- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,297
- Reaction score
- 1,002
- Location
- Saint Paul, MN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
shuamort said:Cities may seize homes for economic development, court rules
(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.
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.
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.^Squak-the courts ruling would trump those laws.
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.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.
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 :bsAs 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.
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 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
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).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:
Thanks ShamMol!ShamMol said:http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
That is the supreme court decision should anyone wish to read it. Starting on it now.
My name is "Mr. Burns", or at least thats what 26 X thinks.ShamMol said:No kiddin sherlock.
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).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:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?