Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules Private Property Can be Seized
slew writes "CNN is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case where a local community seized private houses for commercial development (not public works) under the guise of eminent domain. Needless to say, the little guy loses to the commercial developer this case...
"
"Nothing to see here. Please move along."
Ack.
All your homes are belong to us.
This signature intentionally left blank.
So what the supreme court ruled was that you own your land, but the wealthy business pwns j00
Do you Gentoo!?
To all US /. readers who still believe that the USA has freedom.
0 8.pdf
Read this http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-1
Your government can now take your property for the "public good"
You are no longer safe in your own home!
The end has come and you only have yourself to blame.
What are you going to do?
Now I can finally plow down my two neighbors houses and install my cluster!!!!
along a long line of vanishing freedoms.
And it overturns the ruling from the early 90s involving Donald Trump trying to seize a woman's house to turn her land into a parking garage for a casino, I don't see how in the world this is classified as YRO.
Perhaps the ruling applies to online property as well - though the major companies generally try to invoke the DMCA for that (Microsoft vs. Mike Rowe, et cetera). That would make it relevant.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
This runs so counter to the concept of using eminent domain for the public good that I could scream. I guess there's not much chance Congress would consider limiting eminent domain to the more 'traditional' uses like roads, schools, etc. Sigh.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
The war against the rich and lower classes is over.
The rich have won.
http://almostsmart.com
Increasing the tax base is now a reason to seize someone's property. Nice.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
it was a 5-4 decision, which the conclusion being that the supreme court doesn't feel it's their job the decide what falls within the "public good" clause of eminent domain.
They stated that this doesn't nothing to prevent states from legislating limits on eminent domain seizures by municipal government
Inconceivable!
I can see "Your Rights", but I'm missing the "Online".
Fuck Slashdot
In Soviet America, private property seizes local government.
This is really a sad day.
We only have the illusion of a free market in this country. From agricultural subsidies to tarrifs on trade to tax write offs for big corporations. And now we have this. You don't even own the things you own, unless you are rich, and then you own everything that poor people own, if you want it.
In Soviet Amerika, all your house are belong to the rich.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I've posted other comments here about this, but here's the basic review:
The city government claims they seized the property for economic development, as part of a larger plan. Sure, the property is going to be turned over to a commercial developer, but it's "public use" of the land because of the larger economic development plan.
The state courts: Well, the city says their main reason for doing it is public use, not to benefit Pfizer, so it must be public use!
The supreme courts: We'll let the state courts worry about this. They said it's public use, so it probably is. Therefore, it's OK for the city to seize the land.
This is not the building of new roads, this is not the elimination of blight, this is a real estate development deal, and people are losing their houses over it. Does this frighten anybody but me?
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Funny enough, the dissenting judges appear to mostly be conservative in nature from what I've read of their rulings.
And in an ironic twist, David Souter _is_ a Bush-appointed judge - Bush the elder, that is.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
...
For the majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer
In dissent: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas
...go ahead America, keep getting fat, lazy, stupid, watch Survivor, listen to music, play X-Box, read People, watch Dr. Phil, diet, eat, play, spend, spend, spend, spend.
Don't read a book though. But do watch infotainment and hear about how a common household product might kill your children TOMORROW!
Nevermind the fact that
1.) The Supreme Court just declared private property is only private until the government says they have an idea how someone else could perhaps use it better?
2.) The Senate is about to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow prohibiting burning a piece of fabric if that fabric happens to have 3 certain colors (red, white, blue) and 3 certain shapes (long rectangles, large rectancles, stars) in a certain pattern.
Nevermind the demise of liberty. Make sure you see the #1 movie at the box office this weekend, or else you aren't a patriotic American.
For the record, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were in the dissent. The minority. The losers. The folks saying "no, the government doesn't have the right to take private land from some citizens on behalf of other private citizens as long as there are a few extra tax dollars to be picked up in the process".
If you want to argue party politics ("It's all Bush's fault, favoring Special Interests"), there are plenty of threads where you can do so and still be on-topic.
Unless you're so blinded by partisan politics that you consider O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas to be liberals (well, at least for today), this isn't one of those threads.
This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about libertarians vs. statists.
The four judges who voted AGAINST the local government's land grab were Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Commor. It's the liberals who want to give away private property - the conservatives want to give away PUBLIC property.
Historians in 100+ years may look back and say that this was the real beginning of the end of US society as we know it. Why? Virtually any sociologist or related scientist will tell you that the basis for a civilized society are strong property rights.
