High court OKs personal property seizures

[Zerodivider]

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.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html


/edit: Please move into political discussions, thanks

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This is not good.

Under our system, revenues from businesses are taxed. Taxes serve the public good. And so now simply building a business is enough justification to take another person's land. Hooray for us. Who gets to decide how much tax revenue is enough to justify this? Or is it a blanket OK to ruin other people's lives if you can make a buck? Because I'd love to bulldoze some nice beachfront property and build a clam shack.

[Bluezoo]

Personally, I don't agree with this decison. It vacates the traditional concept of eminent domain in lieu of the expanded meaning of "public use". I do agree with the dissent of Justcie O'Connor who said was that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Well, you cannot legislate morality, as they say and you win some and you lose some.

Thanks for sharing this article.

[Clarsachier]

Emminent Domain now = PRIVATE economic development!!

If I wanted to get depressed, I'd take a look at the wording of the ruling. Previously, the government wheather city or state had to prove that the intended usage of the land would improve the economy, traffic flow, or whatever.

Government had to prove it's case in an impartial judicial forum. Needless to say, 'government's' case is often found lacking.

Quote ; "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Difficult for even me to believe. :( Oh well, just another indication of our
government's new totalitarian direction trickling down to our families. (You're either with us or against us.)

[Bluezoo]

This is not good.

Under our system, revenues from businesses are taxed. Taxes serve the public good. And so now simply building a business is enough justification to take another person's land. Hooray for us. Who gets to decide how much tax revenue is enough to justify this? Or is it a blanket OK to ruin other people's lives if you can make a buck? Because I'd love to bulldoze some nice beachfront property and build a clam shack.

I agree with you and I am disappointed.

The reason for the decison comes from the concept that the state has an inherent right to expropriate properties for public use, provided that just compensation is paid. The problem arises when you you define the meaning of "public use". Traditionally, eminent domain is exercised by expropriating private properties for public use in order to convert them to hospitals, roads, schools and the similar developments which have a clear impact to the public once the construction is terminated. But in this case, the impact is subtle or not visible to the eye. It is indirect, but within the purview of the "expanded" meaning of public use, which has vacated the traditional concept. The city government argues that the "public use" concept is met through the increased tax revenues which would ultimately mean more money in the city's disposal to address public needs.

But my concern here is that the state is doing a job which private companies can do for themselves. The development of prime properties is an undertaking which should be done by private companies and the state should not go as far as expropriating properties at the behest of these private companies. This case has this consequence. :roll:

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I wonder how much tax revenue will be judged to be enough to take somebodys' land. $10k a year? $1k? And who makes the decision? And who can you appeal to? Me no likey.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

This is not good.

Under our system, revenues from businesses are taxed. Taxes serve the public good. And so now simply building a business is enough justification to take another person's land. Hooray for us. Who gets to decide how much tax revenue is enough to justify this? Or is it a blanket OK to ruin other people's lives if you can make a buck? Because I'd love to bulldoze some nice beachfront property and build a clam shack.

x2

We had a similar situation in Canada while back while making a bighway that would run the whole length of Vancouver Island. There was alot of houses in the way and the government tried to short change them on there property...They held out and they finally got full value of there property, althought some didnt want to move (theres a house thats next to an off-ramp).

[usa320]

what if they knock down my house to build a target and said store goes out of business a year later...


This idea sucks.

the supreme court has been making some real **** decisions.

[Bluezoo]

I wonder how much tax revenue will be judged to be enough to take somebodys' land. $10k a year? $1k? And who makes the decision? And who can you appeal to? Me no likey.


I wonder how much tax revenue will be judged to be enough to take somebodys' land. $10k a year? $1k?

I suppose a lot more than the revenue it is earning on the subject land to be expropriated. But the crux is that no matter how profitable the land is, whether it belongs to an individual, a group, a corporation etc., for as long as the resultant effect of the expropriation would redound to the benefit of the "general public" or is for "public purpose", the requirements of eminent domain are already met. As I have said, "the meaning of public purpose is subject to many interpretation and abuse like in this case. (in my opinion ;) ) As a general rule, it is an accepted doctrine in expropriation cases that the "minor" incovenience of the private property owner (the fact of taking of proiperty after just compensation) must give way in favor of the interest of the general public or public interest. Simply put, it is a derogation or subltle but draconian way of the state seizing you property for the benefit of the people --without the guns of course like in communist countries.


