Cities may seize homes for economic development, court rules

[Pacridge]

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).

I'll pitch into that fund. This is one of those decisions the court should get the pleasure of experiencing first.

 

[Pacridge]

You with everybody bitching about this, has any one actually started any movement to write congress or who ever to do anything about it? I mean Janet "the flash" Jackson gave everybody a free show at a ball game and people wrote letters. In this case people are actually losing their property.


I'm going to write a letter to all my rep's in the morning.

 

[LaMidRighter]

You with everybody bitching about this, has any one actually started any movement to write congress or who ever to do anything about it? I mean Janet "the flash" Jackson gave everybody a free show at a ball game and people wrote letters. In this case people are actually losing their property.

I was horrified when the "wardrobe malfunction" happened, not because of the nature of the accident, but because I knew someone would go out of their way to get offended and stir things up about it. Really though, it was an accidental flash of a breast, we allow women to breast feed in public, so we can't allow an accident?

I'm going to write a letter to all my rep's in the morning.

Not a bad idea, I think I can squeeze in some time to do that myself.

 

[Squawker]

Maybe this will be enough to negate the SC’s ruling.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reacting to a recent Supreme Court decision, lawmakers are moving to make it more difficult for local governments to seize private property that stands in the way of shopping malls and other commercial development.
The House approved by a 231-189 vote a bid by conservative Scott Garrett, R-N.J., to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.
"They're going to have to find their own money, instead of coming to Washington," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after Thursday's vote.

Source

 

[Stherngntlmn]

http://www.wave3.com/global/story.asp?s=3537143

The lost liberty hotel is classic irony. The Supreme Court needs a collective smack in the back of the head for a lot of their recent judgements. Somebody needs to force them to retake "Introduction to the Constitution 101".

 

[janice]

'Tis a real shame.

 

[SouthTexas]

I read the posts on this thread about the subject at hand, and what might be missing is the issue of power.
WHO is legally, the most powerful person in the United States?
Under the original foundations the person in the street was looked upon as the "top" power. Elected representatives were supposed to abide by the wishes of constituents.
In any event, ALL were supposed to obey the supreme law of the land--The Constitution.
This was eroded with the emergence of "judicial review" in 1803 (perhaps 1801).
Once the Constitution was allowed to be "interpreted" this gave rise to the beginning of the demise of freedom.
The Jackson decision in 1943 fortunately reiterated the supreme protection provided by the Bill of Rights stating in short: it (Bill of Rights) is a separate document unto itself. It cannot be abridged or legislated against, not even by a majority. You as an individual cannot even legally "give up" your rights under it.
Therefore, this current group of thugs have collectively delivered us into the hands of collectivism just like Kruschev said would happen--unless the top persons in this nation stand up and say no. The top persons in this nation are----us. We do not "ask" these criminals to obey the law. We DEMAND it. This happened on quite a number of occasions before July 1776, when the people finally said no more.
The idea that the "state" in any format, be it federal, state, or local has the right to confiscate the property of others is totally antagonistic to the original founders---and most right thinking Americans today.
There is NO justifiable excuse. "In the public interest?" WHO decides that? WHAT is the "public interest?" WHO decides that?

I am for calling a spade a spade. These people know damn well what they are doing. This country is rapidly turning into a fascist state and they are participating in a "revolution" to overthrow this country.
Read the "patriot" (disgusting that they had the nerve to call it that) act, then read the Enabling Act, which was foisted on Germany in 1933.
Then explain the difference. None.
Now we have the state confiscating property at their "buddies" (large contributions--no doubt) leisure. This is fascism folks--plain and simple.

They cannot...unless we give up the right of self government. Are you ready to do that?

 

[asmith555]

I don't understand why the demoncrats support this so much. Sure it rid people of the terrible concept of private property but it benefits someone who isn't poor. You would think that would be enough to get them on the same side. I figure the dems support this decision because of one of 2 reasons.

1. Thier worship of the court does not allow them to question it.(All hail the Supreme Court)

2. The know the Republican position and thier culture of hate forces them to take the opposite side regaurdless of the issue.

 

[debate_junkie]

I don't understand why the demoncrats support this so much. Sure it rid people of the terrible concept of private property but it benefits someone who isn't poor. You would think that would be enough to get them on the same side. I figure the dems support this decision because of one of 2 reasons.

