SC Rules that Local Governments can evict

[Nervous Guy]

I've already accepted that the New London market's different than DC, you can stop trying to convince me. 

 

And for that matter...the whole Anacostia development plan with the stadium is so !@#$ed up as it is that the infinitely stupid DC government may decide on their own not to apply eminent domain.  The City Council has already ordered - publicly - the District Treasurer to artificially inflate the assessments of all properties in the area in an effort they admit is meant to drive the cost of the stadium so high that MLB will pull the Nationals out of DC.  Of course, the low-income homeowners will STILL be driven out of their homes after the artificially inflated assessments send their property taxes into geosynchronous orbit...

 

DC is a seriously !@#$ed up municipality.  Frankly, the Supreme Court's decision only gives them leeway to become more !@#$ed up.

365864[/snapback]

maybe we should all move to Alaska.

[JimBob2232]

This is ridiculous.

 

Lets recap the 5th ammendment...

 

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.

 

Now, most of that does not apply to this case. The only part that does is the "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

This is what the constitution says. The supreme courts job is to decide if this ruling is constitutional or not.

 

The big argument is whether or not taking land to be privatly redeveloped for economic gain is considered "public use". I argue that it is not. IMO Public use would be to build a school, road, park or other infastructure that is for public use or consumption. However, the determination of what is "public use" should best be left to the legislature and to to the judiciary.

 

If "public use" was meant to include things such as this, the term would not be public use, but rather public interest or public welfare. I think the supreme court once again overstepped their bounds. No suprise thouhg.

[Mark VI]

maybe we should all move to Alaska.

365893[/snapback]

 

Would my GM discount qualify for dog sleds ?

 

Can you get homeowners on Igloo's ?

[Lori]

I pretty sure you don't know New London...they really do need to do something...it's a dying city...if this helps them complete the plan to reviatilize the city it's great. 

 

Why would it make it more difficult to remain a homeowner?  You sell at market value you buy at market value...it's a wash...right?

365445[/snapback]

Case-by-case, it will depend on who gets to define "fair market value", no?

[Mark VI]

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Conn., to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy.

 

New London is almost void of jobs and has no economy to speak of, now that the Navy has pulled out. I understand the principle of pushing a few people from their homes. Point taken. Yet once they are done living there, the town will be abandoned without any real business.

 

So the wishes of a handful of people takes priority over an entire region ? Plus the rest of the county has to pay higher taxes just to placate a few people ? A dying region is in need of this boost.

 

Sometimes, situations arise that need tweeking for a good reason.

[Spun]

Here is a link to a San Diego story involving eminent domain. While this article gives only a brief analysis, the story is unique in that the property owner's property isn't considered blighted but the surrounding property is so considered.

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...1m12havana.html

[EC-Bills]

This blows donkey d*cks! Just what we need, more incentive for corruption.

[Kevbeau]

Here is a link to a San Diego story involving eminent domain.  While this article gives only a brief analysis, the story is unique in that the property owner's property isn't considered blighted but the surrounding property is so considered.

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...1m12havana.html

366006[/snapback]

 

I checked out the place's website. Looks nice, I'd definitely hang at that place if I was in SD. It sure as hell dosen't look like a "blight" on the community.

[Ghost of BiB]

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Conn., to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy.

 

New London is almost void of jobs and has no economy to speak of, now that the Navy has pulled out. I understand the principle of pushing a few people from their homes. Point taken. Yet once they are done living there, the town will be abandoned without any real business.

 

So the wishes of a handful of people takes priority over an entire region ? Plus the rest of the county has to pay higher taxes just to placate a few people ?  A dying region is in need of this boost. 

 

Sometimes, situations arise that need tweeking for a good reason.

365992[/snapback]

 

As most times, I'm not looking as hard at the individual case as I do the precedent. Anyone remember Roe vs. Wade? Door swings both ways.

[Terry Tate]

It's just four walls and a roof. No special meaning to anyone.

 

Matt Dery of New London, Conn., has been fighting for almost six years to hold on to his property.

 

Four homes sit on the land that has been in Dery's family since they moved from Italy in the 1890s, surviving even through the struggles of the Great Depression. Dery lives in one of the four homes with his wife, son and niece. His father and mother live next door. His mother, Wilhelmina, 85, has lived in her house for her entire life.