Personally, I'm disgusted by the ruling. We're going to see *massive*, third-world level corruption appearing in the headlines any time now. It'll be easy for developers to pay off the local gov't to kick people off of their land so that we can have yet another strip mall. This has got to be one of the worst rulings in the recent history of the Supreme Court.
I don't respond to AC's.
Thomas and Scalia in a disenting opinion.
What's the world coming to???
WTF were the other 5 bozos thinking??
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
I'm sory Mr. Dent, but you can't fight city hall!
We are the Borg...
This is the constitution as it was written: Today, five supreme court justices, who are sworn to uphold that constitution, changed it to read: It is very difficult to overemphasize quite how evil this ruling is.
Remember how Bush made his money in baseball: building a larger stadium on land siezed under eminent domain? http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html
Three conservatives and one swing.
5-4: One more conservative and it would have gone the other way.
That's why the "filibuster the judicial appointments" battle - a warmup for the next supreme court opening - is so important.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
One proposal is that the compensation paid for the land should be for the rezoned purpose, and not four the current use.
Do a Google search for the case Kelo vs. New London. It has been subject to considerable discussion in many places.
For anyone considering moving states and buying a house, this is going to make them think very carefully about buying a home close to a business park, strip mall or hotel. I wonder if the city councils have considered how this is going to affect their property taxes.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Reading the ruling, I find the dissents by O'Connor and Thomas much more perusasive. The ruling amounts to saying that, starting today, if others can use your property in a way that will be better for the general public, for example if:
- they will pay more taxes than you do now; or,
- the public will find the house they will build more aesthetically pleasing than yours is; or,
- they bribe the local politicians more than you can afford.
then the government can simply take away your property and give it to them.Of course you have to be "justly compensated". However, all this means is you will get back the "market value" of your property, i.e. what it is worth to a random person on the street. That could be very different from what it is worth to you, or even what it is worth to the developer who will get it and profit from it. Unlike normal economics, where the developers will have to pay based on what they can use the property for, the fair market value will depend on what you are using the property for today. And you personal enjoyment of living in a home you've owned for a long time doesn't factor into that.
Do you think Ms. Dery, who is 87 years old and lives in the house she was born in will be compensated for value of that? She only will be compensated for the value of the house assuming it was sold for profit.
Let's see:
In favor:
John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican
David H. Souter - Bush/republican
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat
Against:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican
Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican
Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican
I'd say toss up on whether more bush/republican judges would help here. Both democrats were in favor, but so were three republicans.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Un-freaking-believable.
The minority opinion of today's decision is pretty much the group I normally harbor such incredible contempt. And YET, today it is so obvious they were the ones making the correct decision. I am stroking out just trying to grasp this contradiction to my world view.
How do you go to a citizen, a property owner, someone who as poured his sweat and portion of his life into obtaining and maintaining his land, and then tell him he is to be evicted because some rich guy, or some soulless corporation has decided to take his property over???
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Thanks so much for pointing this out. When I first saw this comment, I went down each of the judges and checked their affiliation. The two democrats voted for this decision. Three other republicans voted for it and four other republicans voted against it.
The original comment seemed to imply that it's the republicans who are the evil doers in this case, but it's in fact the democrats who think it's okay to give authority to a municipality to bulldoze a home to build a Walmart.
You fucking idiot.
Four of the most conservative judges on the bench ruled AGAINST this trash issue.
All of the Democrats on the bench ruled in favor of it.
Don't spout off shit you don't understand as an attempt to play a little political game.
And people need to stop fucking voting republican OR democrat. Put someone who actually values personal property rights and personal liberty as a whole.
If you hadn't noticed I'm furious as hell about this ruling.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Look at who voted on what-- the most conservative judges were against the corporate takeover of the private land. The liberal judges all voted in favor of the corporation. The Republicans here were the only ones that stood up for the middle class. Oh, and that city council in the first place? Democrats. You'll need to find a new scapegoat, the Republican aren't the demon this time.
What amazes me here is that the "liberal" wing of the court has ruled against the "little guy" single homeowner, and in favor of the wealthy corporations who can buy political influence easier than I can buy a loaf of bread. And the "conservative" wing is actually standing up for the little guy against the wealthy corporations who make millions in redevelopment. Who would'da thought?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Increasing the tax base is now a reason to seize someone's property.
And that creates a new way around California's Proposition 13 (which keeps them from raising property taxes on your house and land until it sells). Watch for this:
1) Emminent domain the tax-capped house.
