It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: (Breaking) Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   


If the State and local governments say that a mall is better for the greater public betterment of this area than a few houses, why does the Federal government need to interfere if there's no specific Federal laws to better define the term.


Why Federal? Because the basis for the taking is constitutional. Unless you propose that each state and local government interpret the constitution as they will?

Why does the Supreme Court have to determine that 'public use' as defined by the constitution means hand it all over to someone with the ready cash? It would have been just as legally correct for them to more strictly define 'public use.' How is their interpretation of 'public use' not something squarely at fault with the court?




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The following is the text of my letter to every federal rep that I could think of. I have never written a rep. before. This is a first for me. If I need to act further, I will.

Today the Supreme Court made, in my opinion, a short sighted and dangerous ruling in the case of Kelo vs. New London

I agree that slums should be revitalized. But, In an increasingly litigious society, this creates precedent. This opens government interference in way too many things. The truth is that almost ALL residential uses create less taxes than Commercial uses.

The government should not force me to sell to Wal-Mart, Wal Mart should pay me what I am asking for to move. If I'm asking for a high amount, then, well, if they want it they'll pay it. NOW, with this ruling, they only need a friend in local government, and they need only pay fair market value.

This is a shortsighted ruling with bad consequences to anyone who owns property.

Quote from Sandra Day O’Connor in the dissenting opinion.

"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power," she wrote. "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the process."

The effect of the decision, O'Connor said, "is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

From Clarence Thomas, also 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."'

This decision is at odds with the very notion of property rights, a subject the founding fathers talked on at length. I'm rather sensitive to this issue, as the world's largest coalmine is slowly making its way to my family farm (5 miles away right now). My family is willing to sell, but it would need to be at a premium (60 years of living here creates memories). With this ruling, the government could pay mere property value (in the middle of nowhere), and sell to Consol Energy, one of the countries largest mining companies, who would turn around and make untold millions through the operation. The basis of Property Rights is “right”; what should be done, and how people should be treated.

This decision is not “right”.

Thank you for your Time,




[edit on 6/23/2005 by soulforge]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
If a group of home owners wanted cheap land could they use this loophole to compulsorarily purchase a corporations land? Wouldnt giving low cost housing/land to U.S citizens be in the public's interest?

A far flung example but it should swing both ways, corporate land should be as vulnerable as private home owners land.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
If a group of home owners wanted cheap land could they use this loophole to compulsorarily purchase a corporations land? Wouldnt giving low cost housing/land to U.S citizens be in the public's interest?

A far flung example but it should swing both ways, corporate land should be as vulnerable as private home owners land.


Ooooo I like that idea. Now that's a good implication. Look out Wally-world, here we come



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   


If a group of home owners wanted cheap land could they use this loophole to compulsorarily purchase a corporations land? Wouldnt giving low cost housing/land to U.S citizens be in the public's interest?

A far flung example but it should swing both ways, corporate land should be as vulnerable as private home owners land.


Private individuals - no matter how many - simply do not have the political clout of a corporation in today's government.

Your example, while a fair interpretation in the change in law, would never happen in the real world.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Sorry, Mr. Johnston, but rezoning and then running homeowners off so that an office complex may be built is not what the Founders intended, and to try and stretch the constitutional umbrella over this travesty is not possible.
Go back to sleep, everyone, or turn on the TV and follow the headline news about a missing girl in Aruba, a runaway bride in the Midwest, the trial of an entertainer or some other non-news story that you are supposed to glue your eyes to. Do not watch the other hand. You aren't supposed to pay attention to the other hand.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


If a group of home owners wanted cheap land could they use this loophole to compulsorarily purchase a corporations land? Wouldnt giving low cost housing/land to U.S citizens be in the public's interest?

A far flung example but it should swing both ways, corporate land should be as vulnerable as private home owners land.


Private individuals - no matter how many - simply do not have the political clout of a corporation in today's government.

Your example, while a fair interpretation in the change in law, would never happen in the real world.


Agreed. Even if we could exploit such a loophole it would probably only happen once. Besides, where would we find all these rich people to buy the corporate land? Probably working at the corporation....



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh

Private individuals - no matter how many - simply do not have the political clout of a corporation in today's government.

Your example, while a fair interpretation in the change in law, would never happen in the real world.

That I understand and thats why I consider it "far flung". However, if this law becomes common and the courts become well versed in its new interpretation wouldnt it become conceivable that the costs of implementing it, for all, would decrease?

I suggest the creation of a non-profit organisation that sees to it that people who have their land compulsorily purchased can pool their compensation money and purchase other corporations land in the same way. e.g. Walmart uses this law to purchase 12 homes for a new store. Those 12 home owners pool their compensatory money together and target another Walmart's car park for a compulsory purchase order.

A tit-for-tat battle will be the only saviour for U.S home owners if this law becomes widespread.

Also in your court battle for your land you should equate your rights a citizen as being "in the public interest" and that those taking your home should not only compensate you but purchase you comparable dwelling as well.

[edit on 23/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   


That I understand and thats why I consider it "far flung". However, if this law becomes a common and the courts become well versed in its new interpretation wouldnt it become conceivable that the costs of implementing it, for all, would decrease?

I suggest the creation of a non-profit organisation that sees to it that people who have their land compulsorily purchased can pool their compensation money and purchase other corporations land in the same way. e.g. Walmart uses this law to purchase 12 homes for a new store. Those 12 home owners pool their money together and target another Walmart's car park for a compulsorily purchase order.

A tit-for-tat battle will be the only saviour for U.S home owners if this law becomes widespread.


Private individuals simply do not have the sheer economic power of major US corporations. Don't forget that if Wal Mart were targeted, every concerned corporation in the US would join the fight to make sure your community group couldn't prevail and set an unwanted precedent.

