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

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...

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.

Another "Wow!". What I dont get is why you assume the government could be corrupt but the voting system maintains its integrity?

The recent Presidential elections were not endorsed as irregularity free by foreign independent monitors. There is more than enough evidence of voter fraud and electronic voting machines deleting votes.

Who says these guys are being voted in???

Thought I would post the link to the entire decision for you all to take a look at. It can be found - here on SCOTUS's website. I've never been a fan of Thomas but his dissenting opinion is a must read for anyone with an interest in constitutional law. His opinion starts at page 43. O'Connor's is another must read - begining on page 27.

O'Connor said it best today - "The effect of the decision..."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."



Bleys

Originally posted by Passer By
It would probably lead to numerous WAKO type incidents.

FIRST TITOR!

Why is this sooooo similar to communism takeover? This is nuts, nuts, nuts!

whats next..

I'm driving down the street and here comes a governemnt official..
"hey there Elevatedone, give me your car.. we need it to go steal someones home"....

I have not read all the coments, but I do think this will be a good topic to forward to your represetive.
That is what I will be doing hear shortly

Wow. usually the Supreme Court was out crashing the Ten Commandments and generally giving right wing talk show hosts something to do. Now they show their true colors. In true communist fashion, remove religion, and remove private property ownership.

I thought there were some checks and balances somewhere here?

Elevatedones point though extreme certainly expresses the slippery slope concern.

Imagine, you have a local diner in a low-middle class part of town, it's been in your family for a couple of generations and though you're not a millionaire you've got a steady flow of loyal customers from the neighborhood whose families have also been coming there for a couple generations. Next door to you is a dry cleaner, on the other side of your little cafe is a liquor store. The whole block filled with small mom and pop businesses.

Now the local government decides that even though you and the other family/business owners own the block through a collective your city block would be much more advantageous to the community if there was a dog track or WalMart there.

Which is great because you live right around the corner and they've just decided to turn your block into a parking structure for the dog track or walmart.

Am I missing something? Am I wrong in thinking this could happen, I mean it happens now but at least it's down sneakily without government sanction.

Spiderj

Another "Wow!". What I dont get is why you assume the government could be corrupt but the voting system maintains its integrity?

The recent Presidential elections were not endorsed as irregularity free by foreign independent monitors. There is more than enough evidence of voter fraud and electronic voting machines deleting votes.

Who says these guys are being voted in???

Elections are the only power we, as citizens, have. I'm not proposing that our government be overthrown - that would be stupid - but I do believe a change in who's in charge is most definately in order.

If we give up our apathy, we can actually volunteer down at the political party (your choice, although Repubs usually run the elections in most areas) and get put on the volunteer teams that run the polling places. That way, we can find out first hand if they're tampering, and if they are, blow the whole racket wide open by spilling our guts to the press (or every blog on the internet).

But it does require giving up on apathy and actually getting involved.

About a decade ago a family that my parent were friends with had their house marked for Eminent Domain because of a freeway project. Because of how fair market value is calulated they received almost twice as must as they paid for the home. The family was going to fight the project until they found out how much they were going to get for the house. I know that some people are really attached to their homes but from another view this can also be a financial boost for many families.

Here's some more information on the Eminent Domain process:
www.expertlaw.com...

About a decade ago a family that my parent were friends with had their house marked for Eminent Domain because of a freeway project. Because of how fair market value is calulated they received almost twice as must as they paid for the home. The family was going to fight the project until they found out how much they were going to get for the house. I know that some people are really attached to their homes but from another view this can also be a financial boost for many families.

Here's some more information on the Eminent Domain process:
www.expertlaw.com...

I think the key here is actually having a choice. If the deal is so good, then why does the government have to FORCE people off their land? And I definately don't support the idea of handing it all over to developers (or anyone else with the cash to improperly influence elected officials) when the home owner doesn't want to sell. I think there can and should be limits on the power of the government to toss you off your land just because they want it. Otherwise, why do we bother to buy property at all?

I’m not disagreeing with you AWingAndASigh. Just pointing out that what seems like a horrible thing at first can turn out to be a blessing in disguise for some families.

EDIT: I do think Eminent Domain is a necessary evil when it is used for the good of the public, building new roads, schools, etc. I'm not thrilled with the corporate aspect though.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by zerotime]

I’m not disagreeing with you AWingAndASigh. Just pointing out that what seems like a horrible thing at first can turn out to be a blessing in disguise for some families.

I wouldn't argue with that. My objection to this is based on the power I believe the government should and shouldn't have under the constitution.

Some people might benefit economically if some segment of the American population were hauled off to the gulag, but it doesn't mean I'd want the Supreme Court to turn it into law.

Sorry I have a song stuck in my head, I'm not really paying attention to the topic...

Every city, gripped in oil
Crying freedom!
Handed to obsoletion
Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth
la la la la la la la la la la
Everybody is going to the party
Have a real good time
Dancing in the desert
Blowing up the sunshine
Blast off, it's party time
And we all live in a fascist nation
Blast off, it's party time
And where the f are you?


[edit on 23-6-2005 by NoJustice]

Im currently trying to get an interview with System of a Down for ATS. I'll keep you posted on how it goes

the current poll is over 86,400 votes with still a 97% margin saying this was a bad judgement by the Supreme Court.

I say we let this brew for a little longer and someone come up with a research list of how to contact economic development committies, area reps, senators, city council's, mayor's offices etc

And we make it a nationwide campaign to express our unhappiness that the Fed has no granted this extreme leway to local goverment to take land and closes business when they want to bring in a more money hungery developer.

With the added hook line that any city council that does take advantage of this will find them selves in turmoil, defaced, defroked, broken and harrased to the point that they will no longer wish to be in office.

if we can get people together to keep rapists and sexual deviants out of our communities I think we all fight a little harder to defend our property's from being seized to build mini malls and commercial buildings.

Whats next, the residents will be forced to live in all the old commercial buildings in the "old" part of town, so that the new business can enjoy the nice scenic areas where the former residents used to call home.

WHAT a load of BS this ruling is. To displace people that have lived in the same area for 50 to 80 years forcing them to relocate to what, the run down old business areas to live in broken down commercial buildings, to live on toxic waste sights... WHAT IS IT THAT THEY WANT


I hope there is a community out there that see the local city council as the enemy and decides enough is enough

one by one, we can change the country

Cavuto had a guy on today that was a victim of this in Connecticut. For a 10 room house on a half-acre of waterfront, he was initialy offered sixty thousand dollars. The offer ultimately ended up at $150,000. The property is probably worth half a million.

Yeah that's...I hate the U.S. Government. The sad thing is Real Estate appreciates, so if his house was worth half a million in a couple of years it would of been worth $600,000 to $700,000. Or at least a lot more than just half a million.

Looking at the 97% on the Poll, I could see this bill being overturned but then put into law under a different bill that you can't understand as clear.



[edit on 23-6-2005 by NoJustice]

I bet there will be a lot of money changing hands form developers to city councilmen.

Roper

hey does this work for commercial property as well. AHHAHAHA I just thought of something, what if your business competitor wanted you out of business and he had the capital means to buy your property at whatever price the city wants to sell it to them for.

Could he not then petition that he wants to build XYZ on your property and prompt the city to seize your property effectively putting you out of business.

Or lets say you own some property and have a bit of money and you want to buy the property next door which is being used in one manner and you tell the city you want to put an office building there. Could you get the city to claim the property for you, if you buttered the right pockets...

Man if this thing applies to commercial property as well I see a firestorm of litigation coming.