Eminent Domain..this is crazy

[SkiDog]

Wow I can't believe they can do this...I guess you dont really "own" what you buy anymore..

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2

Unbeleivable...

M

 

[hammer]

This is going to set a bad precedent... :x

 

[SkiDog]

This is going to set a bad precedent... :x

No kidding any rich developer with a little lobbying power with his high school drinking buddies that are now on the town planning board, can get his new MALL project passed and my house knocked down....

We should all stop paying property taxes, if they can just come take it...

You know what they'll never do? Invoke eminent domain on one of those supreme court justices houses, I know that...for sure.

M

 

[ctenidae]

I'm kind of surprised that Ginsberg was on board with that.

The precedent is bad, but may be balanced by what ends up being determined "fair compensation". If it's a pro-rata share of the total value of the comleted development, then the families will do well. If it's market value for the property in lieu of the development, then they're going to get screwed.

Either way, it looks like a return to the Robber Barons of the 1800's when rail companies were granted ownership of something like 25 miles either side of their rail lines.

 

[JimG.]

No kidding any rich developer with a little lobbying power with his high school drinking buddies that are now on the town planning board, can get his new MALL project passed and my house knocked down....

We should all stop paying property taxes, if they can just come take it...

An interesting statement about property taxes; something I'd expect to hear about the time the moderate silent majority (95% of the population) decides it has had enough of being ruled by special interests.

And before anyone goes off on a liberal or conservative slant, remember that ALL of these politicians and their appointed judicial cronies are filthy rich and all are in the pockets of special interests.

Makes me sick :blink: !

 

[Stephen]

I was coming over to post and SD beat me to it.

I'm in utter shock, though not surprised. The _only_ good thing about this is that it will add support for a less liberal judge to be added to the court.

-Stephen

 

[JimG.]

The precedent is bad, but may be balanced by what ends up being determined "fair compensation". If it's a pro-rata share of the total value of the comleted development, then the families will do well. If it's market value for the property in lieu of the development, then they're going to get screwed.

Fair? HAH!!

I'll place a bet on them getting screwed.

 

[thetrailboss]

I'm kind of surprised that Ginsberg was on board with that.

The precedent is bad, but may be balanced by what ends up being determined "fair compensation". If it's a pro-rata share of the total value of the comleted development, then the families will do well. If it's market value for the property in lieu of the development, then they're going to get screwed.

Either way, it looks like a return to the Robber Barons of the 1800's when rail companies were granted ownership of something like 25 miles either side of their rail lines.

I am also surprised with the breakdown on this one. Bad precedent as well :roll:

 

[Paul]

This has me so pissed I can't talk rationally about it yet...


I'm thinking I can get a real nice piece of land that a chuch is sitting on by having the town claim Eminent Domain for me. After all, I'll pay taxes on it, which the church doesn't, so, doesn't that qualify as a "private economic development?"

 

[pizza]

Here's what I wrote in my weblog about it.
http://tursi.com/steve

Today the Supreme Court ruled that municipalities could use eminent domain laws to seize property for private interests. In other words, you could be forced to leave to make room for WalMart.

It was a 5-4 decision, and the liberals justices voted FOR this - the conservatives dissented.

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

First off, I'd like to comment that, regardless of what you read on the internet, the illusion that liberals care only about "the people" and conservatives only care about "business" is simply untrue. That may be a perception that has grown during the Bush Admnistration, but hopefully when you look at pure ideology this decision will make clear that there is a fundamental difference in opinion between the two groups that influenced this decision - and that is, when you filter through all the tertiary and sometimes inconsequential details of the ideology you'll come to one gem that is continually harped on by this country's libertarians - the government does not have the right to do certain things.

Constraint of power is a powerful concept in the U.S. and was a crucial point to the Framers - just look at the Tenth Amendment. In recent decades, however, a scary trend has been taking place where the power of the Government is continually becoming less and less constrained. A decision like this would have been unthinkable prior to the New Deal, but because of the Government's lack of restraint lately, it's not surprising today. That doesn't make it any less wrong, however.

What is clear in today's decision is that the conservatives on the court value this restaint more than the liberals when coming to business - which is exactly the opposite of public perception. The problem is that the relatively pure ideologies of the members on the court don't influence public perception of conservative vs. liberal values. The reason is greasing that goes on with the regular rank-and-file politicians - and the sad fact is that while both sides get their share of grease, the Republicans (note I did not say conservatives) take more grease from corporate interests than the Democrats, particularly during the Bush Administration. This is not to say the Democrats aren't corrupt either - but it should be clear to everybody that the party in power is a more attractive target to mega-corporations and their lobbyists.

There are two things I abhor about the U.S. government: political parties, and lobbies (both for profit and non-profit.) Changes in the way these two factors relate to each other are the reason the restraint that our government was so good at for 150 years has completely broken down in the 20th century, and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to break down in the 21st century.

Perhaps today's decision will cause folks to realize what's going on about their rights slowly being squelched from them, but with a majority of U.S. citizens not being able to name even one supreme court justice, I doubt it. Partisan politics keeps things simplified and the people satisfied.

 

[Paul]

Well said, Pizza.

 

[SkiDog]

The precedent is bad, but may be balanced by what ends up being determined "fair compensation". If it's a pro-rata share of the total value of the comleted development, then the families will do well. If it's market value for the property in lieu of the development, then they're going to get screwed.

Fair? HAH!!

I'll place a bet on them getting screwed.

Yeah great they pay you more than you'd get if you sold yourself privately, but IMO they should have to. Still though what if that "higher" amount still isn't enough to get you into a "like" house in a different community, not to mention the house they are taking could've been your "dream home". How can you EVER put a $ amount on that?

Along with everyone else, it seems, I am utterly sickened by this...so much for land of the free, home of the brave..

M

 

[JimG.]

Well said, Pizza.

Word...Pizza rules.

 

[dmc]

Oh I don't know.. There's a few trashy properties in my town I'd love to see go away...

It's a scarey thing to be sure...
Let's hope it's only used for the needs of the many - rather then the needs of the (rich)few...

 

[pizza]

Oh I don't know.. There's a few trashy properties in my town I'd love to see go away...

It's a scarey thing to be sure...
Let's hope it's only used for the needs of the many - rather then the needs of the (rich)few...

...wishful thinking. I admire your optimism though!!

Walmart gets to pick the locations. The locations they are most likely to pick are low-income neighborhoods (not individual properties, btw) - they are cheaper to aquire, the residents are least likely to resist, and the legal removal of them makes the entire neighborhood look better! It's a win-win situation, unless, of course, you're the poor person who lives in that neighborhood, who now has to go elsewhere to find affordable housing.

Here's an interesting thought. Can you imagine a single realistic situation where this rule is applied that does *not* allow for some sort of political payoffs to the powers that be?
Neither can I - this ruling is good for nothing except to encourage MORE corruption in government - definitely a step in the wrong direction.

 

[JimG.]

Oh I don't know.. There's a few trashy properties in my town I'd love to see go away...

Those properties are lightening protection...you need those :lol: :wink: .

 

[dmc]

Oh I don't know.. There's a few trashy properties in my town I'd love to see go away...

Those properties are lightening protection...you need those :lol: :wink: .

I know somebody thats trying to take over a piece of property in Hunter right now.. The property hasn't been occupied in over a decade

 

[ctenidae]

Interstingly, looking into it a bit more. It's not so surprising that the liberal judges voted for it. Actually, when you think about it, it's to be expected. Liberals aren't concerned with teh individual- they're concerned with the Public. That means everyone. COnservatives tend to be more concerned with individual rights and actions. That's why conservatives were so up in arms about Terry Schiavo, and willing to use the federal government on an individual level. It's also why the liberal judges were in favor of the eminent domain. The development is "for the greater good" since it will generate jobs, tax revenue, and clean up an area, regardless of what it does to a few individuals. Society is what matters, not individuals. Using the social focus of conservatives vs liberals kind of puts a lot of things into a different light.

Really, it just reinforces my pro-libertarian viewpoint, as espoused by pizza. Too bad most of the Libertarians are whackjobs with no real government experience.

 

[Paul]

Interstingly, looking into it a bit more. It's not so surprising that the liberal judges voted for it. Actually, when you think about it, it's to be expected. Liberals aren't concerned with teh individual- they're concerned with the Public. That means everyone. COnservatives tend to be more concerned with individual rights and actions. That's why conservatives were so up in arms about Terry Schiavo, and willing to use the federal government on an individual level. It's also why the liberal judges were in favor of the eminent domain. The development is "for the greater good" since it will generate jobs, tax revenue, and clean up an area, regardless of what it does to a few individuals. Society is what matters, not individuals. Using the social focus of conservatives vs liberals kind of puts a lot of things into a different light.

Really, it just reinforces my pro-libertarian viewpoint, as espoused by pizza. Too bad most of the Libertarians are whackjobs with no real government experience.

True Dat...

 

[JimG.]

The development is "for the greater good" since it will generate jobs, tax revenue, and clean up an area, regardless of what it does to a few individuals. Society is what matters, not individuals.

Exactly what was said when they agreed to put casinos in Atlantic City. After the boardwalk was developed, it was said that urban renewal would be next and that Atlantic City would flourish. As of today, other than the boardwalk area, Atlantic City is a ghetto, even worse than what was there before. Step too far off the boardwalk and you're taking your life in your hands.

Nothing but empty promises.