 

The Institute for Justice just release a report documenting uses and threats of eminent domain for private parties over a five year period, from January 1998 through December 2002. If you don't wish to read it in it's entirety, the portion covering your state may be of interest. Here you go.

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

...

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." James Madison

[Wacka]

People are missing the point. Since the SC ruled this, it applies EVERYWHERE. If some company comes to town wanting to build a mall and bribes the town board, YOUR house could be taken. Like I said earlier in this thread, this could happen in Cheektowaga soon.

[erynthered]

Am I wrong here? But I think both the left and right agree on this? That the SC really !@#$ this up?

 

 

 

 

The slipery slope continues.............I wish we could fire them all right now, today, Christ.

 

 

 

NG, you really need to rethink this..........

[Bill from NYC]

Boy, I sure am surprised to see "liberals" taking away rights from property owners!

[Adam]

Apparently, your home can be taken away from you on the whim of a corrupt politician looking to line his pockets by helping out a rich developer.

 

The liberal justices certainly just proved themselves to hardly be a defender of the working men and women of this country.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2300783_pf.html

365367[/snapback]

 

And they didn't like the patriot act? These "Justices" now prove to be hypocrites- I believe a court judge can be impeached. Hopefully some of these people will be removed before they can use more of their power to line their own pockets AGAIN.

[IUBillsFan]

People are missing the point. Since the SC ruled this, it applies EVERYWHERE. If  some company comes to town wanting to build a mall and bribes the town  board, YOUR house could be taken. Like I said earlier in this thread, this could happen in Cheektowaga soon.

366178[/snapback]

Yep...Doesn't even need to be that big...

 

You own two undeveloped acres that you like as a buffer you're paying $2000/yr in taxes....A developer comes and says he can put 8 houses there and each house will pay $3000/yr in taxes...BOOM that $2000/yr just turned into $24000/yr, who do you think gets to keep the land.

 

As far as "fair value" goes huh I wonder who decides that?

[Adam]

Yep...Doesn't even need to be that big...

 

You own two undeveloped acres that you like as a buffer you're paying $2000/yr in taxes....A developer comes and says he can put 8 houses there and each house will pay $3000/yr in taxes...BOOM that $2000/yr just turned into $24000/yr, who do you think gets to keep the land.

 

As far as "fair value" goes huh I wonder who decides that?

366260[/snapback]

 

Well, what the judges say is not final, and to be honest, what those guys say is laughable- half of them probably forged their HS diploma. Congress should ammend the constitution to invalidate the so called ruling, and put those people in their place.....I'm ashamed they are part of their government, and their families should be ashamed of them as well.

[blzrul]

The SCOTUS merely interprets the Constitution - the issue at question was not whether the government is kowtowing to rich developers but whether certain land uses qualify for "public good". I don't know many communities that would argue that nice facilities or services available to residents, incremental tax revenue, and jobs, isn't in the best public interest.

 

The fact that people are freaking out over it addresses an issue beyond the SCOTUS or the Constitution, and that is the fact that our Federal government has set the example of bowing to special interests, to the detriment on the little guy. If state and local governments follow their lead, people could lose their houses on a whim (as in Long Branch, NJ, where "little pink houses" maybe bulldozed in order to erect high-dollar condos in the name of the public good).

 

However this ruling had nothing to do with unprincipled politicians - it's up to US to try to elect some "representatives" that have their constituents' best interests at hears...even the poor ones.

 

In other words if our government was trustworthy, it would be a moot point. This ruling will allow unprincipled people to run amok - but you can only blame US, not the SCOTUS, for that.

[ieatcrayonz]

Take a page out of the Indian handbook. They are experts in pissing off the government and getting what they want. Pull out your shotgun and shutdown the highway.

[/dev/null]

Take a page out of the Indian handbook.  They are experts in pissing off the government and getting what they want.  Pull out your shotgun and shutdown the highway.

366398[/snapback]

 

don't shutdown the highway, build a casio next to it

[stuckincincy]

Since the tax revenue from private housing would be immense, to great benefit for the City of Washington, D.C., I say the city should use emminent domain and seize the Supreme Court building. :-)