2) Sell it to another buyer. (Taxes now at new rate.)
3) Previous owner has to buy a different house. (Taxes now at new rate.)
Old owner is now paying the higher tax rate. Old property is now taxed at the higher tax rate.
Public good: Increased tax base.
Supremes say that's OK, it's a state matter.
Oops!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Actually, even this argument would not be good enough in some towns, since they have defined "blighted area" so broadly that almost any older home qualifies. For instance, some have legislated that a home without an attached garage is "blighted".
It's not really useful to separate the judges by who appointed them, in most cases. What's more useful is looking at their voting history, which makes Souter a liberal on the court, regardless of the fact that he was nominated by Bush I.
And now we have two prominent cases in a row where the "bad guys" are the liberal judges (yes, Scalia voted "against" medical marijuana, but they would have won without his vote, too). Liberal/Conservative is a different thing in the SCOTUS chambers than it is in the halls of Congress.
You clearly missed the point stated in Justice O'Connor's dissent: namely, that if what the city of New London is planning to do with the land is a public use, it's pretty damned hard to imagine what isn't a public use. (It's actually the same problem as the marijuana ruling from a few weeks ago: if growing and using your own pot is interstate commerce (and therefore regulatable), it's hard to imagine what isn't interstate commerce.)
Don't forget that when Bush Sr. appointed Souter, he wasn't the President's first choice. He originally nominated Robert Bork, but the largely Democratic senate wouldn't approve his appointment.
An interesting phenomenon has come over Stevens and Kennedy, and it's evident in this ruling - as these justices have aged, their rulings have gradually begun to slant more toward the liberal side. Justice O'Connor falls into that category as well, but not on this particular issue.
As hard-core conservative as Bush Jr. seems to be, it wouldn't surprise me to see him nominate another Scalia- or Thomas-type, and the Republican Senate would almost surely approve.
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
Supreme court justices are neither democrats nor republicans, so your little jibe doesn't hold. Judges swing both ways depending on the issue - notice when Scalia votes with O'Conner.
Traditionally, the behavior of judges is hard to predict based on who nominated them. For example, John Paul Stevens was nominated by Ford, and may be the most liberal member of the Supreme Court. It is not really surprising that the conservatives would dissent, because conservatives value the sanctity of private property, and thus would oppose any sort of government seizing of that property (eminent domain) for any reason.
the supreme court doesn't feel it's their job the decide what falls within the "public good" clause of eminent domain.
It's the court's job, and indeed a grave necessity, for them to rule on matters of constitutionality. Whether or not states set limits on eminent domain, the court must decide if those limits are constitutional.
By taking the position you describe, SCOTUS has nullified the entire concept of "public good." Since anything can now qualify as a public good and pass the constitutional test, it is exactly as if they redacted the words directly from the parchment.
Yes, this means that they effectively repealed a rather important portion of the 5th amendment by fiat.
Private property is now a fiction in the United States. "Property" is now redefined as something that you temporarily occupy under the consent and sufference of your local political majority.
This signals the beginning of a campaign of legal home invasion, as wealthy and politically-connected people will wield the government to transfer the property of others to themselves. Despotism, by any other name.
The end result will be familiar to anyone who'se lived in a radically unjust society: violence.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
In this instance, the judges say that local officials know best. (Never mind what the owners of the land think.)
The part that makes this really bad is that the Court isn't looking at the law and the Constitution, but at the circumstances. They're supposed to be judging the law, not making new laws as they did here.
A similar thing happened in the medical marijuana case. The judges said that they thought the "medical" thing was a sham, that this was all about people wanting a way around Federal drug laws. They had no legal basis for that finding, it was just what they thought about the issue. So they allowed the extension of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to include the doctor-patient relationship.
These decisions are symptomatic of an out of control Court.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
By bulldozing your house, and putting up a Walmart, it is a public use because they can collect sales tax -- see, public use.
Well, at least we can still speak against the government, or at least for today.
Fight Spammers!
In fact, the dissenting judges in this case are very conservative-federalists that take a strict reading of the constitution. At least on property rights. The court as a whole is sorta schizophrenic. What really cracks me up is that Justice Thomas writes an excellent and thoughtful dissent - until the second to last paragraph. He then rants about how Emminent Domain laws have largely been used against the poor downtrodden minorities. I've read a number of his opinions and he would be a truly great justice if he didn't keep throwing his cred out the window complaining about how "the Man" is keepin' him and the brothers down.
bance.net
You think Bushs judges had anything to do with this? The liberals running King County in Washington took 65% of every rural land owners property. Give me Bush judges over socalist liberals anyday.
