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.

 

POLITICS: Lawmakers Seek Curbs on Seizure of Property

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Reacting to the recent Supreme Court ruling on Eminent Domain; Legislators in Wisconsin, Connecticut and Alabama, now plan on introducing legislation that will strengthen their laws that will keep the government from seizing property for Private Development. Currently at least eight states -- Washington, Kentucky , Illinois, Maine, Florida, Montana, South Carolina and Arkansas -- already prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.
 



www.jsonline.com
A group of Wisconsin legislators plans to seek a state law to strengthen the rights of private property owners - a reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that makes it easier for government to seize private property for commercial development.

The decision was "an affront to the concept of private property," Rep. Jeffrey Wood (R-Chippewa Falls) said.

Wood said Tuesday that he and Sen. David Zien (R-Eau Claire) were leading some legislators from both parties who hope to draft a bill this summer. Wood said the legislation would seek to restrict a city's or other government's ability to seize private property for economic development.

The court ruled 5-4 last week that local governments may buy property, even when it isn't blighted, as long as the owner is fairly compensated.



www.decaturdaily.com...

MONTGOMERY — Gov. Bob Riley said he wants the Legislature to pass a law keeping government from seizing your house for a shopping mall or your cotton land for an automotive plant.

He's trying to get the legislation ready for a special session expected in July.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It is nice to see that at least three new states are considering legislation that will protect our rights as property owners. Perhaps this is just the start, lets hope the other 39 states will follow their lead, given that eight states already prohibit the taking of property for Private Developments.

The surprise in this is that the state of Connecticut is also considering legislation when they started this whole fiasco. This kind of makes me wonder if the Governor of Connecticut is just blowing smoke so he can save his job.

The bottom supporting link shows the supporting material for Connecticut.


Related News Links:
w ww.boston.com




posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
This is a start but we need the other 47 states to get onboard.

This will be interesting to see what happens with this. As I understand the ruling is that any company that is seen as producing jobs tax revenue will be allowed to take posession of any property that they desire from an individual land owner with the local councils okay majority vote. What happens if lets say a burger king takes ownership of an individuals property and builds its restraunt and a few years later a hotel chain wants the property and states it will hire more people and produce more tax revenue. So the hotel chain takes over the property and builds on it and then walmart comes along and says we will employ more people and generate more tax revenue than the hotel. In the end what you have is big corporations owning everything. If this scenario plays out I can almost guaranteea new revolution in this country.

I saw on one of the news channels soem guy talking about how it will work in California. The so called just compensation will be on the tax rate that you pay for your home. So lets say the last time you had a tax rate adjusted was 3 years ago and the value of the home has gone up 30,000 you will be out of the equity your home has appreciated in the last 3 years. What is to then prevent that comany from then saying we have changed our mind about building here and are going to sell it and we will sell it at the current market value which is30,000 higher than what they paid for it?

[edit on 30-6-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
This is a start but we need the other 47 states to get onboard.


No it is actually 39 more that are needed. 8 states already have laws in place that prohibit the taking of private property for private development.



This will be interesting to see what happens with this. As I understand the ruling is that any company that is seen as producing jobs tax revenue will be allowed to take posession of any property that they desire from an individual land owner with the local councils okay majority vote. What happens if lets say a burger king takes ownership of an individuals property and builds its restraunt and a few years later a hotel chain wants the property and states it will hire more people and produce more tax revenue. So the hotel chain takes over the property and builds on it and then walmart comes along and says we will employ more people and generate more tax revenue than the hotel.


No again, I think you may have misread the intro, here is what it stated.


Originally posted by shots
Reacting to the recent Supreme Court ruling on Eminent Domain; Legislators in Wisconsin, Connecticut and Alabama, now plan on introducing legislation that will strengthen their laws that will keep the government from seizing property for Private Development.


As you can see if passed with one exception (Blight/Slums) no developer can take a property under Eminent Domain for Private or commercial development. Re-read the stories and I am sure you will get their exact intent.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Good to see that on a state level, politics are actualy still working FOR the citizens. (instead of "working the citizens")

If the US goverment keeps going like this, the idea of Civil war becomes more and more real and the seperation of some states from the Union of States might become reality once again.

