Say goodbye to private property.

[Malibu Sally]

Be VERY afraid. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301067.html)

I live in a state which already has developers putting pressure on property owners to sell so they can put up their high-dollar condos and golf courses. Now they won't need to do that. Just grease a few palms on the city(or county) commision and any land they desire will be seized and handed over.

Emminent domain may have been abused in the past, but this will make it common practice. Those of you who own your own homes better hope no one turns a covetous glance toward your little slice of the American dream because it just got a whole lot easier to take it away. :mad:

/edit: apologies... fixed the link.

[Tsarmina]

Aye. There are some homeowners here in CT that have been wrestling to keep their property. Tis a sad thing when the government can strong-arm you out of your house and property. >:

[Akamaz]

I know in some areas of the us, the government owns the land, and you own the buildings and rights to use the land... that way it keeps those Uppity homeowners from trying to act like they own what they paid for...

[Redcat]

So who do you go to when you believe the Supreme Court is wrong?

[Sun-Scarab]

the Equalizer ..no wait he's fictional..
i say keep your travel agent on standby for a one way to europe.

[MikeKAY]

Marx would be proud.

[ChairLegOfTruth]

It was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who said "Property is theft". TBH the US government has been stealing other people's property since even before it's inception ;) The fact that it's actually legalised what it's been doing for ages comes as no suprise.

[coldcut]

Marx would be proud.

This is more of an Adam Smith situation. Those were conservative judges voting for this and liberal judges dissenting.

Strike that, this is more of a Julius Caesar situation. Just money and power doing its usual thing. You're supposed to be able to count on the legislature to set things right when the Supreme court has its brains replaced by space aliens. But I'm not holding out a whole lot of hope, even in an election year.

[Malibu Sally]

Marx would be proud.

Not really Mike. The seized property is given to the developer. So what we have is the property being transferred from one set of owners to another, single(usually corporate) owner.

[WingedAvenger]

I don't see what you're worried about, Sally. You live in Florida, right?

At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

[Malibu Sally]

I don't see what you're worried about, Sally. You live in Florida, right?


Eliminate blight. So that's how they are wording it these days, huh?

WA, the whole point of eminent domain is so necessary PUBLIC WORKS can be acheived. Without it,a huge chunk of our roads and a good portion of our schools, libraries, and public buildings would not exist. Seizing land and turning over to a developer so that they can build condos or other businesses is NOT a public work. Sorry but just because the developer can increase the value of the land(and thus increase the local income from taxes) does not mean that said land should be seized by the local government and GIVEN to the developer. Today's SC decision makes that perfectly legal now.

Florida may indeed have rules forbidding the use of eminent domain except to eliminate blight, but unfortunately, it is not particularly well enforced. In fact, the word "blight" is being loosely defined. So loosely that it can be applied to any piece of land that is not being valued to its fullest... not just to slums and economicaly depressed areas(the original meaning of the the words "blighted areas")

Today's ruling should give EVERY homeowner in the country a case of the willies.

[WingedAvenger]

GIVEN to the developer. Today's SC decision makes that perfectly legal now.Maybe I'm just not reading the article closely enough but I didn't see any particular mention of land being outright given to a developer free and clear. Not that I'm arguing the point... hell I'm sure you know much more about it then I do. I would just think developers would have to bid for it if the government didn't want to keep it.


Florida may indeed have rules forbidding the use of eminent domain except to eliminate blight, but unfortunately, it is not particularly well enforced. In fact, the word "blight" is being loosely defined. So loosely that it can be applied to any piece of land that is not being valued to its fullest... not just to slums and economicaly depressed areas(the original meaning of the the words "blighted areas")Okay, but I remember seeing that satellite photo of your place a while back. I'm sure you could easily make that case that there's nothing blighted about that neighborhood. Although maybe things seem different when you're not looking at it from several miles straight up. ;)

But yeah I do agree with you. Dealing with emminent domain issues sucks, particularly if you're a homeowner. The Supreme Court really fubared this one.

[Malibu Sally]

Maybe I'm just not reading the article closely enough but I didn't see any particular mention of land being outright given to a developer free and clear. Not that I'm arguing the point... hell I'm sure you know much more about it then I do. I would just think developers would have to bid for it if the government didn't want to keep it.

The actual case involved has several homeowners who would not sell to Pfizer, who wants to build a series of research facilities in the area. Pfizer convinced the city of New London to use eminent domain to seize the land. If it had not been challenged then yes, Pfizer would have been given the land. After all, the developer is going to increase the value of the land and thus increase the revenue generated from taxes.

Also it should be noted that the owners of the property will be compensated for the seizure. "Just compensation" I beleive is the phrase used in the 5th amendment to the constitution. But just compensation is open to interpretation. It usually means that if the value of the land is between say 50,000 and 100,000 dollars, then you can bet your life that the "just compensation" will be much closer the low end of the estimate than the high end.

[inde]

Bloody hell I hate this. Ruling that its the state's problem was one crappy crappy decision.

Its quite horrible if you think about it. As long as its for 'increased economic benefit', a rich person could be kicked out by a richer person --> rich get ever stronger.