The city's actions couldn't make it more clear:
"Personal property", i.e. your house, has nothing to do with "Corporate property", i.e. strip-mines, clear-cuts, multiplexes, shopping malls, archives of intellectual property, privatized railways, privatized power companies, etc.
People confuse them both as "private property". We're confused because large corporations want us to confuse the two.
The next time some corporation protests that their "private property" must be protected, on principle, call them on it! Your private property isn't protected, unless you're powerful!
Most corporate property used to belong to everyone, in commons, before it was stolen, subsidized, extracted, and polluted. We pay the bills to clean the mess up. Yet we can't keep our houses!
How do you go to a citizen, a property owner, someone who as poured his sweat and portion of his life into obtaining and maintaining his land, and then tell him he is to be evicted because some rich guy, or some soulless corporation has decided to take his property over???
.1 acres of land.
With a big check in your hand? These people were offered on average $1.7 million for (again, on average)
In general the government is only supposed to do this stuff when the value to the community outweighs the harm to the individual. You (and I as well) may disagree that was the case in this particular scenario, but could you say the same thing when they had to take a few houses in order to start providing running water for people for the first time?
I don't agree with what the city of New London is doing in this case, but you've got to admit that when you calm down and think about it a bit the issue isn't so black and white.
Stevens - Liberal
Ginsburg - Liberal
Breyer - Liberal
Souter - Liberal
O'Connor - Waffler
Kennedy - Waffler
Rehnquist - Conservative
Thomas - Conservative
Scalia - Conservative
Generally speaking, of course. YMMV on particular issues.
That was a cool-headed, nuanced and unbiased interpretation of a political story.
I think you must have the wrong website.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Strangely enough, this SCOTUS ruling could be a potential boon for local democracy and activism in the United States.
If indeed the ramifications are not "random", as Justice O'Connor put it (and I think she's right), then what we'll see are pitched local battles taking place across the entire nation, with commercial developers vs., well, the people. This may finally be the tipping point that wakes everyone up and sparks a vast new wave of civic activism. After all, the "local authorities" are democratically elected, and if they go off the deep end with seizing private property for pure commercial interests, it won't be long before people get out their pitchforks, so to speak.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Why they have to sell? Even if they were offered BIG money, they have no obligation to sell.
Now, if this was to build some hospital, yes, it's right to just force them to sell.
But they just want to build some offices for a private company. The people should have all the right in the world to say NO.
Technically, that wasn't Rush Limbaugh, but guest host Roget Hedgecock.
I'm amazed at how well people like Roger, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, and Mark Fuhrman do after getting a ton of press under bad circumstances.
I'd say toss up on whether more bush/republican judges would help here. Both democrats were in favor, but so were three republicans.
Depsite that fact the dividing up the SCOTUS judges by party affiliation is a pretty dumb thing to do, I will say that 100% percent of the Democrats on the bench, unsurprisingly to most, voted for this. I'd much rather go with the party that fucks us 40% of the time and not 100% of the time. Of course I would much rather have a Judge I actually AGREED with 100%, but that's never ever ever going to happen.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
In most instances, however, many property owners are offered quite a bit below market value for a particular piece of land... And the bad thing you can't sell it. The very instant someone wants your property for eminent domain purposes your property value is nonexistant because there's no potential for profit--or any profit more than the county wants to give you, anyhow.
It's the preverbial 800lb Gorilla. Take a bushel of bananas to appease him or be crushed.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Or one moderate judge. Or a liberal judge that hasn't lost his mind.
We don't need a "conservative" court. We just need a court with good balance and jurists who think deeply.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
I'm trying to point out that 'compromise' in this country is made in the interest of the rich more often than of the poor, and that the myth is that we have (and should have) a free market. The ones who squawk the loudest about the free market are usually the ones who want it the least.
Oh, and thanks for implying that I am a school child, have no grasp of the real world, and need to relax. Could you have crammed any more underhanded ad-hominem attacks in that short of a post? I think not.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"It's the liberals who want to give away private property - the conservatives want to give away PUBLIC property."
Just goes to show you that the sides aren't so clearly defined. We need to oppose dangerous ideas, not the liberals or the conservatives.
In this instance, I have to agree with Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Conner.
Now I need to go take a shower.