Lets offcource hope it doesn't come to that.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   


No it is actually 39 more that are needed. 8 states already have laws in place that prohibit the taking of private property for private development.


I keyed in on the 3 new states for some reason. Sorry for the math error.




As you can see if passed with one exception (Blight/Slums) no developer can take a property under Eminent Domain for Private or commercial development. Re-read the stories and I am sure you will get their exact intent.


My point is: if these state laws are not passed then corporations could do what i illustrated. Please re-read my post.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001

My point is: if these state laws are not passed then corporations could do what i illustrated. Please re-read my post.


But you did not say if they did not pass it; you assumed that would be read into it and I assume nothing.

Really makes no big deal, I am sure the states are going to jump on the band wagon big time now.

The House of Representatives just lashed out at the supreme court it is only a matter of time now that they did that. No federal funds will do it everytime if they are needed that is.

House lashes out at high court's property ruling



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Sorry for any confusion. It looks like something will be done by the house and senate if not by all of the states individually. This is a very bad ruling by the supreme court. I have lost an enormous amount of respect for the supreme court over this one.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Sorry for any confusion. It looks like something will be done by the house and senate if not by all of the states individually. This is a very bad ruling by the supreme court. I have lost an enormous amount of respect for the supreme court over this one.


No problem at all on the confusion.

I too agree that this was a very bad ruling and now I am very glad that more then just a few states are speaking out against the ruling. I see this as a very positive move from our elected officials.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I believe our founding fathers would be outraged if they thought later the supreme court or some governments thought it would be ok to confiscate and profit from the seizure of private land for the benefit of another private entity.
The words fair compensation don't ring true in my opinion. It appears very possible that the government's assessment of fair value will not compensate for the latest market value increase in your home or the cost to relocate and pay a higher mortgage because rates have increased or will by the time you relocate. Fair compensastion probably won't pay you for increased commute times and increased use of a car with all of the expenses associated with driving farther to work. Fair compensation sounds like an excuse to pay someone chicken feed and turn around and sell a property for diamonds or to make a lot of profit on a development. Greed above all else seems to reign true.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Some one has made a pitch for Justice Souter's farm in New Hampshire,, they are saying they would build a hotel there, yielding more tax revenue ...for the greater good of the taxpayers.



"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.


It might not be a serious attempt to get his property, but it would be a good way to 'bring it home to roost' and show him how it would feel to have his land taken without his consent!!!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
[edit on 1-7-2005 by orionthehunter]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by frayed1
Some one has made a pitch for Justice Souter's farm in New Hampshire,, they are saying they would build a hotel there, yielding more tax revenue ...for the greater good of the taxpayers.



I'll make an exception for this case and wish the developer luck in bringing in more tax revenue for the local citizens of the community. If someone wants to spend a ton of money on a new hotel, the city should allow it especially if they are providing fair compensation to someone who already favors this type of private development. Souter would get fair compensation per the law and the community would win. I see this as a win win for everyone.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter


I'll make an exception for this case and wish the developer luck in bringing in more tax revenue for the local citizens of the community. I see this as a win win for everyone.


Too bad it was only a tongue-in-cheek offer, it would be nice to see him get what he deserved after voting the way he did. Maybe the story might prompt a real offer
That would indeed be a win win situation



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   


If someone wants to spend a ton of money on a new hotel, the city should allow it especially if they are providing fair compensation to someone who already favors this type of private development. Souter would get fair compensation per the law and the community would win. I see this as a win win for everyone.


If the owner of the property does not want to sell he should have the right to NOT SELL. If a property owner decides to sell his property because he wants to move etc... he has the potential to get more than what is deemed fair compensation.

Is this country going to be about nothing more than money? Are we as a country going to say look at the bottom line and make a decsion as to what to do. The laws concerning this discussion were meant to be used in cases were a new road needs to be built. there are only so many places that a road can be built and as populated as this country is someone will have to move. Buying out the homeowner is a necessity. Wanting to build a hotel is not. You can build a hotel anywhere that you can buy property on the open market.

In most cases whent he government buys someones property they usually pay them a decent price but when you bring big corporations and banks that are ruthless you will have a different story.




top topics



 
1

log in

join