And who makes the decision?And who can you appeal to?
As far as I know, this inherent right is reserved to the federal government but is delegated to cities and municipalities. Hence, the legislature congressmen, board members, councilors) get to decide which property suits their caprice and whims (pardon me for my sarcasm). The determination which property would be expropriated so that they could build a road, dam etc. is a political question. (of course, they will consult their experts, whose opinions might be intertwined with interested private parties----conflict of interest). But the manner of how the expropriation process is conducted is always subject to judicial review. The final arbiter on the legality of the expropriation is of course, the Supreme Court of a particular country. Once the SC makes a a final judgment, it puts to an end the battle at OK corral. No ifs and buts, it is final and unappealable. So, you can say that the SC is like an ugly woman, it has no appeal! :lol:

Me no likey
I am with you.

Regards.

[Abolith]

this doesn't look good for the average joe.... what if you piss off a mayor by protesting somethign he did? what now he can get a developer (that he likely has a stake in) to bulldoze your house for a new mall? great..that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

[Bluezoo]

what if they knock down my house to build a target and said store goes out of business a year later...


This idea sucks.

the supreme court has been making some real **** decisions.

Well, the state will not get your land or seize it without first making an offer on what they think your land,your house with all improvements together with your payment of real property taxes is worth. If you agree to the price, then everybody is happy. If you don't and the state does not give way, they will still continue to initiate the expropriation process. On this instance, you are well advised to seek legal counsel to quash the expropriation process or secure a better deal.

The problem of Target going bankrupt a year after is not really your concern because before the state seizes your property, they have to make a payment or a deposit regardless if a case is brought about or not. The bottom line is, you either stop the process or you get compensated no matter what.

But you know, that is the sad thing about this decision and how it can be subject to further distortions. As I have said, my concern here is that the state is doing a job which private companies can do for themselves. The development of prime properties is an undertaking which should be done by private companies and the state should not go as far as expropriating properties at the behest of these private companies.

Oh, by the way, if I remember correctly :roll: , in expropriation cases, did you know that the state does not consider sentimental value on the property to determine just compensation?

[Bluezoo]

this doesn't look good for the average joe.... what if you piss off a mayor by protesting somethign he did? what now he can get a developer (that he likely has a stake in) to bulldoze your house for a new mall? great..that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Exactly! This is what I am worried about because the ramifications of this case has a potential for abuse. I am not trying to be an alarmist, but sometimes, when you twist the law toooooo far, you will arive to a different objective which was not really contemplated by the framers of the original law.

Just my thoughts. ;)

[Clarsachier]

Worst decision by the Supreme Court ever, IMO. They remove the 'public use' part of the 5th amendment!!

The Scumbags have changed the U.S. constitution!!

I strongly doubt some states will implement it. Some states abide by the
concept of personal property.

[sethen]

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.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html


/edit: Please move into political discussions, thanks

Behold, my Nations slow descent into Fascism.........

[Abolith]

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.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html


/edit: Please move into political discussions, thanks

behold, my Nations slow descent into Fascism.........

more like socialism, but ya it's not a good or comforting sign....

[demotivater]

There's a community around where I live that is battling with the city over a developer buying out their homes for below market price to put up some more stores (just what we need). They were doing ok in the public eye and in the court - guess they're SOL now. Poor bastards.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Oh, by the way, if I remember correctly :roll: , in expropriation cases, did you know that the state does not consider sentimental value on the property to determine just compensation?

Believe it or not - this was the first thing I thought of.

Imagine a family who's owned a grand old Victorian home in some great neighborhood, or a picturesque cottage on the seashore - and along comes a guy who wants to build a Starbucks type coffee stand or Ice Cream shop. All he would need to do (I guess) is show the city council that his tax revenues will be far larger than what you pay in property taxes - and voom - no more family homestead.

I'm going to step out on a limb here - I bet you're going to see a LOT of lobbying and hell raising on this issue. No longer can developers just go after run down areas populated by poor people - now they can plow under wealthy neighborhoods (so long as they predict they'll turn a profit) - and rich folks have a knack for getting things to turn out in their favor. I bet the first time somebody tries to plow under the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport and build a Stop & Shop, all hell will break loose! :lol:
.

[Flagg]

Oh, by the way, if I remember correctly :roll: , in expropriation cases, did you know that the state does not consider sentimental value on the property to determine just compensation?

Believe it or not - this was the first thing I thought of.

Imagine a family who's owned a grand old Victorian home in some great neighborhood, or a picturesque cottage on the seashore - and along comes a guy who wants to build a Starbucks type coffee stand or Ice Cream shop. All he would need to do (I guess) is show the city council that his tax revenues will be far larger than what you pay in property taxes - and voom - no more family homestead.

I'm going to step out on a limb here - I bet you're going to see a LOT of lobbying and hell raising on this issue. No longer can developers just go after run down areas populated by poor people - now they can plow under wealthy neighborhoods (so long as they predict they'll turn a profit) - and rich folks have a knack for getting things to turn out in their favor. I bet the first time somebody tries to plow under the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport and build a Stop & Shop, all hell will break loose! :lol:
.

Violation of property rights = VERY, VERY bad in my opinion

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"? :P

[jedisponge]

Interesting turn of events...

[bloddyaxe]

Fecghin' Communism going on there...

I think you people need a revolution to get rid of those corrupted judges...

although I propably should read the entire ruling before making such assertion.. p-)

[Jani.R]

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.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html


/edit: Please move into political discussions, thanks

behold, my Nations slow descent into Fascism.........

more like socialism, but ya it's not a good or comforting sign....

socialism? More like capitalism

[11F5S]

Word on the street is that the government is going to seize 2shed's sheds to build a Hospice....and Walford's abode is going to be leveled to build an abortion clinic. :lol:

[callous]

What crap. What were the justices thinking?

[MEGR]

This is totally not cool. There's a big fat office building about 150 ft from my house. The thing is, they're thinking about expanding there property! Not cool.

[vote for Pedro]

Flag wrote:

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"?

I don't know Hank, but I'll fill in if anyone has any questions.

Jani R wrote:


socialism? More like capitalism

I don't see capitalism here. The government took the homes, for a government planned expansion.

[Zoomie]

I'd love to see how the judges react when they all find out that their houses have been slated for demolition and have been valued at a third of their actual value, and then we'll see what they think of it.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Word on the street is that the government is going to seize 2shed's sheds to build a Hospice....and Walford's abode is going to be leveled to build an abortion clinic. :lol:
rofl

Nice one. p-)

[vote for Pedro]

Word on the street is that the government is going to seize 2shed's sheds to build a Hospice....and Walford's abode is going to be leveled to build an abortion clinic. :lol:
rofl

Nice one. p-)

Actually 2Shed's place is going to be used for a medicinal marijuana dispensary.

[ElHombre]

Word on the street is that the government is going to seize 2shed's sheds...

i have it on good authority that 2sheds actually only has one shed.

in any case, 2sheds and i might finally be agreeing on something. so long as businesspeople can convince a city council that the sucess of a business is dependent on private property, the owner of the property is SOL. seems like business is getting ever more greedy.

i can understand the desire of cities wanting to improve their residents lives, but this is getting out of hand. a city's first order of priority should be the residents who already live there, not a business making promises.

this reminds me of what happened here a good number of years ago. the local baseball team wanted a new stadium and convinced the locals to raise taxes to help pay for it. what was not mentioned was that the team was able to set up a legal authority to acquire the land needed, which included the power to condemn land. they began apying residents for their land and all was going well until they came to this one large piece of land. the owner wasn't impressed by the team's offer for it. so the authority condemned the land and paid a small amount for it.

small problem, though. the owner was a local millionaire family that had been in the area for decades. (ever hear of curtis mathis tvs? that's the family that owned the land.) they took the authority to court and promptly won the case. the judge ordered the authority to pay the proper price for the land and a penalty for trying such a stupid thing in the first place.

the authority (managed by the team owners, don't forget) shrugged and passed the entire bill over to the city. the residents got to pay for the owners being greedy.

as far as what class of owners has to worry the most, when was the last time anyone ever see rich people ever have to worry about their homes being taken away from them? i'd like to see a business try to have a bunch of mcmansions condemned. :lol:

no, this ruling is just another way to screw people who can't afford good lawyers or lobbyists.

[HoboWithAK]

Sounds a little more like Communism every time I open the paper in the morning.

You know, this opens up the door to corruption. Say so and so wants a little bit of land for his new project, but he can't get the holders to sell. All he has to do is give the local mayor a little money towards his next fundraiser or campaign and bump! Off the land go the holders.

[Flagg]

Flagg wrote:

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"?

Vote For Pedro wrote:

I don't know Hank, but I'll fill in if anyone has any questions.


Got any background on the never-ending creep of eminent domain from public good to commercial/tax base gain?

[vote for Pedro]

Flagg wrote:

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"?

Vote For Pedro wrote:

I don't know Hank, but I'll fill in if anyone has any questions.


Got any background on the never-ending creep of eminent domain from public good to commercial/tax base gain?

As a matter of fact...

It seems as if it is creeping from public good to tax base gain, but I think it is really just about people using the law to make money.


Eminent domain may seem like a simple way for governments to redevelop their jurisdictions and increase tax revenues, by pushing out old businesses and homes in exchange for new investment and construction activity. Unfortunately, even the most well-intentioned urban renewal and revitalization schemes fail to generate a return on their “investment.” In the case of eminent domain, however, good intentions are usually left at the door. Rather, these schemes -- especially those that rely on significant taxpayer subsidies to supplement land acquisition powers -- are calculated attempts to fleece citizens for projects that will ultimately deliver little public benefit.


I took that from here: http://cvilleindymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=781

It seems to me as though a lot of people are catching on and realizing it is just a scam for politicians and developers making money by scaming people out of thier property through eminent domain, but it doesn't matter that people know when the Supreme Court says it's o.k..

[Flagg]

I say we petition the Hamptons in New York to condemn all those $50 million dollar palaces and replace them with the world's largest RV and camping park.

That way the working class can visit an excellent beach, the township can earn more from camping fees & liquer taxes than just from billionnaires property taxes...everybody wins...except for the rich folks!

[11F5S]

Flag wrote:

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"?

I don't know Hank, but I'll fill in if anyone has any questions.

Jani R wrote:


socialism? More like capitalism

I don't see capitalism here. The government took the homes, for a government planned expansion.

I think you need to look at the case again.....it's a private development not a government project.


City officials said the riverfront project was necessary to boost New London's sagging tax base, and thus it qualified as an economic development project, justifying the city's use of its eminent domain power.

Residents countered that the project was a land grab. since their property was being turned over for $1 a year to a private developer who would retain all profits from the completed project. The benefit to the city was an anticipated boost to local tax rolls.

The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says that private property may be taken by the government if fair compensation is paid to the owner. But there is a second requirement: The property may be taken only if it is for "public use."



The only "planned expanision" is to the tax base and more likely than not the pockets of the elected officials.

IMO the concept is WRONG.

Government forcing people out of their homes...so private enterprise can build homes to sell to other people is gestapo tactics...it has no place in the United States of America.

[BeltFedLMG]

whats all the uproar about? no surprise here folks . . . you dont own the land anyway, its the governments, you simply rent from them (land tax) - if you dont pay the "tax" on YOUR land armed people will come (and kill you if necessary) and take your land from you.

we have no rights, we dont have the right to free speech, many dont have the right to keep in bear arms (as intended by the founders) . . . just take a look at states like nj, ma, ca, etc.; the 5th is and has been down the tubes. the whole damn thing is out the window.

[Rifleman]

Not good.

I see cities using this new power to uproot entire neighborhoods. Lot of crime...hey let's build a WalMart there. :-*$

[vote for Pedro]

Flag wrote:

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"?

I don't know Hank, but I'll fill in if anyone has any questions.

Jani R wrote:


socialism? More like capitalism

I don't see capitalism here. The government took the homes, for a government planned expansion.

I think you need to look at the case again.....it's a private development not a government project.


City officials said the riverfront project was necessary to boost New London's sagging tax base, and thus it qualified as an economic development project, justifying the city's use of its eminent domain power.

Residents countered that the project was a land grab. since their property was being turned over for $1 a year to a private developer who would retain all profits from the completed project. The benefit to the city was an anticipated boost to local tax rolls.

The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says that private property may be taken by the government if fair compensation is paid to the owner. But there is a second requirement: The property may be taken only if it is for "public use."


The only "planned expanision" is to the tax base and more likely than not the pockets of the elected officials.

IMO the concept is WRONG.

Government forcing people out of their homes...so private enterprise can build homes to sell to other people is gestapo tactics...it has no place in the United States of America.

Um, no. Again, the government took the houses, for a governemnt planned expansion. You even quoted so.

[11F5S]

Flag wrote:

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"?

I don't know Hank, but I'll fill in if anyone has any questions.

Jani R wrote:


socialism? More like capitalism

I don't see capitalism here. The government took the homes, for a government planned expansion.

I think you need to look at the case again.....it's a private development not a government project.


City officials said the riverfront project was necessary to boost New London's sagging tax base, and thus it qualified as an economic development project, justifying the city's use of its eminent domain power.

Residents countered that the project was a land grab. since their property was being turned over for $1 a year to a private developer who would retain all profits from the completed project. The benefit to the city was an anticipated boost to local tax rolls.

The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says that private property may be taken by the government if fair compensation is paid to the owner. But there is a second requirement: The property may be taken only if it is for "public use."


The only "planned expanision" is to the tax base and more likely than not the pockets of the elected officials.

IMO the concept is WRONG.

Government forcing people out of their homes...so private enterprise can build homes to sell to other people is gestapo tactics...it has no place in the United States of America.

Um, no. Again, the government took the houses, for a governemnt planned expansion. You even quoted so.

