• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cities may seize homes for economic development, court rules

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Cities may seize homes for economic development, court rules
The Supreme Court ruled today 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.
(The court's opinion is not up in .pdf form on the website yet.)

This is a ridiculous decision. I can't wait to read the full opinion because they're citing the 5th Amendment's emminent domain as justification. Pfft.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That was a horrible decision, the worst thing is that now it opens the interpretation of any local government to displace any citizens for any reason as pertains to the "public good" such as a shopping mall or office :hitsfan:
This is just another reason why constructionists need to replace these guys on the high court.
 

Quertol

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
LaMidRighter said:
That was a horrible decision, the worst thing is that now it opens the interpretation of any local government to displace any citizens for any reason as pertains to the "public good" such as a shopping mall or office :hitsfan:
This is just another reason why constructionists need to replace these guys on the high court.

Hear Hear! :smile:
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I couldn't believe it either, what were they thinking? If the Legislature does it's duty they will make a law to neutralize this. I think they can handle more than one issue at a time.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
^Squak-the courts ruling would trump those laws.

I worked for a law firm last year that dealt with this. The fact that they can seize homes is not actually that much of an issue. They pay usually equal money and/or help to move the house to a vacant lot. That isn't the issue. The issue is when they take away property that is an apartment and then put in higher paying apartments thus leaving those people who can barely afford the Cost of living as it is out on the street. It sucks (Yes, I think the descision sucks) that the government can take away property, but it is now legal.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And let me clarify two things-the city cannot take the property without offering just compensation first. And then, if the people who own it do not accept the compensation, then the city still has to give them the money even if they take the land. That is waht happens in LA all the time, and while it does suck, it is also legal.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
^Squak-the courts ruling would trump those laws.
I think we discussed this before Sham. The Legislative Branch checks the Judicial Branch. This isn't a slam dunk by any means. The city can offer a minimum payment then re-evaluate the property for resale at an inflated price to a developer. It is an open door to abuse and corruption.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
I think we discussed this before Sham. The Legislative Branch checks the Judicial Branch. This isn't a slam dunk by any means. The city can offer a minimum payment then re-evaluate the property for resale at an inflated price to a developer. It is an open door to abuse and corruption.
And the Judicial branch checks the legislative branch and legislative, blah, blah. Honestly, the way the legislative branch checks the courts is with advice and consent and controlling the budget. If they make a law that is not in accordance with a past ruling, then buh-bye to the law.

And trust me Squak, I agree, I think it is an open-door policy for abuse of those who don't have much money. But, I also recognize that money is better than no money which is what used to happen a long time ago. As I said, I think the whole thing sucks, but I also recognize how it is legal because the city can use that and claim it is for the public benefit. It sucks, but it is legal.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The SCOTUS pointed out in the ruling that the states could pass laws to restrict what the cities could do. So if a legislator wanted to stop it, they could. I think plenty of people are disturbed with this ruling and will complain to their legislators. That may prevent the home from being taken away.

This is one of the very few SCOTUS rulings that I disagree with. It seriously makes me angry.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I said, I think the whole thing sucks, but I also recognize how it is legal because the city can use that and claim it is for the public benefit. It sucks, but it is legal.
Since both sides agree that it is a bad call, it is up to us to change it. Five people should not have that much power, and if you don't stand up against this, what is the sense of having a Constitution and laws. I don't accept that it is legal because 5 people said so. That is :bs
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Squawker said:
Since both sides agree that it is a bad call, it is up to us to change it. Five people should not have that much power, and if you don't stand up against this, what is the sense of having a Constitution and laws. I don't accept that it is legal because 5 people said so. That is :bs
Have you read the ruling? Do you have a link the earlier one didn't work for me.

I'm interested in reading it, who voted for it and why.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
Since both sides agree that it is a bad call, it is up to us to change it. Five people should not have that much power, and if you don't stand up against this, what is the sense of having a Constitution and laws. I don't accept that it is legal because 5 people said so. That is :bs
Hate to say it Squak, but that is the way the country works and has worked for a very long time. If you don't like, as some conservative bastard on the Daily Show said "Tough *****." The Constitution that you say shouldn't allow 5 people to rule over our laws is the constitution that does allow a Supreme Court to rule over our laws (and don't start in on Marbury, we all remember that 400 post thread). And the "it is up to us to change it" comment-it was my understanding that the counties/cities can be controlled by the state up to a certain point with laws that are made specifically relating to this case. That makes it a little better and makes it harder for abuse to occur.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'll remember that Sham.
 
Last edited:

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I corrected the misspelling of your name, I wouldn't want to show disrespect to you. I was in a tournament at the time. The decision doesn't mean a hell of a lot to me Sham. You are a child who has the rest of your life to live and I'm an old fart. If you want to settle for this don't complain later. This is coming from the Liberal side of the court so you will accept it without question apparently. You know it all so who am I to tell you anything. :roll:
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
I corrected the misspelling of your name, I wouldn't want to show disrespect to you. I was in a tournament at the time. The decision doesn't mean a hell of a lot to me Sham. You are a child who has the rest of your life to live and I'm an old fart. If you want to settle for this don't complain later. This is coming from the Liberal side of the court so you will accept it without question apparently. You know it all so who am I to tell you anything. :roll:
Well, I can't correct more than 10 minutes after like an admin can, so excuse me for now correcting that. I accept it, true, but that doesn't mean I like it. As I have said before, It Sucks. But, it is also legally sound from what I can tell and once I read the decision, I will know for sure. I didn't even know it was coming from the "liberal side" (which apparently consists of moderates who I guess you take to be liberal because there are only 3 so-called liberal minded people there).
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's called "Eminent Domain" Check it out on a government web site. :2wave:
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
ShamMol said:
No kiddin sherlock.
My name is "Mr. Burns", or at least thats what 26 X thinks.
 

NoobieDoobieDo

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, Tx
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
For those Americans who were not awake to their governments abuse of power this should ring a few bells.

Everyone I know is talking about it.

But that may be because I told them :2wave:
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
So I know this decision by the Supreme Court is old news, but I just had to add the perfect ending to their stupid ruling.

So, according to this, one of the justices who voted for the measure was Justice David Souter.

Anyway, Souter's home is Weare, New Hampshire (I was already laughing at this point). A man from California has contacted officials in Weare for a permit to build a hotel on Souter's property...actually where his house stands. Wait for the kicker...the hotel will be called the Lost Liberty Hotel.
:2rofll:
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Kelzie said:
So I know this decision by the Supreme Court is old news, but I just had to add the perfect ending to their stupid ruling.

So, according to this, one of the justices who voted for the measure was Justice David Souter.

Anyway, Souter's home is Weare, New Hampshire (I was already laughing at this point). A man from California has contacted officials in Weare for a permit to build a hotel on Souter's property...actually where his house stands. Wait for the kicker...the hotel will be called the Lost Liberty Hotel.
:2rofll:
I heard about that today and laughed myself. I would like to contribute 20$ to the man's cause (building a shopping mall on Souter's home).
 
Top Bottom