High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property

[Nazirite]

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

 

[roo_ster]

More from the black-robed tyrants.

 

[Henry Bowman]

This is really sad. And bad.

 

[Vitamin G]

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"

 

[Telperion]

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.

 

[rick_reno]

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

 

[petrel800]

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

 

[hillbilly]

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

hillbilly

 

[Daniel T]

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

 

[Molon Labe]

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

 

[Sindawe]

I guess its time to start sharpening the tines on my pitchfork and soaking the torches in oil.

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

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.

 

[Chipperman]

This is very disturbing

 

[hillbilly]

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

 

[fish2xs]

written majority and dissenting opinion?

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

this will be a must-read!

thanks!

 

[Cacique500]

I guess its time to start sharpening the tines on my pitchfork and soaking the torches in oil.

+1

Unbelievable :banghead:

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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

 

[Augustwest]

Link to the opinions

 

[Sawdust]

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

Sawdust

 

[duckslayer]

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

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.

 

[cuchulainn]

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

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

I jest, of course, but that line of thinking wouldn't surprise me.

 

[TarpleyG]

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

Greg

 

[boofus]

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

 

[Sindawe]

Things are getting a less awkward now aren't they?

Without question.

 

[BryanP]

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

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.

 

[Old Dog]

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 ...

 

[critter]

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!