The use of emminent domain for "Expansion of the Tax Base" is Gestapo Government. Since when is a Pharmacutical Company part of City Government?


"Justices Rule Cities Can Take Property for Private Development"- New York Times
The 5-to-4 decision cleared the way for the city of New London, Conn., to proceed with a large-scale plan to replace a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research and development., a conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian "riverwalk" along the Thames River.

The project, to be leased and built by private developers, is designed to derive maximum benefit for the city from a $350 million research center built nearby by Pfizer Inc., the big pharmaceutical company. New London, deemed a "distressed municipality" by the state 15 years ago, has a high unemployment rate and fewer residents today than it had in 1920




If they did this to me...I'm afraid CNN would be reporting about armed conflict.

[vote for Pedro]

Flag wrote:

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"?

I don't know Hank, but I'll fill in if anyone has any questions.

Jani R wrote:


socialism? More like capitalism

I don't see capitalism here. The government took the homes, for a government planned expansion.

I think you need to look at the case again.....it's a private development not a government project.


City officials said the riverfront project was necessary to boost New London's sagging tax base, and thus it qualified as an economic development project, justifying the city's use of its eminent domain power.

Residents countered that the project was a land grab. since their property was being turned over for $1 a year to a private developer who would retain all profits from the completed project. The benefit to the city was an anticipated boost to local tax rolls.

The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says that private property may be taken by the government if fair compensation is paid to the owner. But there is a second requirement: The property may be taken only if it is for "public use."


The only "planned expanision" is to the tax base and more likely than not the pockets of the elected officials.

IMO the concept is WRONG.

Government forcing people out of their homes...so private enterprise can build homes to sell to other people is gestapo tactics...it has no place in the United States of America.

Um, no. Again, the government took the houses, for a governemnt planned expansion. You even quoted so.

The use of emminent domain for "Expansion of the Tax Base" is Gestapo Government. Since when is a Pharmacutical Company part of City Government?


"Justices Rule Cities Can Take Property for Private Development"- New York Times
The 5-to-4 decision cleared the way for the city of New London, Conn., to proceed with a large-scale plan to replace a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research and development., a conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian "riverwalk" along the Thames River.

The project, to be leased and built by private developers, is designed to derive maximum benefit for the city from a $350 million research center built nearby by Pfizer Inc., the big pharmaceutical company. New London, deemed a "distressed municipality" by the state 15 years ago, has a high unemployment rate and fewer residents today than it had in 1920




If they did this to me...I'm afraid CNN would be reporting about armed conflict.

I don't get it. You tell me I need to read the case again because I said the government took the houses for a government planned expansion? Then you put in giant red letters a headlind from a newspaper? The headline is not correct. That wasn't the justices ruling, you need to read the case. Read the 1st paragraph of the case (not some news article) and you will see that the government took the houses for a government planned expansion. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

"After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked..."

[Bluezoo]

Flagg wrote:

Where the hell is our resident lawyer Hank to help us understand all the "lawyer talk"?

Vote For Pedro wrote:

I don't know Hank, but I'll fill in if anyone has any questions.


Got any background on the never-ending creep of eminent domain from public good to commercial/tax base gain?

As a matter of fact...

It seems as if it is creeping from public good to tax base gain, but I think it is really just about people using the law to make money.


Eminent domain may seem like a simple way for governments to redevelop their jurisdictions and increase tax revenues, by pushing out old businesses and homes in exchange for new investment and construction activity. Unfortunately, even the most well-intentioned urban renewal and revitalization schemes fail to generate a return on their “investment.” In the case of eminent domain, however, good intentions are usually left at the door. Rather, these schemes -- especially those that rely on significant taxpayer subsidies to supplement land acquisition powers -- are calculated attempts to fleece citizens for projects that will ultimately deliver little public benefit.


I took that from here: http://cvilleindymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=781

It seems to me as though a lot of people are catching on and realizing it is just a scam for politicians and developers making money by scaming people out of thier property through eminent domain, but it doesn't matter that people know when the Supreme Court says it's o.k..

x2

One remedy I suggest is that people should lobby their council members for the strict enforcement of zoning regulations. This is not a fool proof measure, but whenever there is a move to reclassify a n area from a residential to a commercial district, public policy dictates that a consultation to this effect be brought about the affected residents. If the residents are vigilant enough and they come in force with one voice, it will make these politicians think twice if they would continue their reclassification in view of an impending expropriation.

If this does not work, you have two other alternatives.

Make this an issue and vote them out in the next election.