The place where this is happening. The best that I can offer is my outrage at this, as I cannot even fathom this comming into play ...
The following is a list of email addresses that you may find useful:
City Manager - Richard Brown rbrown@ci.new-london.ct.us
City Council:
Mayor
Jane L. Glover 860-442-6296
kente219@aol.com
Deputy Mayor
William S. Morse 860-442-0233
billmorse1956@hotmail.com
Councilor
Jason Catala 860-447-3848
Jason_CatalaBOE@yahoo.com
Councilor
Margaret Mary Curtin 860-443-0373
pegcurtin@snet.net
Councilor
Gerard J. Gaynor 860-443-6346
Gjgdeacon@aol.com
Councilor
Robert Pero 860-447-2723
pero6_98@yahoo.com
Councilor
Elizabeth Sabilia 860-437-8031
Sabilia@sdwllc.com
I would suggest everyone writing any of the above, and let them know how displeased you are with thier actions.
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
Yes, what a very whacked way to describe 'public' use. So that some lame-ass municipality can cry and get it's tax base. The justices that ruled in favor of this should be ashamed.
But lets not assume this is some kind of 'liberal' conspiracy to take away your summer home in the hamptons... Wal-Mart, the (ahem...) largest employer in the US, was definitely behind this and other land grabs. They are always trying to force local governments (usually not a hard thing to do...) to allow zoning changes so they can throw up one of their "always low wages" super-scenters.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
. . . These people were offered on average $1.7 million
.
The amount they were offered is irrelevant. If they didn't want to sell, the government shouldn't compel it for commercial development. Schools and roads are one thing, strip malls and hotels are another.
In general the government is only supposed to do this stuff . .
When has the government (on any level) stopped at what it's supposed to do? In several of the places I've lived, the local government was effectively an extension of the local real-estate developers. Do you expect them to do the right thing? I sure don't.
. . . ou say the same thing when they had to take a few houses in order to start providing running water for people for the first time?
There's a huge difference between providing public services and building a strip mall.
'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
Decisions like this breed domestic terrorism.
Someone hates these cans.
It's underline markup language. Your browser must not support HTML+ULML extensions. :p
Actually, I think it's probably "the government" acting in its interests too- preventing any erosion of eminent domain. What's next, people arguing how much of the "public interest" that new bypass is? Can't have that!
I'd have less of a problem with eminent domain if property owners had to be compensated several times fair market value for their property (you're being forced off your land, you need something more than just "what it was worth"). It'd make developers and government planners think twice about pushing people around.
The whole concept is from legislation dating back to the 1800's for the railroads to gobble up property to build cross-country rail lines. It's extremely outdated- few if any projects are big enough to require that sort of thing (and anyway, the railroads made a SHITLOAD of money, they could have bought the land fair and square).
Inconvenience doesn't superceede my rights.
Please help metamoderate.
The four judges who voted AGAINST the local government's land grab were Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Commor. It's the liberals who want to give away private property - the conservatives want to give away PUBLIC property.
:)
Or you could look at it this way: The conservatives want the rich to own all the businesses and property. The liberals want the government to own all the businesses and property. What neither side realize is that we're so close to the rich, government, and businesses all being the same, why bother fighting?
_______
2B1ASK1
To quote "the dammed fools - I told them". This is the logical conclusion of a corporatist state, like yours, where the rights of an individual count for nothing compared to the rights and privileges of corporations. You are now, officially, corporate slaves.
This has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat, the rather pathetic shadow boxing which your owners use to confuse you and distract you from what's reallly going on. And as for liberal vs. conservative - I give up, by the standards of real politics you're all hard right conservatives.
The deepest issue is in whose interests is the state run? It's not run in the interests of the people anymore, and hasn't been for at least fifty years. The last president who wasn't a corporate shill was Jimmy Carter, and before him probably Eisenhower.
So. What's to be done? You can, and probably will, lie down under this, so, before you roll over on your couch read, mark, learn and inwardly digest Martin Niemöller's lines about moral failure in the face of the Holocaust:-
'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
You've already locked up your communists, destroyed your social democrats, and gutted your trade unions. So, I'd say that you're stuffed anyway.
This is a pity, you're a great country, with a lot of really amazing people. But only you can fix it now.
-- Anthony Staines
Out of my parent's basement? I love how that's a nice solid comeback when people have nothing else to say.
I swear to god the day that someone tries this on my house (yes the one the bank owns for another 25 years or so) I will sit on my porch with my 12 guage and let the bulldozers run me over.