1. Thier worship of the court does not allow them to question it.(All hail the Supreme Court)

2. The know the Republican position and thier culture of hate forces them to take the opposite side regaurdless of the issue.

Before you blanket "Democrats" supporting this issue, I think you'd better talk to a few more people. Both Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, as well as state representatives have been INUNDATED with letters, phone calls, emails. This issue isn't going to go away. In Harrisburg at the moment, the City is trying to seize some "historic" mansions via eminent domain, because the owner of the mansions wants to tear them down and build high rise condo complexes overlooking the Susquehana River. Stephen Reed who IS a Democrat, is trying to seize the mansions, because of their disputed historic presence in the neighborhood. He is not trying to seize property to build a shopping mall, but he, and many others believe that these mansions belong in Harrisburg's history. He has said numerous times the idea of taking people's property against their will is outrageous, but here he feels like letting these mansions be torn down will VASTLY change the scope of the neighborhood, and inconvenience MANY of the residents who've lived there for many years.

As Mayor, he's torn between his own convictions, and doing what the RESIDENTS in that particular neighborhood want. Many people outside of that neighborhood are torn on this issue, because in fact, while the loss of any property is too much, the idea of tearing down buildings with historical value is something many cannot condone either.

It's not always as cut and dry, as the case in Connecticut, which the Supreme Court decision came about. It's also not a "culture of hate" that directs Republicans to be against this decision. It is the right for a man and woman to keep their castle. It is also, as Justice O'Connor in her descent wrote:

"Any 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." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively [deletes] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution/Amendment_Five

Perhaps instead of making blanket generalizations, and stereotypical remarks, a little research upon the subject may bring a little more clarity of the issue to you.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Before you blanket "Democrats" supporting this issue, I think you'd better talk to a few more people. Both Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, as well as state representatives have been INUNDATED with letters, phone calls, emails. This issue isn't going to go away. In Harrisburg at the moment, the City is trying to seize some "historic" mansions via eminent domain, because the owner of the mansions wants to tear them down and build high rise condo complexes overlooking the Susquehana River. Stephen Reed who IS a Democrat, is trying to seize the mansions, because of their disputed historic presence in the neighborhood. He is not trying to seize property to build a shopping mall, but he, and many others believe that these mansions belong in Harrisburg's history. He has said numerous times the idea of taking people's property against their will is outrageous, but here he feels like letting these mansions be torn down will VASTLY change the scope of the neighborhood, and inconvenience MANY of the residents who've lived there for many years.

As Mayor, he's torn between his own convictions, and doing what the RESIDENTS in that particular neighborhood want. Many people outside of that neighborhood are torn on this issue, because in fact, while the loss of any property is too much, the idea of tearing down buildings with historical value is something many cannot condone either.

It's not always as cut and dry, as the case in Connecticut, which the Supreme Court decision came about. It's also not a "culture of hate" that directs Republicans to be against this decision. It is the right for a man and woman to keep their castle. It is also, as Justice O'Connor in her descent wrote:

"Any 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." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively [deletes] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution/Amendment_Five

Perhaps instead of making blanket generalizations, and stereotypical remarks, a little research upon the subject may bring a little more clarity of the issue to you.

It's quite amusing. One of the judges who instituted this law in a city in the east coast is being ravaged by opponents. They're planning on going to court and use the eminent domain law to aquire his mansion and the 13 acres that go along with it so they can build either a casino or a public park there. All so they can show him how ridiculous the law really is. I'll bet he wont be so thrilled about the law anymore when it's his home that's being taken away and torn down to build a casino.

 

[debate_junkie]

It's quite amusing. One of the judges who instituted this law in a city in the east coast is being ravaged by opponents. They're planning on going to court and use the eminent domain law to aquire his mansion and the 13 acres that go along with it so they can build either a casino or a public park there. All so they can show him how ridiculous the law really is. I'll bet he wont be so thrilled about the law anymore when it's his home that's being taken away and torn down to build a casino.

