Quantcast
  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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    From Tennessee to Ohio to Oklahoma
    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.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html
     
  2. roo_ster

    roo_ster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,993
    Location:
    USA
    More from the black-robed tyrants.
     
  3. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    This is really sad. :( And bad. :fire:
     
  4. Vitamin G

    Vitamin G Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    Monroeville, PA (Home of the Zombies)
    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"

    :uhoh:
     
  5. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    I believed the Constitution was clear on this - I guess you learn something new everyday.
     
  7. petrel800

    petrel800 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    302
    If private property rights are no longer protected than there is no longer any need for government.
     
  8. hillbilly

    hillbilly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Iowa
    This is the type of thing that has caused some uppity peasants to do rash things in the past.

    hillbilly
     
  9. Daniel T

    Daniel T Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Just wait for the Trans-Texas corridor. We'll see how rash things get.
     
  10. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    This is why we're armed. So why fret?
     
  11. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    :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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,572
    Location:
    Essex Co, MA
    This is very disturbing
     
  13. hillbilly

    hillbilly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Iowa
    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.

    hillbilly
     
  14. fish2xs

    fish2xs Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    written majority and dissenting opinion?

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

    this will be a must-read!

    thanks!
     
  15. Cacique500

    Cacique500 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    Georgia
    +1

    Unbelievable :banghead:

    The Fifth Amendment:

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

    Augustwest Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Southern New England
  17. Sawdust

    Sawdust Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    CA
    This is *really* bad... :banghead: :fire:

    Sawdust
     
  18. duckslayer

    duckslayer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    495
    Location:
    NC
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,981
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Man, this takes Eminent Domain to a whole other level. I think the gubbmint is getting a little too big for its britches.

    Greg
     
  21. boofus

    boofus Guest

    Things are getting a bit less awkward now aren't they? [/claire wolfe]
     
  22. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    Without question.
     
  23. BryanP

    BryanP Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,420
    Location:
    Lavergne, TN
    The justification is that the increased tax revenue constitutes the public use. It used to be you just tried to guess where they may want to build a road and not buy a house there. This takes it to an entirely new level.
     
  24. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,719
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    Can you believe this?
    Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community ...
    Of course, we all agree with that, right? Never any corruption or stupidity within local governments ...
     
  25. critter

    critter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,172
    Location:
    southeast AR
    Scares the total crap outta me! All of us have seen little pi$$ant local government 'officials' who are feeling the power they suddenly have run roughshod over folks just because they can. Now they can and the citizenery have no recourse up the legal ladder! Nobody's property is safe any more!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page