At the same time, oppose the process by going to court. Attack the measure by pointing other similar properties or less intrusive but equally suitable places where they can conduct their project. Never admit that your land is suitable for the purpose it is being exproprited. Always point out (come up with studies and facts) that the land accross the creek (good heavens, make sure that none of the members here will be affected, otherwise you can be assured that you will never celebrate your next birthday :lol: ) is far suitable and less costly to the government. Oh, most important, you should always try to keep your options open by negotiating better concessions while this case is in court. Of course, get a good lawyer who has a political ambitions..... you know how it goes from here. Tragic part is, as many of you have posted, this opens the gate to possible abuse and politics of patronage. But heck, do you want to play hardball? :roll:

;)

[BusterHyman]

Fecghin' Communism going on there...

I think you people need a revolution to get rid of those corrupted judges...

although I propably should read the entire ruling before making such assertion.. p-)

The stench from the bench is overwhelming. I would rather see congress impeach some justices.

[11F5S]

Thanks for the link, but I had already read the case.....I quoted the NY Time Headline because IMO it's on the money.....taking someones property so that private interests may use it for commercial purposes and profit, and to increase the tax base of the city is WRONG.

Taking private property through emminent domain for building roads, bridges or other infastructure entirely different thanr seizing a citizens home and property to increase the city tax base is Gestapo in action.

Government has no business seizing personal property to give it to private developers...What has gone on in New London is something each and every citizen of the United States should stand up and fight against before it happens to them.

[vryhpyammoadded]

And they scoff at me when I predict the US could be having a civil war soon over the increased corruption

I used to live in New London and know the exact area they’re fighting over.
I’m wondering if that one guy they’re talking about, who sold sandwiches for 25 years, is the one who owns that fantastic little airstream diner/burger joint that’s so out of place. The locals used to predict the city would push him out one day. I guess it finally happened.
His short order cook was this huge, tough old retired sailor who would always swear the paint off walls when you got picky with your order. He made dam fine burgers!
Too bad, great people, good food.

I agree, this sets a very bad precedent.

[vote for Pedro]

Thanks for the link, but I had already read the case.....I quoted the NY Time Headline because IMO it's on the money.....taking someones property so that private interests may use it for commercial purposes and profit, and to increase the tax base of the city is WRONG.

Taking private property through emminent domain for building roads, bridges or other infastructure entirely different thanr seizing a citizens home and property to increase the city tax base is Gestapo in action.

Government has no business seizing personal property to give it to private developers...What has gone on in New London is something each and every citizen of the United States should stand up and fight against before it happens to them.

I agree 100%.

[11F5S]

http://www.wpe.com/~musici/Dont-Tread-300%5B1%5D.gif

http://www.wpe.com/~musici/join-or-die%5B1%5D.gif

[Bluezoo]

Here is a nice commentary:

Taking The Fifth
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Property Rights: What part of the Constitution does this Supreme Court not understand? Based on Thursday's ruling, it's the part that says private property shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation."

By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court said in its New London decision that local governments, using the practice of eminent domain, are free to seize private homes, businesses, even churches, and turn them over to private interests.

So, thanks to Justices John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, no American's home or business is safe. All it takes to evict a family, company or church from its own land is the subjective determination by local officials that the subsequent redevelopment will benefit the community, a sunny phrase that obscures local governments' real goal: higher tax revenues.

Why should anyone's life rest in the hands of people who would make such a decision? Any official, elected or not, who is willing to kick families out of their homes or uproot businesses and houses of worship because they believe what they're doing is for the betterment of a community is not worthy of holding public office. Those who do so put themselves in the seat of a dictator.

Likewise, justices who will find things in the Constitution that are not there are not worthy to wear robes. The Constitution says nothing about seizing private property for private interests. That should be enough for the court to rule that governments have no right to conduct property raids on behalf of private development.

Instead, five justices created from the ether a right for local governments that doesn't exist in a founding document that limits government at all levels. Meanwhile, they ignored other parts of the Constitution that should have informed their ruling.

For instance, the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. When property is taken from one private party and turned over to another, one party is enjoying extra protection from the government while other is being exploited by the same.

The Fifth Amendment, the crux of the Kelo v. New London case in front of the court, makes it clear: No person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How can a private development possibly meet the definition of "public use"? The homeowners who fought the city of New London, which wants their land for a private office, residential and retail complex, argued that it would be public use only if it turned out to be successful. We see a danger in that, even though the success of any enterprise cannot possibly be known in advance. Public use should mean public use and nothing more.

We also wonder where the court found due process of law in letting a local government seize private property. Was it referring to its own decision or the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the city? The defendants got the process all right, but they didn't get what's due them by the rule of law.

