Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures

[jahcs]

Supreme Court decision as covered by CNN

Update 3: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
06.23.2005, 10:51 AM

A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

Thursday's 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.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Some judges comments:

Today: June 23, 2005 at 9:57:25 PDT

Seizing Property Excerpts
By The Associated Press
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Excerpts from Thursday's 5-4 Supreme Court decision that found that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development.

"In affirming the city's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many states already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline ... the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.

"This court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the city's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek."

-Justice John Paul Stevens, in the main opinion.

"The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

-Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent.

"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. 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."'

-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in dissent.

"A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should treat the objection as a serious one and review the record to see if it has merit, though with the presumption that the government's actions were reasonable and intended to serve a public purpose."

-Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, concurring with the decision.

Here is what I posted on another forum:

Justice Kennedy's comment is quite disturbing. This comment is one of the most irresponsible utterances regarding the rights of the people in a long time. What happened to "We the people" and "For the people, by the people, and of the people?" The government was not created to serve itself! It was created to serve The People!


This ruling is just sick and flies in the face of the ideals of Capitalism and the founding ideals of our Country.

This is corruption and indirect bribery. The developers are waving a carrot in front of the politicians and they are stepping on the citizens to try and reach for it.

If the government wants to build a bus stop where your house sits then under the 5th amendment if they pay you for your house they can. If someone wants to put up a McDonalds aparently they can do that now too.

The government cannot enter your home without probable cause or a warrant. But now they are allowed to sell it out from under you to whomever they wish.

[Occhidiangela]

Yet another reason for gun ownership. When they come for you house, defend it.

Occhi

Supreme Court decision as covered by CNN
5th Amendment:
Some judges comments:
Here is what I posted on another forum:

Justice Kennedy's comment is quite disturbing.  This comment is one of the most irresponsible utterances regarding the rights of the people in a long time.  What happened to "We the people" and "For the people, by the people, and of the people?"  The government was not created to serve itself!  It was created to serve The People!
This ruling is just sick and flies in the face of the ideals of Capitalism and the founding ideals of our Country.

This is corruption and indirect bribery.  The developers are waving a carrot in front of the politicians and they are stepping on the citizens to try and reach for it.

If the government wants to build a bus stop where your house sits then under the 5th amendment if they pay you for your house they can.  If someone wants to put up a McDonalds aparently they can do that now too.

The government cannot enter your home without probable cause or a warrant.  But now they are allowed to sell it out from under you to whomever they wish.
[right][snapback]81417[/snapback][/right]

[Urza-DSF]

Yet another reason for gun ownership.  When they come for you house, defend it.

Occhi
[right][snapback]81419[/snapback][/right]

First the ruling that Flag Burning is illegal, then this! But you know what really, truly makes my blood boil? That no one around here even seems to care! I was watching the news with my family when they were talking about burning becoming illegal and there wasnt a single damn reaction to a word that was said. But 2 seconds later they bring up that mouth-breather spawn who got lost on a Boy Scout trip and "oh thank goodness they found that little boy" I couldnt believe that they would put more of an emotional investment into that than the fact that their rights are being destroyed left and right.

I believe I'm coming around to your point of view Occhi...gun ownership is looking to be more and more appealing.

[Doc]

Damnit, I keep telling you blockheads that firepower means democracy.

Nobody ever listens to me.

Land is going to become costly in terms of human life. Send the women and children away, and prepare for seige.

Not only do I collect guns, I collect ammo.

I wonder what the number of lives will be that will be considered acceptable loss for property seizure.

I have grenades and rockets too. And a whole head of full of crazy.

I am pissed.

[Griselda]

I don't think this decision was so much about "if the government wants to do this, they can", the issue seems to be where the jurisdiction lies. It's interesting to see that, once again, the more liberal justices seem to be coming down on the side of state's rights on this one. If this keeps up, we may have to redefine the characteristics of liberals and conservatives.

Looking at the fifth amendment, there does not appear to be a federal restriction on taking property as long as it's done with "due process" and the landowner is compensated. Both of those requirements seem to be satisfied in this situation, and Stevens indicates that there's a weath of case law that supports this.

