High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property

[Gung-Ho]

Maybe the reason this thread got so long is that people were interested in it.......................

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

 

[Art Eatman]

True. People were and are interested, but that pore ol' hoss got beat plumb to death.

Art

 

[jkswiss]

Yes, I'm a shiny newbie here. For what it's worth, I think the government seizure thread ended prematurely. I spent quite a bit of time reading everyones opinions and was sad to see it end.

Hopefully, I'll get to see some more about it. That was quite possibly the longest thread I've read on a forum, and I've never seen one grow so fast.

The last thread raised my awareness level on this issue as it was non existant before. It doesn't seem to have made a spash on cable TV news, as I haven't heard about it from what I've watched.

I'm better to have found that thread, and disappointed to see it closed.

It's only a matter of time before this turns into a media firestorm. Some developer is going to mess with the wrong person, and it'll get ugly.
I'm amazed that the Supreme Court passed this. It seems so intrinsicly wrong.
I guess you get too big for your briches after 20+ years as a pampered, powerful Justice and your get so out of tune as to what the people want and whats good for them.

 

[RealGun]

(SCOTUS) out of tune as to what the people want and whats good for them.

I believe those considerations are irrelevant to their assignment or should be. They do after all protect constitutional principles from the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, the Court seems to have a tyranny of its own.

 

[Ghost Walker]

Well, I've spent most of my working life in real estate. So I'll just offer this: If, 'economic improvement' is a justifiable excuse for a municipality to exercise its rights of eminent domain, then, why can't the people whose properties are seized be given an ongoing and equitable share of the future profits?

Seems only reasonable to me that if you kick somebody out of his home in order for the town to realize an improved future income stream, then, the original homeowner(s) should also be entitled to more than just the current fair market value of the property. Forcibly dispossessed property owners should also be given an opportunity to share in that future income.

 

[publius]

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 would be more accurate to say they upheld a 50 year old ruling saying that seizing homes and businesses for private economic development is OK as long as it is part of a larger government redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan is the special magic which turns private looting into "public use" under the 5th amendment.

Here is the opinion of the Court, by Stevens:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html

I'm more of a Thomas man myself:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html

 

[ravinraven]

"why can't the people whose properties are seized be given an ongoing and equitable share of the future profits? "

Huh! Are you out of your mind? The object of stealing something is to not pay for it. Ever!

Property stealing at its best showed up a half-century ago when the state of New York stole the people's land along the St. Lawrence River in the name of the great Seaway. My uncle's farm was stolen along with many others. A gov't lawyer agreed that they would not have to lose their buildings. The river would not raise to them. Just clip some of the pasture land along the river. The agreement was signed and sealed and they were happy.

Then the gov't -- I'm still trying to find out which one, US or NYS -- US I believe -- said the lawyer who had signed the deal had died and all his work was void. This time, they lost the land and buildings. Now the country club building sits on the old house foundation. There's more "legal" stuff involved.

Uncle had inherited the farm after many years working it for his uncle. Good old thieving Uncle Sam stepped in and grabbed his check. "You inherited this place. Therefore we get to charge you tax on all you got."

Everytime some jerk bad-mouths me or anyone else for not trusting the gov't, I think of this crookedness.

The only bright light was when they named the Seaway in honor of FDR. The stealing, cheating, lying and other skullduggery that went into its construction was right out of his play book. That was a good call.

rr

 

[gringolet]

"public use"

the kjey to the mst recent case on this is how public use was defined...traditionally the power of goernment to take private property has been for schools, highways, such as that...this most recent casee xpands this "public use" so that basically ANY ECONOMIC BENEFIT could justify the taking..so, wal-mart...General Motors,..the new mall...the new hotel..can now use this process with the aid of local governments in name of economic development to take private property for the mall, wal-mart, etc...this is what the dissents of Justice O-Connor and Scalia speak about..how the process has made all property subject to the most wealthy..and no person can be safe in private property any longer...and note it is the liberal justices who voted FOR this and thge conservatives who tried to stop it...we need more judges who have read the constitution!

 

[ravinraven]

The reach of this treasonous----no---worse than that---ruling is far indeed. Is a bank going to loan you money on a house that they think might be in the way of economic development while they still hold paper on it? Are you apt to buy land to hold and sell as a part of your retirement plan if the gov't can grab it at anytime for fun and profit? How about places where you can't build a house on less than, say, five acres of land. You buy the land, build the nice house and landscape the rest of the place, maybe have a garden and a small wood lot. Nice place. Then the city fathers figure out that if they changed the ruling so that one acre is enough to build a house on, they grab four of your improved and expensive [to you] acres and four more houses get built so that they increase their tax income.

When the SCOTUS turns its back on the people, guess what it's time for.

rr