of adding a second runway to the airport. I saw the map where they are talking about expanding the airport.
their plan for the airport
if the govt. gets their way there will be a whole bunch of people losing their homes.
I saw it happen when they built the new ballpark for the Padres, they kicked a bunch of people out so they could take the land for the ballpark.
It seems to me that the govt. will do anything to get their way.
And they talk about the insurgency in Iraq......how about an insurgency right here at home. Maybe we should take our country back from the rich donkey holes that are running our country before we end up like Russia or Bosnia or China.
 
  • #16
Hi,

Speaking as an old fashioned died in the wool liberal I am ashamed and shocked that the liberal side of the court did this. It is terribly wrong. I can only imagine what it will unleash. I never imagined I would ever side with conservatives but I do on this one. Bad. Bad. bad. I think it is time to impeach the entire Supreme Court -- the liberals for this and the conservatives for appointing Bush president and other abuses. The whole lot needs to go.

Bobby
 
  • #17
Ok, ok! Now I have no love for this government as it is. They have taken everything away from us, including our government. Which was supposed to be of, for, and by, the people. But, when we started letting the government tell us we had to wear seat belts, couldn't correct our kids, and all that, I knew we were in for big trouble. And the people just let them do it. I don't think they pay too much attention out there.
Myself, I will never vote for a republican or a democrat again, and I have always voted my conscience, not party. Many tell me that to vote for any other party is a wasted vote. Well BULL! To keep putting in power the same old tired party structure we have always had, allow them to walk all over us, and take away our rights, is what IS wrong. To keep putting in power the same old crap, what more do you expect?? We need new blood, and I am saying it with my votes. Screw George W., and Ted Kennedy, and all those line my pockets nitwits. We need more parties in this country to break the stranglehold the D's and the R's have on the throats of this country. Your vote IS WASTED by bringing the same old tired rhetoric back into our lives, over and over again. I would like to see us respected in the world again, and not the bad boys our present government has made us into. We NEED new blood, and nothing short of that will do. Get those tired old self serving parties out of there, and take your country back. QUIT WASTING YOUR VOTE ON THE OLD REGIMES!! Or you may find yourself in a much worse position than you are in now.
 
  • #19
If America is still around when I am old enough to run for president then I am going to hitch a ride on the party to most likely win the presidency and once in office renounce them and declare my self the first minarchist liberatarian enviromentalist and set things straight. Oh well I did my job last year by voting Independant. Too bad our government is bipartisan---exactly what our founding fathers didn't want. So angry right now. If the government tried to take my house I'd make sure there'd be a way for me to make the land unusable.
 
  • #20
Oh by the way if that doesn't torque you off enough kiss free speech goodbye while your at it. Flag Burning Ban Granted this still has to pass the senate but I don't have faith in the demoncrats standing up to republicans do to the bad PR they would get as being labeled pro flag burners
 
Back
Top