In 1795, a much wiser Supreme Court labeled eminent domain the "despotic power," as justices were alarmed at its potential to harm. Two centuries later we have to wonder what kind of piracy this court will sanction next. The Quartering Act of 2005?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=6/24

[Durandal]

http://www.wpe.com/~musici/Dont-Tread-300%5B1%5D.gif

You got it man...

Ironically, I started this same thread in the politics section since I did not see one on the topic.

Having fought eminent domain and won...barely, I have a close association with this topic. One of the things I follow just as much as gun ownership statistics and gun laws is who is taking property from whom locally.

Here in the Greater Cincinnati area the big fight was in Norwood, OH. A developer bought a bankrupted business and its land. Developed a high end mall...one of the most high end in the area. A huge draw for the elite, rich, and upper middle class. It was a massive hit. Well, suddenly people started buying up homes near the mall. A local community across from the mall was offered fair market value PLUS 25% for their homes, hoping to purchase another section of land almost equal in size to further develop and expand the existing mall. Of the 75 or so of the property owners, all but 9 private and 1 small business wanted to sell. Some wanted to get more money for their property others had lived in the community most of their lives and wanted to stay.

Of course, the agreement was that everyone had to sell or NO property would be purchased. So, the developer turned neighbors on each other.

Meanwhile, since it looked as if the half dozen or so hold outs would nut budge they began courting the Norwood City Council, who had already offered the developer a 7 year tax abatement on the property should the develop it. They declared the neighborhood "blighted" (that is to say, run down, in shambles, an eye sore). Yeah, 200 000 USD homes with flower gardens. Not massive homes, but well kept. It was no ghetto. It was not in shambles by ANY attempt to change the definition.

But Norwood forced them to sell anyways...

ƒucking bull****.

It made me sooo angry.

Less than a decade ago I and my family and our lawer fought off an attempt to steal part of our farm. They offered us 300 000 USD for 35 acres of land to build a new high school on. Take it or lose it we were told.

This land was the original farm. In 1790, the area was given to my ancestors following the Revolutionary War...the Hayes family. This land will never NOT be in my family's hands.

We won the fight by forcing the market value up by doing core samples to see how much gravel was under the property and then sold the mineral rights to the closest gravel company (while keeping the land). The School Board, at the time, was forced to match it or look elsewhere.

They could barely afford 300K much less 2 Million (our share of the gravel).

So we sold the mineral rights to the gravel company and entered into a partnership. Now we have...almost complete...a 35 acre hole....which used to be our original farm and before that, a refuse site for the Shawnee (you should see my collection of sharps, arrow heads, grinders, etc that are all about 2000 to 400 years old).

I am glad most of our property is flood plain and thus unusable for building.

That is the ONLY way to fight an eminent domain.

This is a dark day in America and very few people are talking about it. To many separate things coming together to make a not so good looking whole.

Well, ƒuck 'em.

"The ain't never gonna take my land!"

[Durandal]

Here is a nice commentary:
[quote]Taking The Fifth
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Property Rights: What part of the Constitution does this Supreme Court not understand? Based on Thursday's ruling, it's the part that says private property shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation."

A fantastic article.

[MEGR]

What can I say? Contact your elected representatives.

[golds80]

Fecghin' Communism going on there...

I think you people need a revolution to get rid of those corrupted judges...

although I propably should read the entire ruling before making such assertion.. p-)

The stench from the bench is overwhelming. I would rather see congress impeach some justices.

michael savage fan?

[Flagg]

http://www.wpe.com/~musici/Dont-Tread-300%5B1%5D.gif

http://www.wpe.com/~musici/join-or-die%5B1%5D.gif


If they did this to me...I'm afraid CNN would be reporting about armed conflict.

I agree....if I were mugged I would HAPPILY hand over anything of material value to ensure the safety of my family and myself....it's not worth the risk...the money/possessions could be easily replaced.


But for some reason I feel very strongly about "the powers that be" taking people's land and homes by way of quasi-legal theft.

If it happened to me, one way or the other it would be frontpage news.

Way down here in NZ, we've had some recent and similiar issues.

The gubberment wants to allow access to bodies of water on private land...landowners are upset about bearing the burden of associated access costs...

Shania Twain was recently invovled in a huge private property purchase here on the South Island...in order to get approval for non-resident ownership she was required to make substantial public access concessions.

But I think BOTH of those would fall under fair use of eminent domain....but this one is a bit dodgy:

The gubberment has nationalized the Kyoto credits for all new forestry investment plantings......which equates to the gubberment allowing you to build a house on your land, but stealing your ongoing depreciation allowance and rent earned.

