TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Supreme Court Court Rules That Cities Can Seize Private Property
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Supreme Court Court Rules That Cities Can Seize Private Property
| quote: |
Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:02 AM ET Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact. By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company. Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority that the city's proposed disposition of the property at issue qualified as a "public use" under the Constitution. He said the city's determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation was entitled to deference. The decision affecting individual property rights could have broad impact. The issue has arisen across the nation as cities have sought new ways to promote growth and create jobs in depressed areas. The Supreme Court's last major ruling on using eminent domain for private development was in 1954, when it upheld the taking of property to eliminate slums or blight after finding that such condemnations constituted a public use. The decision was a victory for New London, which argued that because the development will create jobs, increase tax revenues and help the local economy, it satisfied the Constitution's public-use requirement. The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property. Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. He said promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted government function. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=8873080 |
i didnt read any of the article. But they still have to pay for that property right? This shit has been there for quite some fucking time. So please do shut your fucking mouth.
I am just messing with you but do not get offended
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid i didnt read any of the article. But they still have to pay for that property right? This shit has been there for quite some fucking time. So please do shut your fucking mouth. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid i didnt read any of the article. But they still have to pay for that property right? This shit has been there for quite some fucking time. So please do shut your fucking mouth. I am just messing with you but do not get offended |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider In other words, this is a VERY sweeping interpretation of emminent domain. If any corporation so desires your property they can feasibly cooperate with the local government to force you to hand over said property against your will. What property rights do you have at this point? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid o damn thats what they ruled? Man corporations are really running this governement. How could they pass something like that they are going against the people. Man but it won't really work the city of chicago has been wanting to expand o'hare but the residents refuse to sell their homes to the city. So all they have to do in order to not be taken advantage is to simply not move. |
| quote: |
In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public--such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power. . . . bAny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "[T]hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." For the National Gazette, Property, (Mar. 29, 1792), reprinted in 14 Papers of James Madison 266 (R. Rutland et al. eds. 1983). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-b...00&invol=04-108 |
That AIN'T cool.
Just saw this, and given your Libertarian stance on property rights I'm not surprised you posted this fairly quickly.
And yes, I am a Democrat (no news to you, Occ, I'm sure), but this ruling utterly pisses me off. This seems to completely trample over the 5th Amendment, and has got to be one of the most broad sweeping interpretations of the Constitution I have ever seen.
More often than not I tend to disagree with the strict Constitutional constructionists as they fail to comprehend and accept the changing times. But on this issue here, I'm 100% in their corner (Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O'Connor).
What are the possibilities of a Legislative push to somehow circumvent their ruling on this? Just a thought.
I didn't get a chance to read the article (I'll probably do that a some later time) but I thought municipalities could already expropriate land if they needed it and the land owner is given fair market value.
What's the twist with this? 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r I didn't get a chance to read the article (I'll probably do that a some later time) but I thought municipalities could already expropriate land if they needed it and the land owner is given fair market value. What's the twist with this? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 More often than not I tend to disagree with the strict Constitutional constructionists as they fail to comprehend and accept the changing times. But on this issue here, I'm 100% in their corner (Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O'Connor). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT!!!! |
| quote: |
...[F]or a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy... |
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
LOL! 
an absolute horrible legal development that will take many years to undo.
At least this seems like a topic that most, if not all, of us agree on! Boortz has been very vocal about private property rights, and not surprisingly had a lot to say about this decision today. If you're a liberal, gloss over the end part when he goes on about the war on individuality--the meat of the matter is what he says before that.
| quote: |
| THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS I cannot remember being more dismayed at a court ruling, and this includes the occasional ruling against me when I was practicing law. What ruling? Just in case you don't already know, the United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country. [full text of ruling] Background. The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts the government's right of eminent domain. It does not, as I heard so many commentators say yesterday, grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it. The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The Fifth Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this right for a public use without paying for it. The exact working is "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to mean use for something like a school, library, police or fire station, power transmission lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by government for the benefit of the general population. As politicians became more and more impressed with their own power they started to expand this definition of public use. The new theory is that increasing the property taxes paid on a parcel of property is a public use. Increasing the number of people who can be employed by a business located on a particular piece of property can also be a public use. This would mean that government would be free to seize private property if it can be handed to a developer who will redevelop the property so as to increase the property taxes paid or the number of people employed. This is the theory that was validated by the Supreme Court yesterday in its ruling approving just such a private property seizure in New London, Connecticut. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent, this decision renders virtually all private property vulnerable to government confiscation. Bottom line: If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed. You now own your private property only at the pleasure of government; and that means that you own your property, be it your home, your business or a piece of investment real estate only at the pleasure of the local controlling politicians. Let me give you a few real-life examples of just how politicians can now use this Supreme Court decision. In considering these examples, please remember one of the first rules of politics: There is absolutely no limit whatsoever to a politician's desire for more tax money to spend. First let's consider our lovely Southern Belle producer Belinda. Belinda and her husband recently purchased a tract of land behind her new home. That tract of land contains one rather small and old house plus some empty acreage. Belinda will rent the home for just enough to cover her debt service and property taxes on the new purchase ... maybe. Now, here comes a developer. He wants Belinda's land because he can build at least three, maybe four new homes on that property. Belinda says no. She likes not having houses abutting her back yard and appreciates the investment value of the land she has purchased. So .. the developer wanders off to the Capitol to talk to some politicians. He tells them that he can increase the property being paid on that tract of land tenfold if he could just get in there and build some houses, but the owners just won't sell the property to him. Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes. Belinda has no way to stop this action. The city will have to pay Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself. Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place. It was her property, and she wanted to keep it. Now it can be taken ... just like that. Another example. This time we'll use me. About two years ago I brought a building lot in the Northeast Georgia mountains. It's a lot in a mountain resort community. Before I bought the lot I made sure that there were no covenants or regulations that would require me to build a home on that lot before I was ready to do so. At present it is not my intention to build a home. I bought the lot as an investment. Now, since there is no home as of yet the property taxes are rather low. Along comes a developer. He wants to build a home on my lot. I tell him the lot is not for sale. He waltzes off to the local county commission to complain. He wants to build a house, I won't sell him the land. If he could build the house the property taxes would jump on that parcel of land. The county commission then sends me a letter telling me that if I don't sell my land to that developer to build that home they are going to seize the land and turn it over. Thanks to the Supreme Court, I'm screwed. Now take the situation in New London. This is the case the court was considering. The targeted neighborhood is populated by middle class residents. The homes are old, but very well kept. One couple now slated to have their property seized is in their 80's. They celebrated their wedding in that home. They raised their children in that home. They held their 50th wedding anniversary party in that home. Now they're going to lose that home because a developer wants the property to build a hotel, some office buildings and a work out center. This is America. This shouldn't happen in America. That couple shouldn't be kicked out of their home just because a new development would pay more in property taxes. There are also small businesses located on this tract of land. They're history. The big boys are in town, and the big boys can use eminent domain to get your property. No society ostensibly based on economic liberty can survive unless that society recognizes the right to property. The right to property has been all but crippled by this decision from the Supreme Court. That right is now subject to the whims of politicians and developers. I'm not through ranting. Read on. Considering this ruling, how likely are you to invest in real estate at this point? If you saw a tract of land that was placed squarely in the path of growth, would you buy that property in hopes that you could later sell it for a substantial profit? I wouldn't. I wouldn't be interesting in investing in that property because I know that when it came time to sell, the potential purchaser would lowball me on the price. I would never get a true market value based on the highest and best use of that property. And why not? Because the developer wanting that property would simply tell me that if I didn't accept his lowball offer he would just go to the local government and start the eminent domain process. This ruling also means that virtually every piece of raw land out there has decreased in value. The threat of eminent domain for private economic development has severely damaged in most cases, and destroyed in many others, the American dream of investing in real estate. Another element of the New London case. These middle class homes and small businesses were located on a waterfront. Everybody knows that middle class people and small businesses have no right to live on prime waterfront property. This property should be reserved for expensive homes and for big businesses with powerful political connections .. businesses like Pfizer Pharmaceutical company. Pfizer will be one of the beneficiaries of the New London seizures. This hideous Supreme Court ruling is going to result in a disgusting orgy of wealthy developers and politically powerful business interests using their political connections to ride roughshod over the property rights of poor and middle class property owners. I doubt seriously that you'll ever hear of some politician invoking eminent domain to seize property from a wealthy individual or business to make way for a low income housing project. There's another element I want to add to this rant. I believe this Supreme Court decision to be a victory for the dark side in the war against individualism. Sadly, sometimes I think that I'm the only one out there who realizes that this war is being fought ... the only one on the side of individuality, that is. How in the world can leftist icon Ted Kennedy make say that "we are engaged in a war against individuality" without at least a few people in the media asking him what in the world he's talking about? The concept of individuality is a very troublesome one for liberals. Recognizing the concept of the individual brings with it a whole lot of baggage that liberals don't want to carry around. When you acknowledge the existence of the individual you then have to recognize that the individual has rights. Among those rights would be the right to property. Liberals aren't friendly with the idea of property rights. They're fond of chanting such absurdities as "human rights, not property rights." Well, truthfully speaking; property has no rights. People have the right to property .. and those rights have been severely damaged. Now ... is there a bright side? Is there anything good in the ruling? Yes, there is, and this is where you come in. Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it. They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism. Start the movement now. Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights. The Supreme Court decision is a horrible blow to private property rights. Whether or not it is a death-blow will be up to you. |
I'm glad this wasn't around 2 years ago, a company tried to force my grandmother and her neighbors out of their homes to build a dunkin donuts, strip mall, and some storage units. They were forced to build around them because they wouldn't sell. I can't imagine what Could have happened...especially living in a home comfortably for 50+ years that you would like to live the rest of your life in.
Damn those liberal judges!
there not liberal. Most of them are from the south and we all know that a southern is no good liberal. I wish there could be an alt. Why can't us americans all live in cities like the europeans its nnot that bad and in that way i think ppl would realize how fortuanate we are to have such a nice country
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid there not liberal. Most of them are from the south and we all know that a southern is no good liberal. I wish there could be an alt. Why can't us americans all live in cities like the europeans its nnot that bad and in that way i think ppl would realize how fortuanate we are to have such a nice country |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka That was a waste of your breath and a waste of my time! |
I noticed!
STOP DISTURBING ME!
man on a mission...
couldn't resist.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.