It doesn't seem like any of the justices are thrilled with the proposed land seizure, but the ones who voted to allow the seizure seem to be saying that the decision shouldn't be under federal jurisdiction. If local people have a problem with the law, then they need to work to get the law changed at the local or state level- as a legislative matter rather than a judicial one.

While all of that sounds good on paper, the problem is that the people whose land is most likely to be seized are the people who are least likely to have the power to fight a proposed seizure or to affect legislative reform. That's why there are already so many industrial parks and other nasty things located in poor neighborhoods and not rich ones.

While I didn't read the decision (or the dissent), it sounds like the dissenters might have been more concerned with the equal protection clause (which *would* give the federal government jurisdiction over the states) than the fifth amendment. The interesting thing, to me, is that we don't usually have Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting in a 5-4 decision on the grounds of equal protection. :blink:

[Doc]

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms

July 6, 1775

A declaration by the representatives of the united colonies of North America, now met in Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.

The legislature of Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms. Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to sight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.

Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labour, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and unhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike barbarians. -- Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary, as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm, arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great-Britain in the late war, publicly declared, that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies.

Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. -- From that fatal movement, the affairs of the British empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions, that now shake it to its deepest foundations. -- The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and then subduing her faithful friends.

These colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder. -- The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations. -- Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the "murderers" of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried.

But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language.

Administration sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful petition to the King, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great-Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure; we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. -- This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy: but subsequent events have shewn, how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.

Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his majesty's speech; our petition, tho' we were told it was a decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his parliament, was huddled into both houses among a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The lords and commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that "a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts- Bay; and that those concerned with it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to inforce due obediance to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature." -- Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of parliament; by another several of them were intirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to general Gage.

Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished peers, and commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on. -- equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? in our circumstances to accept them, would be to deserve them.

Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, general Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts-Bay, and still occupied it a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. -- The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind. By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.

The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supercede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial." -- His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.

We have rceived certain intelligence, that general Carleton, the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword and famine. [1] We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. -- We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. -- Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. -- We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.

[oldmandennis]

Wow, there are people here who are a whole bunch of crazy. Where do you guys live? I want to move far far away.

I'll admit, this case makes me queasy. But if you look at the history of the amendment and the deatails of the case, it sounds atleast reasonable, and not cause for stockpiling guns.

New London, CN, has been economically depressed since the navy left town. They struck a complex deal with Pfizer to bring a ninefigure reseach facility to town, which would provide hundreds of good jobs to an area that needed it. 80 homes were in an area zoned "industrial", and would need to be moved for the project to move forward. 73 of them agreed, and were paid a fair price for their property.

Obviously, a massive source of jobs (and yes, tax revenues) is a common good for the city. The people agree, since this has been brewing for 7 years now and they have not removed the politicians.

The fifth amendment was written to stop the King from siezing, without trial, the property of his enemies. If some government tried siezing ONE house, because it belonged to a prominant political activist, and giving it to someone more friendly to the government, then it would violate the 5th.

Now if you want to bitch about drug siezures, then I'm on your side.

[Rhydderch Hael]

What seriously irks me is such seizure would be justified on the implicit guarantee that the private venture will ultimately benefit the community...

...no private enterprise can guarantee that. Businessmen brought us reality TV and New Coke. They don't have the Midas touch, but they'll sure be happy to tell politicians that they do.

And what if the business venture does fail? Back to square one. Well, not quite 'square', given that there's an abandoned WalMart sitting where a neighborhood used to be.

[Occhidiangela]

The death of a thousand cuts. Who can afford the best, sharpest lawyers to steam roll a house here, a neighborhood there, all in the name of upping the city's or county's or state's tax revenue.

The problem here is acquisitioning the land not for public works -- school, highway, electric substation, easement -- but transferring the property from one private individual under another, via the State's action, not to the State for the common good.

There is a clear line being drawn here, and it smells of a bow to cronyism. There are five justices who need to be measured for tar and feather suits.

