Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Remember all of that crap Bush was saying during the election about privatizing America, and creating private ownership of property?
 
Good lets get on with removing low income homes from what would be otherwise decent, respectable places to live.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Good lets get on with removing low income homes from what would be otherwise decent, respectable places to live.[/QUOTE]

Is this a joke?
 
Well, that shit sucks that means any major developer could come to your town and have just a whole lot of fun buying up all the land and turn it into an industrial area.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Just the same joke that all of CTL's posts are. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Its slightly less of a joke than the Downing Street Memo you people masterbate to.
 
High court OKs personal property seizures

Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 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.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes 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, Connecticut, 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.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
-----------------------
I personally find this article disturbing. It opens the door up for abuse by the local government.
 
I'm acutally surprised someone beat me to this.

Welcome to judicial activist America where you have no private property rights of any kind any more. Government likes your property? They take it. Government thinks they can generate more tax revenue from commercializing your property than you living there? They take it.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the backbone of Soviet life; the ability of government to sieze private property at will.
 
I really don't know what to say about this. I am still kind of shocked.

I wonder what their idea of "just compensation" is going to be.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I wonder what their idea of "just compensation" is going to be.[/QUOTE]

I think when the homeowners contest the compensation is half the property value.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I think when the homeowners contest the compensation is half the property value.[/QUOTE]

They should get full value if they are being moved against their will IMO.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']They should get full value if they are being moved against their will IMO.[/QUOTE]

I'll let you know when the racetrack here decides they want to buy my house.
 
When there is no middle class, only poor and rich... the revolution will begin.

Being rich is only a state of credit, that can be brought down in a matter of hours.

The rich will grow fat and slow... and the poor will grow hungrier and hungrier... It's easy to stay rich, when your rich... but very, very hard to get back on your feet. It's more than just a simple "get a job", especially when no one will hire the poor when they can hire illegal immigrants.

I've been flat ass poor once before, and even now... 7 years later, where I'm finally getting a chance to even go to school, and I'm making $40,000 a year I still struggle to get "over the rainbow".

If the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer long enough... the poor have strength in numbers and will topple any law when they have the will to die for the cause.
 
Oh come now people, I can't believe you're unhappy with this decision.

I mean, there are no activist judges that would throw out the Fifth Ammendments "; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." are there? I mean, do we have a Supreme Court that just instilled in America the first law of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, government siezure of private property? No, it can't be!

This court is PWN3D by Bu$hCo! It's not liberal, it's the most Conservative USSC in history! There are no activist judges! They just show you what the Constitution really meant!
 
[quote name='Kayden']Wow... I don't even know how to react to that. Is this even America anymore!?

What the fuck?[/QUOTE]

When this happens you'll be standing there with your dick in the wind, a sore asshole, and wondering what the fuck just happened to everything you've worked for and why its all gone in a blink of an eye so that an office building can be there.
 
All I want to know is when can we begin siezing the "assets" of the poor.

Oh that just made me laugh. I can see them now walking in streaming lines like French refugees running from Paris after the Germans invaded in WW2, with all their belongings falling out of suitcases and on the tops of cars (certainly not luxury SUVs or sedans).

Time to buy some peasant real estate, $.04 on the dollar!
 
Man, if we're going to be buying up assets of the poor for .04 cents on the dollar I want the new XJ8 Jaguar I saw being filled with $300 worth of food stamp purchased groceries.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Man, if we're going to be buying up assets of the poor for .04 cents on the dollar I want the new XJ8 Jaguar I saw being filled with $300 worth of food stamp purchased groceries.[/QUOTE]

Hey, don't make fun of their house! :lol:
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I'll let you know when the racetrack here decides they want to buy my house.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. So you live in the planned site huh? When are they supposed to start construction anyway?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. So you live in the planned site huh? When are they supposed to start construction anyway?[/QUOTE]

That's a good question. If you draw a straight line from the track to US 220, I'm right in the way. I don't keep up with NASCAR, but with the new overlords taking over, it seems like a 50/50 chance that they will either phase out the big races versus expand the track. I guess at this point I have to root for them to close it down or lose my house.
 
[quote name='Kayden']CTL, you are a stupid cocksucker of unfathomable proportions.[/QUOTE]

And when you drop your three sets of dirty clothes out of your suitcase along the one piece of furniture you were able to carry off from your hovel, as you are forced from your property and join the lines of the homeless streaming out of gay Paris I will laugh.

Peasant.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And when you drop your three sets of dirty clothes out of your suitcase along the one piece of furniture you were able to carry off from your hovel, as you are forced from your property and join the lines of the homeless streaming out of gay Paris I will laugh.