Nope, he won't be. And of course, it'll be painted as a "revenge" tactic, and it very well may be, but under the law that HE provided for, all they have to do is offer fair market value for his estate, and pretty much the greenlight is on. Although, I'm not so sure those in authority in that particular state, will want to be so brave to go up against a Supreme Court Justice, which in my mind is a crock of BS, but we'll see.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Nope, he won't be. And of course, it'll be painted as a "revenge" tactic, and it very well may be, but under the law that HE provided for, all they have to do is offer fair market value for his estate, and pretty much the greenlight is on. Although, I'm not so sure those in authority in that particular state, will want to be so brave to go up against a Supreme Court Justice, which in my mind is a crock of BS, but we'll see.

Heh. In my opinion if the government insists of forcing us to play a twisted version of musical chairs they not only should have to pay for the estate but also the cost to move, provide salary compensation for all time required to miss work because of moving, and point out locations of equall value that are for sale.

 

[laska]

I gotta say I actually liked the ruling. I have no problem with a city tearing down some houses to put in a park or something that benefits a much greater amount of people. As long as they are fairly compensated. Much the same concept that yelling "fire" in a theatre is not protected under freedom of speech.

 

[Kelzie]

I gotta say I actually liked the ruling. I have no problem with a city tearing down some houses to put in a park or something that benefits a much greater amount of people. As long as they are fairly compensated. Much the same concept that yelling "fire" in a theatre is not protected under freedom of speech.

It's not a park. They've been able to possess someone's house for public use for a long time. It's so they can build a Walmart. It's basically one private entity forcing another private entity off their property.

 

[Pacridge]

It's not a park. They've been able to possess someone's house for public use for a long time. It's so they can build a Walmart. It's basically one private entity forcing another private entity off their property.

I thought in this case it was some one wanting to build a strip mall?

 

[Kelzie]

I thought in this case it was some one wanting to build a strip mall?

Well it was. Just an example.

 

[laska]

I just agree with the concept, not each and every decision. If a community decides the WalMart or stripmall benefits the people as a whole then I have no problem with it.

 

[Kelzie]

I just agree with the concept, not each and every decision. If a community decides the WalMart or stripmall benefits the people as a whole then I have no problem with it.

So you're okay with the fact that one private interest outweighs another?

 

[laska]

I do, to me it comes down to what is better for the common good.

 

[Kelzie]

I do, to me it comes down to what is better for the common good.

Sorry yo. I'm a socialist and I don't even believe that. People need to feel that there private property is being protected, or they'll leave. Didn't work very well for other "socialist" regimes.

 

[laska]

yo adrian! I could be off the wall here Kelzie, I just lean towards this view. I believe in private property but I just think we can go too far in protecting rights to a degree that it undermines rights when taken as a whole. Can a factory pollute a lake that it owns. Do they really own the land, it was here long before the owner was born, and will be here long after they are gone. Individual freedom unchecked can be anarchy, and the antithesis of freedom. There needs to be a common sense and balance to the equation, imo.

 

[Pacridge]

yo adrian! I could be off the wall here Kelzie, I just lean towards this view. I believe in private property but I just think we can go too far in protecting rights to a degree that it undermines rights when taken as a whole. Can a factory pollute a lake that it owns. Do they really own the land, it was here long before the owner was born, and will be here long after they are gone. Individual freedom unchecked can be anarchy, and the antithesis of freedom. There needs to be a common sense and balance to the equation, imo.

So, you'd be willing to give up your house or property for a strip mall?

 

[Kelzie]

yo adrian! I could be off the wall here Kelzie, I just lean towards this view. I believe in private property but I just think we can go too far in protecting rights to a degree that it undermines rights when taken as a whole. Can a factory pollute a lake that it owns. Do they really own the land, it was here long before the owner was born, and will be here long after they are gone. Individual freedom unchecked can be anarchy, and the antithesis of freedom. There needs to be a common sense and balance to the equation, imo.

Adrian? Rocky? What?

I agree with checks and balances. I draw the line when we say that one private interest can take another private interest's property.

 

[laska]

So, you'd be willing to give up your house or property for a strip mall?

Oh... you mean in real life situation...I'd be chained to my house as the wrecking crane drove into my driveway :smile:

 

[gdalton]

Oh... you mean in real life situation...I'd be chained to my house as the wrecking crane drove into my driveway :smile:

You would support the law but not obey it?
It's slightly different when it's your property involved then isn't it.