Occhi

Wow, there are people here who are a whole bunch of crazy.  Where do you guys live?  I want to move far far away.

I'll admit, this case makes me queasy.  But if you look at the history of the amendment and the deatails of the case, it sounds atleast reasonable, and not cause for stockpiling guns.

New London, CN, has been economically depressed since the navy left town.  They struck a complex deal with Pfizer to bring a ninefigure reseach facility to town, which would provide hundreds of good jobs to an area that needed it.  80 homes were in an area zoned "industrial", and would need to be moved for the project to move forward.  73 of them agreed, and were paid a fair price for their property.

Obviously, a massive source of jobs (and yes, tax revenues) is a common good for the city.  The people agree, since this has been brewing for 7 years now and they have not removed the politicians.

The fifth amendment was written to stop the King from siezing, without trial, the property of his enemies.  If some government tried siezing ONE house, because it belonged to a prominant political activist, and giving it to someone more friendly to the government, then it would violate the 5th.

Now if you want to bitch about drug siezures, then I'm on your side.
[right][snapback]81429[/snapback][/right]

[Any1]

This decision means that any company with a good lawyer and enough cash can come bulldoze your home. I wonder if the less-fortunate are going to bear the brunt of this catastrophe?! <_<

On the up side, the "conservatives" and the "liberals" are both yelling bloody murder on this one.

[oldmandennis]

Last post, cause I'm getting out before it gets too flamey, but

Let's see here, 300 million (the cost of the project) for 80 lower class homes, thats nearly 4 million a house. I'm positive corporations all over America have pleanty of poor peoples houses they just can't wait to tear down at that price.

And the Supreme Court did not say anyone with a lawyer or cash could do this. They said that, absent any equal rights concern, they would defer to local governments to determine when the common good outweighed property rights, a balancing act approved by the constitution. The only news here is that they are allowed to use jobs and revenue in that balancing equasion.

95% of places in America are small enough that, if the project is demonstrably a bad idea, the city council can be replaced in a hurry by agitated citizens.

[Doc]

Oh, this aint flamey. You should see FARK.

[jahcs]

Wow, there are people here who are a whole bunch of crazy.&nbsp; Where do you guys live?&nbsp; I want to move far far away.

Some people respond to this sort of thing by switching channels on the t.v. Others respond by building a reinforced concrete bunker in their front yard. This is a very serious ruling that will affect many American's lives over time. The rule of precedent can cut both ways in American courts and this is a dangerous precedent. Every silver lining has a cloud.

I'll admit, this case makes me queasy.&nbsp; But if you look at the history of the amendment and the deatails of the case, it sounds atleast reasonable, and not cause for stockpiling guns.

New London, CN, has been economically depressed since the navy left town.&nbsp; They struck a complex deal with Pfizer to bring a ninefigure reseach facility to town, which would provide hundreds of good jobs to an area that needed it.&nbsp; 80 homes were in an area zoned "industrial", and would need to be moved for the project to move forward.&nbsp; 73 of them agreed, and were paid a fair price for their property.

Obviously, a massive source of jobs (and yes, tax revenues) is a common good for the city.&nbsp; The people agree, since this has been brewing for 7 years now and they have not removed the politicians

The fifth amendment was written to stop the King from siezing, without trial, the property of his enemies.&nbsp; If some government tried siezing ONE house, because it belonged to a prominant political activist, and giving it to someone more friendly to the government, then it would violate the 5th.

Now if you want to bitch about drug siezures, then I'm on your side.
[right][snapback]81429[/snapback][/right]

Eminent Domain: The right of a government to take private property for a public purpose, usually with just compensation of the owner.

Last time I checked opening up a store, factory, or non-academic research facility was a PRIVATE PURPOSE. Whether the private enterprise generates jobs or tax revenue is immaterial to this issue, IMHO. Whether it's a Good Idea or not, the developer should negotiate with the current landowner, not a bunch of politicians that have a notebook full of promises from a developer.