Ugh this one really has me pissed off. Coupled with the state of the courts and I want to go kick everyone in the three branches of government.

[Malibu Sally]

Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas both issued dissenting opinions on this ruling. I find the following comments best describe the situation:

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.

Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive use of her property?

The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.

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.

-Sandra Day O'Connor
The court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution.

-Clarence Thomas

[Malibu Sally]

Now then... what can be done about this? Not much really. But there ARE some things you can do.

Hopefully this action will put renewed interest and focus on local elections. If anyone is going to stick it to the homeowner, it will be city council and county commision members. THEY are the ones who will wield the Eminent Domain axe. Grill your local commisioners. Make sure you understand EXACTLY where they stand on this. Support only those who can PROVE that they will not sell out to developers.

[Solario]

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

[coldcut]

Okay, we need a different article. The one you posted managed to get all the judges opinions wrong safe the Chief Justice and O'Connor.

[Malibu Sally]

Okay, we need a different article. The one you posted managed to get all the judges opinions wrong safe the Chief Justice and O'Connor.

Ok. Here is a link to over 800 different sources (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506240150jun24,1,7295148.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-newsnationworld-hed) as listed by Google News. Take your pick. I am sure you can find one you can trust.

[Larke]

Ok people, listen
this is just the start

courts rule that seriously ill people can be deprived of their medicine (marijuana) if their neighbor decides to call the feds on them...

michael jackson is innocent...

shouldn't we all know by now that the justice system just doesn't work?

[Akamaz]

Ok. Here is a link to over 800 different sources (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506240150jun24,1,7295148.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-newsnationworld-hed) as listed by Google News. Take your pick. I am sure you can find one you can trust.



all praize googlezon

[vyxzuw]

How the Judges voted:
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy Were of the Majority Opinion.

O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas Were of the Minority Opinion.

Interpret that as you will.

[Yin]

So who do you go to when you believe the Supreme Court is wrong?

Me.

I got a brand new gun with a scope on it. I'm waitin' for some smartass contractor to come knockin' at my door tellin' me and my family we have to move out.

You gotta love our government and American within itself. "Land of the free" my ass. This land is only free to the rich and famous, and people with the last name Bush. Someone has to stop them from doin' this crap. I know there are MILLIONS of people who won't up and leave because they want to build a stupid mall or somethin' and you're in there way. Jerks.

[vyxzuw]

and people with the last name Bush.

And this is Bush's fault, how?

You may want to take a look at the judges who allowed this.

Pro-Bush, they are not.

[inde]

And this is Bush's fault, how?

You may want to take a look at the judges who allowed this.

Pro-Bush, they are not.

I don't think he meant to blame this on Bush, but other pro-rich things.

[Esbat]

I'm pro-Me.

I don't own a home or land but I do think I can build a shopping mall on someone's property just to see if I could.

I'll call it the Supreme Mall of America...

[Yin]

And this is Bush's fault, how?

You may want to take a look at the judges who allowed this.

Pro-Bush, they are not.

Not here to debate, but you didn't read it clearly enough. I said this land is only free to the rich, famous, and people by the last name of Bush, meaning that Bush is encompassed in those "rich and famous" people. Never ever stated it was Bush's fault, but he SHOULD do something about it.

[Malibu Sally]

Never ever stated it was Bush's fault, but he SHOULD do something about it.

He won't. Why should he put a stop to something which he himself has befitted from?

If you can track the data down, take a gander at how the Texas Rangers got their current stadium. Yes.. G.W.B. was instrumental in getting the city to use eminent domain to condemn and seize the property for that stadium.

But don't take my word for it. See for yourself. It takes some imaginative Googling to find the story. Sorry, I am too tired to go hunting tonight. :(

[Malibu Sally]

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

Nice quote.. Except for one little detail. Lincoln never said or wrote those words. (http://snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.htm)

Abraham Lincoln probably is the most misquoted American in history. :|

[Randomus]

Aside from Darth Vader.

[Meltman]

Darth Vader isn't American, he's Tatooinian (Tatooian? Tatoonese?)

[Apollinaris]

Luke... I'm taking your house.

NOoooooooooooooooo!

[WingedAvenger]

http://www.watleyreview.com/2005/062105-2.html

[Stalking Shadow]

Yeah, but who cares about New Jersey? :sarcasm:

[Randomus]

He's a fictional character created by an American with dialogue written by an American. I think that counts. ;)

[Meltman]

Yeah, but the guy in the suit was British.

[Malibu Sally]

And the guy that did the voice was American too.


Now quite sidetracking this thread.

[Jade Djinn]

OIK, I just HAD to share this.. Here's a great response by some people to this issue... I am still laughing and hope they win this...

---------------------------------------

Hotel Lost Liberty (http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html )

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

[Poison]

ZING!
Awesome! :lol:

[inde]

Oh wow - that is the bset idea I have ever read :)

[MikeKAY]

Awesome, a smartass with a taste for irony gets to bitchslap this guy where it hurts. That is great, I'd love to meet the guy. :chuckle:

[Tsarmina]

Depending where in the state it is, I'd SO book a room there! :lol: