High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just finished reading the opinion from my CALR service.

This is creates a playground for city/county attorneys and boards of zoning appeals with no guardrails. Just imagine where we will be after 10 years of litigation to ever expand this ruling. :uhoh:

To join in, very bad news. :eek:
 
I agree, and second that this could easily become a gun issue, since I see this as flat-out tyranny. There's really just no other words for it.

Flat-out tyranny.


The constitution does not say that government can act as a front for greedy developers. They have pushed it too far. Somebody better step in and correct this or the balloon will go up--as it should.

:fire: :cuss:
 
We have no one to blame but ourselves for the complacent attitude that we've allowed to develop over the years.

Gun control, red light and speeding cameras, seat belt laws, anti-smoking ordinances and various other anti freedom measures. This property grab is the final straw and if it is allowed to stand the Constitution should be burned and it should be everyman for himself.

I haven't been this upset since the summer of 94 when the AWB was passed. This ruling is more insidious because it legitimizes the theft of private property by government. This cannot be allowed to stand. This is not a political issue it is a basic civil rights issue. We are supposed to live in a land of laws and the highest law is the Constitution.

This ruling by "rogue" Justices shouldn't come as a surprise. Just consider where they come from. SCOTUS is truly the last stronghold of the blue states. The opportunity will soon come to correct this problem.

Breyer/Kennedy=CA
Stevens=IL
Souter=NH
Ginsburg=NY

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101281.html
 
It'll take a lot more than this ruling to make the people of America rise up and replace our current nanny state that tells us to bend over and spread 'em (all for our own good of course).
The ruling itself will not cause the balloon to fly. The balloon will fly when a courageous individual fights to save his land instead of bending over.

Armed men like me will come to his aid. The results won't be pretty. But who said liberty was free?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson
 
Solution:Change the facts and head back to court.
The local city fathers are convinced that a particular piece of property would benefit the community if it were a chruch, the ACLU( or abortion clinic, democratic offical, or whoever) is forced to sell. Unfair? You bet!

Socialism wouldn't look like so much fun for liberals then, would it?
 
From an American Indian!

What does apply is the gut-level, instinctual reaction that tells everyone, no matter what their religious beliefs, political stances, values systems, sex, race, age, or educational level, that having your house confiscated by the government and given to some corporation to be destroyed and replaced with a new strip mall is wrong, immoral, and completely unacceptable.

"All hail Manifest Destiny!" :barf:

"Oh yeah baby! I knew, some day, that The Man would get his. Yes! There is nothing quite like watching smug and sniveling sanctimonious bastards get thiers! Up yours settlers! Bite me wildly expansive capitalist society. Writh in shame you...

...what?

I've been assimilated? I AM "The Man"?

Damn."


The Indians lose again. :banghead:

Unless, of course, we start annexing white folks' lands for casinos... :evil:
 
"How's about we states make a contract between us that creates a new government with a president, congress and a court. Then, we'll let that court have the final say about what the contract says." :scrutiny:
 
cuchulainn

The really scary part, at least according to an excerpt I read, is that the Governmetn is responsible for economic development.

Was this in the United States? I think the SCOUS has been reading too many foreign laws, like PRC, Cuba, USSR.

I really can't believe this hapened. I applaud Justice O'Conner, Thomas and the others whom realize that nothing the private citizens own is safe from the government.
 
Somewhere Joe Stalin and Adolf are smiling- this ruling, and I use that term very loosely, makes it just about impossible to call yourself a patriot- does anybody feel like putting it all on the line for this country as our fathers did in WW2- what is there to defend anymore?- I turn 60 in another week so, as the male ovine dung piles ever deeper, I probably won't live to see the total implosion of this land- but I sure do worry about my children and grandchildren and the kind of life they are going to face- as I gaze at my honorable US Army discharge I wonder why I bothered!
 
So what is to stop the government from using Eminent Domain to force everyone to sell all guns to Brady/VPC for pennies? Firearms are property too.

Hell I can see a Soylent Green situation too. If you are homeless or simply don't pay enough taxes, why not have the government ED you, and then sell you to some biotech company to turn you into an expensive but marketable, taxable product? They say there is enough precious metal and minerals in every human being to be potentially worth thousands if it could be refined.

The SCOTUS obviously believes the need to generate revenue or other 'public good' outweighs an individual's right to life, liberty, property.
 
And in completely, totally unrelated news, from my local newspaper tonight:
Wal-Mart is a dirty word in Yelm

YELM, Wash. -- Wal-Mart is a bad word in Yelm. Even referring to the retail giant in code is a no-no.

Mayor Adam Rivas won't let the public address the City Council if he even thinks they might mention the unmentionable.

Residents say it's censorship, but the city says it's just trying to protect itself if a legal battle brews over Wal-Mart's plan to build in this small town about 15 miles southeast of Olympia.

Residents have been able to say less and less about Wal-Mart at council meetings during the past five months.

"Initially we couldn't use the term 'Wal-Mart,' so the code word became 'big-box stores,'" said Gregory May, who heads up a Wal-Mart opposition group in Yelm. "They then just announced they would no longer accept any comments about Wal-Mart or big-box stores."