This is how people defended property rights before it was codified and we may yet have to go back to that.
I wouldn't vote Republican if my life depended on it. Nor would I vote Democrat. In the last three elections I've voted Libertarian and will continue to do so because I know the process that the candidates have to go through. I know that anyone willing to get involved with a third party has less on his mind than political power and more along the lines of making a change for the better.
The only reason I spend time in my basement is because that's where my office is.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I was pleasantly surprised to see the conservative judges line up against this one. This could have gone either way. Yes, it's the government taking the property, but they are taking it for the benefit of private business interests. This means that a big company *cough*Wal Mart*cough* could slip the local government some "incentives" and practically rezone and rebuild the city to their liking.
This is private interests screwing other private interests through the intermediary of government. Come to think of it, since the rights of all corporations are legal constructs enforced by governments, isn't that always the way it works?
Not that I'm a strict libertarian--everybody is a libertarian about their own freedoms and a fascist when it comes to their own rights. Get rid of the government you elect, and it will be replaced by one you didn't elect--and can't unelect.
except in this case the poor saps had million dollar homes that had refused for years to redevelop their properties. this has been allowed for blighted areas for years, so now it is happening to people that are "rich". i say its about time. the new uses will improve tax revenue for the city greatly which is good for everyone. if these homes were ghetto/minority then nobody would have brought suit and the land would have been razed years ago for redevlopment.
Ford cannot credibly be described as a conservative.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
From the dissent:
/. (I've been hammered here before for it.). But what about private property that simply doesn't generate tax revenue?
"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. 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 sole argument for the misappropriation of these properties seems to be that the overall tax coffers would benefit. That is, there will be higher property, income, and sales taxes due to the economic development.
Now, I'm as pro-business as you'll find on
Churches would be poster-children here: they provide no tax revenue (property, sales, etc), and generally, they exist in spite of popular opinion: a 80% baptist (or catholic/muslim/jewish/etc) community could very easily decide that the property of a minority religion's church is simply expendable.
This opens doors of corruption, discrimination, and hatred on a scale that simply frightens me.
I hope they designate a church on one of those properties quickly (before the bulldozers get there) so that this goes back up on a (slightly) stronger ammendment claim (the First!).
One final thought: I have yet to find ANYONE who thinks this is a good idea! I've heard people blame it on the "corporate elite" (presumably right-wing), and on the "socialists and statists", but nobody's claiming this as their own! How do we get a majory of justices on the SCOTUS that nobody agrees with??
The court tends to be conservative, only not in the conventional political sense. It tends to narrowly rule in such a way as to err on the side of caution and with tradition, though there are exceptions to it. This is one of the things that encourages many people following the Grokster case, in that the court is usually loathe to overturn precedent, particularly that which it explicitly set in very clear terms in the relatively recent past.
Decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade that make significant changes in how the Constitution is interpreted are fairly rare. Right now, there are two appellate decisions on the Second Amendment that stand in almost direct contradiction to each other, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the right to bear arms is an individual right, while the Ninth Circuit ruled that there is no individual right. When the opportunity came up to decide the issue, the Supreme Court declined because, I suspect, they were not willing to dive into those admittedly troublesome waters.
They're also very pedantic. Several recent decisions were turned away or dismissed entirely because the person making the challenge did not hold proper standing. They insist that proper procedures and protocol are followed to the letter, and have little patience for those who do otherwise.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Yeah,
Take homes from rich and poor alike. That makes it okay. The developers need the land, the city needs the tax revenue. If you don't like it move to someplace where the government can only seize property for public use, like it says in the 5th Amendment... oh. Never Mind.
"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow." - Ayn Rand
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
No, it was the same document, but an earlier draft. The wealthier states wanted it, because they still believed in the superiority of the upper class and didn't want the poor people to be able to take their wealth from them. The poorer states didn't like it so much because they had so little of it and didn't want the upper classes lording it over them. They compromised on that and a few other things, and moved on.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
- Liberals are for Change
- Conservatives are for Remaining the Same
In Congress, the term "Liberal" has become synonymous with Socialist, mostly because the Liberal Democrats have (over the last 50+ years) promoted legislation with Socialist (providing for the Commons at the expense of the Individual) results. The modern Conservative Republicans exceedingly fall under the term "Neo-Conservative", falling away from the traditional budget hawk positions to a Nationalistic "protect the citizens at all costs".Gone are the Democrats and Republicans of our fathers' era...
