1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Nazirite, Jun 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nazirite

    Nazirite Well-Known Member

    I know this isn’t gun related but it could have a tremendous impact on us all

    WASHINGTON — 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

  2. roo_ster

    roo_ster Well-Known Member

    More from the black-robed tyrants.
  3. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    This is really sad. :( And bad. :fire:
  4. Vitamin G

    Vitamin G Well-Known Member

    Its been going on unchallenged in Pittsburgh for years.

    I can't wait until seizing all the state of the art perfected polymer, brass, iron, and wood becomes "developmentally profitable"

  5. Telperion

    Telperion Well-Known Member

    Majority was Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
    Dissenting was O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

    Another straw on the camel's back. Can hardly wait to see what some revenue-mad town is going to do with this. :rolleyes:
  6. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    I believed the Constitution was clear on this - I guess you learn something new everyday.
  7. petrel800

    petrel800 Well-Known Member

    If private property rights are no longer protected than there is no longer any need for government.
  8. hillbilly

    hillbilly Well-Known Member

    This is the type of thing that has caused some uppity peasants to do rash things in the past.

  9. Daniel T

    Daniel T Well-Known Member

    Just wait for the Trans-Texas corridor. We'll see how rash things get.
  10. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Well-Known Member

    This is why we're armed. So why fret?
  11. Sindawe

    Sindawe Well-Known Member

    :fire: I guess its time to start sharpening the tines on my pitchfork and soaking the torches in oil.
    Yeppers, at least not the one we've got now. IT is no longer the servant of the people, nor does it protect their rights and liberties.
  12. Chipperman

    Chipperman Well-Known Member

    This is very disturbing
  13. hillbilly

    hillbilly Well-Known Member

    This situation looks like it is different from anything else I've seen.

    It is very, very, very unlikely for Jo Schmo average public guy to get upset over vague, wispy concepts like Freedom of Speech, or social security, or even the Second Amendment.

    I mean Jo Schmo probably went most of the way to an American public school, and isn't sure what the Second Amendment is all about, anyway, because it's like is some old document or something.

    But this is different.

    Even Jo Schmo, average public guy can and will understand that even though he's paying for his house, the government says it can come in, kick him out of his house, bulldoze it, and put up a new shopping mall.

    Even Jo Schmo will see some sort of fundamental problem with this state of affairs.

    This hits Jo Schmo average literally where he lives, because it doesn't allow him to keep living where he lives.

  14. fish2xs

    fish2xs Well-Known Member

    written majority and dissenting opinion?

    does anyone have a link to the opinions for this ruling?

    this will be a must-read!

  15. Cacique500

    Cacique500 Well-Known Member


    Unbelievable :banghead:

    The Fifth Amendment:

    We'll just have to see how they define 'just compensation'...
  16. Augustwest

    Augustwest Well-Known Member

  17. Sawdust

    Sawdust Well-Known Member

    This is *really* bad... :banghead: :fire:

  18. duckslayer

    duckslayer Well-Known Member

    Agreed. I am experiencing the loss of my property rights, in the fact that I was ordered by my city to stop constructing my storage shed since I didn't get their permission first, even though I already had an existing shed there that was destroyed by a storm. Cities are worthless. The only thing I get for being annexed by them is that I get to pay them money every year (property tax) and I get to beg their permission to do anything on my own land (building permit).

    If you corner a scared dog into a small enough space, he eventually becomes violently defensive. I know my back is against the wall and space is getting pretty tight.
  19. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Well-Known Member

    The Constitution says only that property taken for public use requires just compensation. This property is being taken for private use. :uhoh:

    I jest, of course, but that line of thinking wouldn't surprise me. :(
  20. TarpleyG

    TarpleyG Well-Known Member

    Man, this takes Eminent Domain to a whole other level. I think the gubbmint is getting a little too big for its britches.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page