Peasant.[/QUOTE]

The world would be a much better place to be free of your foul ilk. I don't know what you heard, but having more money wont make up for your lacking the ability to maintain an erection. Seriously, it isn't the fault of the poor, liberals, minorities or democrats that your penis is perpetually flacid.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That's a good question. If you draw a straight line from the track to US 220, I'm right in the way. I don't keep up with NASCAR, but with the new overlords taking over, it seems like a 50/50 chance that they will either phase out the big races versus expand the track. I guess at this point I have to root for them to close it down or lose my house.[/QUOTE]

Well, I hope everything works out for you.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Well, I hope everything works out for you.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I don't think anything will happen soon because I don't think they know what they want to do with the track yet.
 
[quote name='Kayden']The world would be a much better place to be free of your foul ilk. I don't know what you heard, but having more money wont make up for your lacking the ability to maintain an erection. Seriously, it isn't the fault of the poor, liberals, minorities or democrats that your penis is perpetually flacid.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry about him..he is a flamer/ attention whore. " Look at me!I actively hate the poor". It's an act that stems back to the 80's and it's been done much better than this 2nd generation poser.

If CTL had half the brain he is claiming he would know that cities already have the authority to sieze blighted areas.

that said..bad decision by the SCOTUS.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh come now people, I can't believe you're unhappy with this decision.

I mean, there are no activist judges that would throw out the Fifth Ammendments "; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." are there? I mean, do we have a Supreme Court that just instilled in America the first law of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, government siezure of private property? No, it can't be!

This court is PWN3D by Bu$hCo! It's not liberal, it's the most Conservative USSC in history! There are no activist judges! They just show you what the Constitution really meant![/QUOTE]

Someone should remind PAD of this if the supreme court here's a gay marriage case and rules in favor of it (which I assume they would with the current makeup).

Though for all the USA!USA!USA! shouts coming out of ctl, he sounds more like a pre french revolution aristocrat than an american.

Throughout history the poor have always been the most powerless, but in the end their state often decides the fate of the nation.
 
[quote name='Kayden']The world would be a much better place to be free of your foul ilk. I don't know what you heard, but having more money wont make up for your lacking the ability to maintain an erection. Seriously, it isn't the fault of the poor, liberals, minorities or democrats that your penis is perpetually flacid.[/QUOTE]

Weren't you ignoring me?

If I were you, I would start packing, of course, if I were you it would take all of seven minutes.
 
That's awful. The supreme court cares more about development than the lives of, for all I know, good citizens. Why is a government so fucked up?
 
[quote name='CTLesq']All I want to know is when can we begin siezing the "assets" of the poor.
...Time to buy some peasant real estate, $.04 on the dollar![/QUOTE]

It doesn't surprise me that you're the only one in this thread that thinks the decision was a good idea, and a funny joke at the poor's expense to boot.

I can tell by your posts that you are the worst type of lawyer, and you have no idea why the American revolutionaries fought for a country that would be free from the control of an unsympathetic aristocracy.
 
What a disgusting decision. It's time for Congress to act, I guess, when the SC has failed so miserably to reasonably interpret the law in this case.
 
What are you saying? the government wouldn't abuse its authority over us! Especially not to make money!
 
[quote name='Kayden']What are you saying? the government wouldn't abuse its authority over us! Especially not to make money![/QUOTE]

Or to shift even more money/power from the underpriveleged to the Bill Gates and Glenn Tiltons of the world. :lol:

And what is United's CEO doing during the employees' crisis? Not much.
For starters, there's Tilton's pension plan. Patricia A. Friend, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, recounted this exchange in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee: "When one of our members asked Glenn Tilton why he thought it was appropriate to keep his $4.5 million pension when we were asked to give up ours, he said simply, 'It's part of my contract.' Well, excuse me for thinking that remark a little arrogant, but ... my pension is part of my contract, too."
Click to expand...

http://www.madison.com/tct/business/index.php?ntid=43623&ntpid=1
 
[quote name='camoor']It doesn't surprise me that you're the only one in this thread that thinks the decision was a good idea, and a funny joke at the poor's expense to boot.[/quote]

The suffering of the poor makes it all the more amusing.

[quote name='camoor']I can tell by your posts that you are the worst type of lawyer, and you have no idea why the American revolutionaries fought for a country that would be free from the control of an unsympathetic aristocracy.[/QUOTE]

Do you feel better about yourself now?

I have some cake for you to eat.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I have some cake for you to eat.[/QUOTE]

Anyone else think it's humorous that after all his mom-and-apple-pie grandstanding, CTL is quoting French Queens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top