It says shall not be taken for PUBLIC use. They took it for PRIVATE use. And of course from the article, do you SEE anything about the compensation? How do we know they weren't paid fair market value for their homes? Sure it's a pain in the ass, but the key points here are: 1) It was taken for PRIVATE use and the constitution doesn't give any statements concerning that. 2) The constitution says without just compensation. If they were paid them fair market value for their homes under any circumstance, that's just tough I've seen many homes gobbled up for road construction, road widening, whatever kind of public works for decades. That's just the way it goes.
"I was a conservative. Then they changed what `conservative' was. Now what I am isn't conservative, and what is `conservative' seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you!"
-- Ford
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
If you're likely to fit into the group that buys a house and stays put until you die then you could be harmed by this ruling.
A person who buys and works 30 years to pay off their house in anticipation of living on their retirement (Fixed income). Typically these neighborhoods will go down in value as the houses age over the years. The property will probably retain or increase in value.
Perhaps it's lakefront property that you bought 30 years ago when the city did not even incorporate in that area and you were rural. But urban sprawl eventually caused to be in the city's influence.
Now the city is looking for more tax revenue due to their overspending and have limited options for development. Rather than raise the taxes on the whole to make up for this, or the citizens deal with the big spenders through the elective process those council members hear from private developers that you have some land they are interested in. So they begin the process of condeming property to allow the developer to take over.
Now the neighborhood is a bit run down but it's a quality place to live and many living there are fixed income retirees. The city is now telling them to move and a house that normally woudl be worth 200,000 dollars is only being offered 60,000 dollars. These people cannot afford to move because nowhere in the immediate area can you buy a brand new house for 60,000 dollars. In fact that barely would make the 20% payment requirements now due to inflation.
So in essence you're kicking these people on the streets, or they get new houses and work till the day they die and instead of their house going to their kids or grandchildren it gets repossessed and your investement for the enjoyment of your family is gone forever.
The only way it can be fair compensation is if these people are relocated into a paid off house with sufficient tax breaks on the house as to facilitate the ability to live as before with possibly some money on the side to help with the loss of a treasured property. To not offer that at the minimum should be illegal. The developer could afford it, and there's no reason they can just come along and uproot your entire life and financial future just to build something so they can make money.
This was a constitutional question. The so-called "liberal" judges restrained the issue to whether the local government had abused their power and simply established that, yes, they clearly had the "public good" in mind and were compensating the owners of the property. The fifth amendment guarantees ONLY that you will be compensated for such seizures, NOT that such seizures will not occur and NOT that such seizures must be purely for non-private benefit. The Supreme Court has no business deciding ANYTHING but the constitutional question and that is precisely what was done. Having read the opinion, they did an excellent job of determining that the local government had a well established justification with the public good in mind and that the owners were being compensated ergo it was a constitutionally sound action--thus deferring any further judgment to the appropriate state and local bodies. What, precisely, is improper about that?
In that sense, these "liberal" judges were being extremely CONSERVATIVE. The so-called "conservatives" were wanting to run rough-shod over the constitution to leap-frog the federal government straight over the state into an issue appropriately handled by local government. THAT would be a "liberal" action in the usual pejorative sense of the term.
If it's my house, my business, my whatever, it's mine. Not yours. Not New London's. Not whomever else's. I worked for it. Mine. It's utterly irrelevant how much you're prepared to pay for it if I don't want to sell. It is black and white.
You want to build something else? Fine. Go take over the city council's properties. Leave mine alone. This is theft, pure and simple. There;'s precious little difference between this and Cuba's "nationalization" of property after the revolution.
You wait and see. There will now be a LOT of cases where governments decide to "streamline" the process of changing their cities, counties, states, or whatever just to please whoever's in charge, or the local big business they want to buddy up to.
It won't usually involve $17M/acre. It will be backed up with guns if necessary. And it could just as easily be you as anyone else.
Based purely on this one ruling, those judges should be (at a minimum) in public stocks the rest of their lives. Preferably on a flatbed trailer so they can be toted around the country for everyone to laugh at, maybe throw a few tomatoes. I wouldn't have a problem with flogging, either.
But while we're at it, throw in the New London governmental morons who started this.
This all just smacks to me of what happen during the second world war, or better said what caused it. Instead of physical domination and occupation of a country, we are using economics instead. The outcome however is strikingly similar.