I would say that our only hope to fight this thinking is to throw out every elected official currently in office to send the clear message that we will no longer tolerate obviation of our rights in favor of big business.

The only power we have left at all is at the ballot box.

If our elected officials could find a way to take away that last power, they would do it. We're merely lucky they haven't figured out a way to do it yet.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Private individuals simply do not have the sheer economic power of major US corporations. Don't forget that if Wal Mart were targeted, every concerned corporation in the US would join the fight to make sure your community group couldn't prevail and set an unwanted precedent.

I would say that our only hope to fight this thinking is to throw out every elected official currently in office to send the clear message that we will no longer tolerate obviation of our rights in favor of big business.

The only power we have left at all is at the ballot box.

If our elected officials could find a way to take away that last power, they would do it. We're merely lucky they haven't figured out a way to do it yet.

Either way is good for me


Although I think ballot fixing is currently alive and well in all Western countries. They do it either via electronic voting machines or constructive pruning of voting registries.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Seems that we are becoming more like communist China by the day.
www.xtra.co.nz/streaming/0,,10616-4486050-300,00.html
www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/ news/world/10016673.htm?1c

Each day you don't fight back, it will get worse. Our system no longer works, ANARCHY NOW!
(I wish I was kidding.)



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
OK, here comes the rebel in me, if you don't like it, time to skip to the next post.

If you are ever on the recieving end of something like this, the answer is simple. Don't complain, don't seem unhappy, just take the insufficient payment that you are given and go move into whatever ghetto that affords you. Let them build their huge expensive office building or whatever and keep quiet about it. Just pretend it was all your idea. Then blow up the new building, assassinate the public officials who approved it, and flee to mexico. Those idiots to our south won't extradite you if you've got a death sentence coming.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I'm really a guy that tends to laugh a lot at the NWO type power grabbing shackled train cars NATO troop invasion concentration camp uber liber Wal Mart conspiracy type theories but I have to say this story sent a chill down my spine.

I love my country but this scares the piss out of me.

SPiderj



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Wow, thats one solution.

Could it be that the powers that be have finally overplayed their hand?

I dont think any one that has posted in this thread agrees with their actions. Condemnation is coming from both sides of the political spectrum here.

America's second civil war? Lets hope so.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   


Wow, thats one solution.

Could it be that the powers that be have finally overplayed their hand?

I dont think any one that has posted in this thread agrees with their actions. Condemnation is coming from both sides of the political spectrum here.

America's second civil war? Lets hope so.


Out of 47444 votes on MSNBCs live poll on the issue, 97% say it's unfair. I think there will be a backlash on this one.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

What I don't understand is why people keep voting the corporate kapos into office that create a political environment that makes Washington folk think this kind of thing is OK.

What does it take to make people wake up and realize the government in Washington does NOT care about us, and voting the same shleps into office will just get us more of the same? This may have been an action by the Supreme Court, but it's reflective of everything that's wrong in our government right now.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I agree with the conservative Supreme Court judges on this issue.

I'm in shock



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Hmmm, I think your house and land is worth 10 bucks, here you go, bye now.

Ok, I got 10 bucks, what do I do now? I got nothing, they took it all for a mall.

Don't you love what corrupt politicians do? I mean what republicans do?

Anyways, time to set up for a war, bars and bullet proof glass, steel doors, reinforced walls, you can have my land when you drag my corpse from it.


BTW, what would happen if someone did that? Just holed up and refused to sell their 250,000 land/house/garage/shed/pool for 10 bucks? Would the police get involved? But since it is a federal thing, wouldn't the FBI get involved?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Out of 47444 votes on MSNBCs live poll on the issue, 97% say it's unfair. I think there will be a backlash on this one.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


In less that twenty minutes it's now 52029 and steadily rising--same percentages though.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Hmmm, I think your house and land is worth 10 bucks, here you go, bye now.

Ok, I got 10 bucks, what do I do now? I got nothing, they took it all for a mall.

Don't you love what corrupt politicians do? I mean what republicans do?

Anyways, time to set up for a war, bars and bullet proof glass, steel doors, reinforced walls, you can have my land when you drag my corpse from it.


BTW, what would happen if someone did that? Just holed up and refused to sell their 250,000 land/house/garage/shed/pool for 10 bucks? Would the police get involved? But since it is a federal thing, wouldn't the FBI get involved?


It would probably lead to numerous WAKO type incidents. The only thing that could happen is if the community effected gathered support from other areas and acted as one unifeid force, both politically and physically. SHow up with as many guns(In the background) and say to the officials that they are simply not going to take this land without a huge loss of life on both sides, that your homes are not for barter between governments and corperations they are yous, and if they want them, let the first man take the step - if they do, shoot him in the leg(no need to blow the wade on the first salvo).

No doubt this would end very badly for the home owners(probably all jailed or dead) but it would send the message to the politicians and hopefully others around the country and world wide.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1


How exactly the taking of private land for commercial development be a literal interpretation of public use?


actually the synopsis of the news report did not focus on 'public use'




".....Local Governments may seize homes and businesses...
where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights....."


imo, the ?emminent domain? provisions....have morphed into this mess,

this legal infringement was long ago made possible from the enactment of
what's known as PUD projects (Planned Urban/Unit Development)
...it is just a small 'tweeking' to make economic growth a factor in your (fast eroding) property-rights....

decisions left to your 'representitives' or 'city-managers'
(the new landbarrons & overlords? as the Fed herded the masses into
low interest, 1st & 2nd houses, & into the carefully 'managed' & 'crafted' housing bubble)

[edit on 23-6-2005 by St Udio]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join