And everyone wonders why forestry investment STOPPED COLD. :roll:

[vote for Pedro]

This article I read claims 10,000 takings in the last 5 years:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0509/p01s03-ussc.html

Very scary.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I read up a bit more on this and am slightly less outraged.

The SC's decision is not a blanket "OK" for the gov't to take private land. What it does do is say that it is OK if it is approved by local government. So the SC put the power in the hands of local/state government.

They also stated that if localities have a problem with this, then they should pass a State law specifically outlawing it. In the absence of a State law, there is still a way to stop it- the court also specified that the decision-making power for these decisions must be placed into the hands of an elected body, so that the public can elect people who will decide the "right" way.

Back in the 1970s, the city took a 10' strip of our land fronting the road in order to widen it. They paid us what they considered a fair price for it -we were pretty well pissed off about it - it ate a chunk of our front lawn and forced us to move our 3 rail fence back some. But the reality was that the road had become too narrow & was unsafe for the amount of traffic it was carrying by then. When our house was put there in the mid 1800's, it was on a deserted bluff overlooking the ocean & was on an ox path (what the state called a "cartway") (interesting note -I say "put there" because the house was actually built in another town in the early 1800's and pulled by oxen on a dolly & placed on a new foundation in the 1860's - pretty cool). By the 1970's Cape Cod was a hugely popular vacation area, and cars were having to pull over & stop so other traffic could pass - so it was the right thing to do. Life goes on I guess.

We have to face the notion that like just about everything else, the meaning of "public use/public benefit" shifts. At the time the Constitution was written, it meant a school, or a canal, or a fort. In the 1800's it was a railroad. In the early 1900's it was the elimination of "blighted areas". Now it is tax revenue. Who can dispute the public benefit of a new Boeing or Airbus factory with 3000+ new high paying jobs + all those wealthy workers moving to the area? The devil of course is in the details - and that's where I see the potential for abuse. How much benefit is enough to justify the seizure? I have no doubt that there will be some areas were private development of a crappy area would be a great thing - but the potential for abuse is huge.

But hey - all we gats to do is pass state laws & we don't have to worry about it.

[Durandal]

Thought you folks that agree with me might get a kick out of this.



Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.co

[Flagg]

I read up a bit more on this and am slightly less outraged.

The SC's decision is not a blanket "OK" for the gov't to take private land. What it does do is say that it is OK if it is approved by local government. So the SC put the power in the hands of local/state government.

They also stated that if localities have a problem with this, then they should pass a State law specifically outlawing it. In the absence of a State law, there is still a way to stop it- the court also specified that the decision-making power for these decisions must be placed into the hands of an elected body, so that the public can elect people who will decide the "right" way.

Back in the 1970s, the city took a 10' strip of our land fronting the road in order to widen it. They paid us what they considered a fair price for it -we were pretty well pissed off about it - it ate a chunk of our front lawn and forced us to move our 3 rail fence back some. But the reality was that the road had become too narrow & was unsafe for the amount of traffic it was carrying by then. When our house was put there in the mid 1800's, it was on a deserted bluff overlooking the ocean & was on an ox path (what the state called a "cartway") (interesting note -I say "put there" because the house was actually built in another town in the early 1800's and pulled by oxen on a dolly & placed on a new foundation in the 1860's - pretty cool). By the 1970's Cape Cod was a hugely popular vacation area, and cars were having to pull over & stop so other traffic could pass - so it was the right thing to do. Life goes on I guess.


We have to face the notion that like just about everything else, the meaning of "public use/public benefit" shifts. At the time the Constitution was written, it meant a school, or a canal, or a fort. In the 1800's it was a railroad. In the early 1900's it was the elimination of "blighted areas". Now it is tax revenue. Who can dispute the public benefit of a new Boeing or Airbus factory with 3000+ new high paying jobs + all those wealthy workers moving to the area? The devil of course is in the details - and that's where I see the potential for abuse. How much benefit is enough to justify the seizure? I have no doubt that there will be some areas were private development of a crappy area would be a great thing - but the potential for abuse is huge.

But hey - all we gats to do is pass state laws & we don't have to worry about it.

I am in no way encouraged by that.

I believe local government is MORE vulnerable to corruption, influence, and conflicts of interest than state or federal government.

It's also likely to be less "newsworthy" as a local event.

What about participation levels in elections?

I would think local elections garner the LEAST participation of the entire electoral process.

But you are right......state law could effect change.

But I think the scary drop in State tax revenue several years ago leaving states scrambling to cover deficits will have a lasting impact.

Heaps of legalized gambling has gone SOME way to cover that.....but the long-term costs have yet to be felt.

As long as eminent domain issues are made out to be "local" government's problem, states can have their cake and eat it too.