A nine figure research facility? With that type of capital and investment outlook I would venture that this company could "make them an offer they can't refuse." But I guess it is cheaper to put some politicians in your pocket and only pay "fair market value" for the land.

And we didn't have a King in 1791 when the 5th Amendment was ratified. Nor did we have a King in 1789 when it was proposed. The government can't take your land, car, or hibachi without paying you for it.

Drug Seizures: With this new court decision the city can now decide to take that possible crackhouse or brothel and put it out of business by taking it and selling it to a developer that wants to put up condos with no trial, warrant, or probable cause. :P

[jahcs]

And the Supreme Court did not say anyone with a lawyer or cash could do this.  They said that, absent any equal rights concern, they would defer to local governments to determine when the common good outweighed property rights, a balancing act approved by the constitution.  The only news here is that they are allowed to use jobs and revenue in that balancing equasion.
[right][snapback]81446[/snapback][/right]

For me Common Good does not necessarily equate to some corporation lining it's pockets.

Sure I like to see new business, job creation, and tourism generated. But when should we step back and take a look at the needs of the common citizen.


EDIT: Someone on another forum just posted this quote from James Madison:

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much to forget it." - James Madison

I am not advocating armed rebellion but we do need to take action on this issue. Write the politicians serving your districts.

[Guest]

#$%& the Supreme Court



We need an amendment to the amendment.

[Doc]

#$%& the Supreme Court
We need an amendment to the amendment.
[right][snapback]81451[/snapback][/right]

Ghostiger!

We agree!

Hell has frozen over, dogs and cats are seen living in sin with one another, and pigs are sprouting wings!

That is the single most sensible thing I have ever heard you say, made perfect in it's simplicity.

Ok, fun is off, we can go back to sniping one another.

[Guest]

We have frequently agreed on practical issue.

[whyBish]

It looks like no-one owns a house... they are all just rented until further notice from the state

[Minionman]

What seriously irks me is such seizure would be justified on the implicit guarantee that the private venture will ultimately benefit the community...

...no private enterprise can guarantee that. Businessmen brought us reality TV and New Coke. They don't have the Midas touch, but they'll sure be happy to tell politicians that they do.

And what if the business venture does fail? Back to square one. Well, not quite 'square', given that there's an abandoned WalMart sitting where a neighborhood used to be.
[right][snapback]81430[/snapback][/right]

Agree with this.

Also, if taking property gets easier, it seems cities will want ot use this more instead of looking for other ways to build up areas. And it's harder to tell when to stop adding businesses and work on other parts of the city.

[Minionman]

First the ruling that Flag Burning is illegal, then this!&nbsp;
[right][snapback]81422[/snapback][/right]

The flag burning talks are another amazing thing I heard of yesterday. Another winner from congress, first the steroids (which does effect younger sports players, but was still a popularity move), than Schiavo (I think a lot of people agree with this one), not they're arguing about flag burning. Yes, they have done some real work this year but there seems to be more of these "highly emotional" talks than before, unless I haven't been paying much attention.

About some reqasons peopel give against allowing flag burning, here's what think about them.

It must be bad because people do it who want to attack the U.S: The problem with those people is that they want to kill/attack the country. falg burning may be their way of showing it, but just because one group of violent people does it doesn't mean anyone who does it is bad. Flag burning can symbolize a number of things, from wanting to nuke the U.S. to not liking a war to the flag having some dangerous chemical on it that needs to be burned off.

It symbolizes the U.S., so burning it counts as an attack on the U.S.: see above. the U.S. is made up of land with farms, buildings, cities, people computers with money stored on them, etc. Attacking one of these does attack the U.s. Burning a flag does not do that. While on symbols, it seems ot cheapen the costitution to write in an amendment for a single activity that is rarely done that also goes against another very important amendment, so for peopel who care abotu symbols, that's somethign else to absorb.

It's offensive: Tough noogies, I find some things offenive, I just have to get a thick skin and not let it bug me as much. I sure as heck don't run around asking for laws or amendments, so I don't like people tossing around other types of laws involving this kind of reason.