Some citizens are stunned that they've been silenced by the people elected to represent them.

"They just stop you short in your tracks," said Kellie Petersen, who owns a gardening store in town. Petersen is one of several people who have spoken up despite the restrictions.

"My issue was about traffic concerns. I knew enough to use the word 'Wal-Mart' at the very end, so I wouldn't be told to sit down," she said.

Yelm's city attorney, Brent Dille, said council members were fed up with requests that the city impose a moratorium on the large stores. But he also said they don't want to appear biased if an appeal of Wal-Mart's application comes before the council.

This isn't the first time the council has silenced the masses.

In April, it unanimously approved a motion banning the word "moratorium." That was in response to citizen requests that the council enact a moratorium on big box stores so the city's staff could review the city's decade-old zoning.

Instead, the city passed a moratorium on moratoriums. Meeting minutes say Council Member Bob Isom moved that "no moratoriums be imposed and that the issue not be brought before the council again."

And when a group was considering building a NASCAR track in Yelm, the council wouldn't allow public comment, even though an application was never submitted.

"It's the council's meeting. They can decide what they want to hear and what they're tired of hearing," Dille said. "You can understand if you're barraged for two months at meetings - the same people saying the same thing."

The Yelm Commerce Group has said that if the city approves the Wal-Mart application, it will appeal.

pax

Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money --- only for wanting to keep your own money. -- Joseph Sobran
 
I have a few questions:

Did the SCOTUS just give their assent to a form of central planning?

Is the end-all be-all of the purpose of government to raise revenue? Does government now exist for it's own sake?

Should a certain document start off " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect revenue base..."?

Can everything we have, have worked for and saved be sacrificed to some central planners with a "vision"?

Is there any point to having government around? I've been saying "No!" for a long time maybe I can start to get some amens now.


I've seen people argue that without government, bands of thugs will take all my stuff. So I'd say that this argument, never very persuasive, is now unsupportable. Can anyone make the argument that I'm better off with a government than without?

I agree that when it comes time for the evictions the cops will be on the side of the bulldozers. the local public safety agencies will do nothing to help those whose rights are being violated and will instead "enforce the law" regardless of what that does to the innocent people in the way of the bulldozers. Will support for the police fall even amongts those who typically are the cop's biggest supporters?

This will destroy property values as there will be no reason to improve or maintain a property if there is a chance all your improvements will be taken from you. This ruling also means that people will have a hard time getting a good price for their property because who wants to pay a lot for something that may just be taken away?

If the noise about the coming burst of the housing bubble is true the burst combined with lower values on property will mean even less property tax.

A lot less, such a loss will be a lot worse than what cities are dealing with now. I fear this is the beginning of a long spiral down as with decreasing tax revenue cities will try even more ED seizures which will accelerate the problem which will lead to more seizures and on and on....

Seeing that this tactic is failing they might come up with even worse ideas such as increasing other taxes to the point they destroy whatever incentive there is to save and invest.

Perhaps asset forfiture for even basic traffic or city code infractions?

Or taking over whole businesses the profits from which would go to the city.

Maybe even adding a mandatory public service requirement to get a high school diploma. Oh wait many locales already do this, so I should say add a larger requirement.


So how does it feel to have finally been turned into a serf? It has been coming for a while but this decision finally completes the process. The Lords of the Manor have all the say in how property is to be used. Your job is just to get out of the way. Of course every couple of years you get to vote for new Lords so I guess that means you really are free, doesn't it?


A few very difficult stopgap solutions:

Put an end to property tax. Take the incentive away from the politicians.

Uncharter your city. Take the politicans away. That would give you one less level of government to deal with it also makes it easy to spin any ED effort by pols at the county level as an attempt by "outsiders" to take your property which will get more people on your side.

Longer term (and still just as difficult) it is time for you to look at transferring all the "essential" city services into the free-market. Remove all the important things from the purview of government and you will remove it's need to tax. As a bonus you will get better services for less. And you will have more direct control and influence over them.
 
Critter

If you look back at how countries grow, it's been because individuals and businesses have secure property rights. This ruling has knocked the foundation out of this security.
The reason I include business is that what applies to individuals could also apply to businesses.

Here's a nightmare idea. Say the city where Ruger's factories are located decide that "anything is better than a firearm manufacture's plant" they could use this ruling to take the factory and tear it down.

Will this happen tomorrow, no. In the future, yes, things get taken to the logical absurdity.
 
I could see a huge fight when Lowes pays off a city council to condem a Home Depot and give it to Lowes.

In fact I could see this happening a lot.


Given the amount of money it will now be possible to make as a local politician I would expect to see expenditures for even the smallest cities' elections go way up.

And this will make it even more difficult for a person who cannot self-finance his campaign to compete what with contribution limits and all.


Ahhhh ogliarchy! My heart for thee!
 
Native American

Does anybody know where I can get a t-shirt with this saying on it.
Trust the Government, just as an Indian.

I saw it once and didn't buy it.
 
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.
No, what the politicians have is another means to pay off the people who put them in power by taking private property under pretex and ceding it to private interest for profit earning projects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top