The Nazi party at the time claimed that it was the Jews that were causing the problems with the country and true Germans not prospering like they were destined to. Now we use the excuse of economics to do the same thing. Instead of Jews we have targetted the poor instead. The rich don't like to look at how the poor have to live. They take up valuable land that could be used better by real Americans to prosper. So we will force them out of their homes and remove the last security these people have, more than likely plunging most into the final throw of complete failure. These are the poor, the poeple who struggle to pay bills because they don't earn enough to cover them. The ones who don't have access to the credit needed to start somewhere else. People who's homes have like equity to begin with and won't be able to take the fair value cash, minus the bank note and start over. It makes me sick to my stomach to see that so many Amercians actually can justify this to themselves. Scarey
The Republican party is far right on social issues like stem cells, gay marriage,etc. Look up "southern strategy" for more on this. They are NOT economic conservatives. Economic conservatives tend to believe in lower government spending. Economic conservatives do NOT believe in raising spending. Even if you combine the spending increases with tax cuts. Republican economic policy is basically "what's good for General Motors is good for America" except now it's oil companies, defense contractors, RIAA, credit card companies, etc. This Supreme Court ruling is great news if you're a giant corporation. It's also the direct opposite of economic conservatism.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
but is rarely used
Bullshit. It's used all the time nowadays. It'll be used more often now that the supreme court has given carte blanche to poor, despotic local governments to "create jobs" by destroying things.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
This runs so counter to the concept of using eminent domain for the public good that I could scream.
Actually, I DID scream. Never in my fucking life did I actually get so emotional about how fucked up our government is. Today, I let out a deep fucking scream to let it all out.
I call for a revolution...if it's not already in the process.
Life is not for the lazy.
But Kennedy was only nominated because Bork was Borked, so Reagan had to pick someone more moderate. Same basic thing with Souter (not a specific Borking, but the fear of it).
I find your use of the term "Borked" to be offensive. Do you have any idea of who Bork even was? Time for a history lesson:
In 1973, Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was demanding tapes and Presidential documents related to the Watergate break-in. Rather than turn over the evidence, President Nixon directed Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned his position rather than fire the Special Prosecutor. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus refused and Nixon fired Ruckelshaus.
Finally, Nixon turned to then Solicitor General Robert Bork, who by law became the acting Attorney General when the Attorney General and deputy attorney general were absent. Bork carried out Nixon's order to fire Cox. After Bork fired Cox, Nixon abolished the office of the Special Prosecutor and had FBI agents quickly seal off the offices of Richardson and Ruckelshaus in the Justice Department and at Cox's headquarters in an office building in Washington, D.C.
So stop painting Bork as a victim of dirty tricks by mean liberals. He was an evil bastard who acted in concert with Nixon to thwart a legal investigation into Watergate. He lacked the ethics, judgment, and integrity to serve as dog catcher, much less as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.
therefore this isn't protected
It's not that it wasn't protected, it's that the concept is so inane as to have been un-heard-of. It's like saying that the right to be free from gang rape isn't protected because it isn't in the Bill of Rights.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
And what are you going to do when Walmart is the one taking your house? Shoot 100K share holders? Or more likely, the rent-a-cop, or the CEO corporate flunky? As long as you're making a blood sacrifice, that will even the books? Are you willing to destroy your family's economic survival to prove a point?
The answer not just "yes...it's HELL FUCKING YES! If I'm kicked out of my home and property because I'm too "poor" to afford my own investment, then I personally have nothing left to live for. Everyone has their own value on life, and this is mine. It's because of such actions how revolutions are started.
Life is not for the lazy.
Be careful to actually read the amendment in question before commenting. The relevant portion of the fifth amendment is:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note that the framers did not use the ambiguous term "public good" but the term "public use" which is much more well defined. If they take away property, it must be for the use of the public as a whole and not for any small part of it. This ruling basically strikes those three words ("for public use") right off the paper.
Your entire comment is null and void because you didn't read the Fifth Amendment.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Ford cannot credibly be described as a conservative.
It depends on how you define "conservative" as the meaning is changing, has changed from previous definitions. The same with "liberal". Thomas Jefferson's and Thomas Paine's "Liberal" was someone who believed in a small and limited government, but today it's closer to socialism or big government. Meanwhile conservative back then believed in a big and powerful federal government. Conservatives are still for big government, the only difference between conservatives and liberals today is in what part of government is big. The only political party today with the classical liberal outlook of a small and limited government is the Libertarian Party.
FalconShould there be a Law?
William Buckley said he'd rather be governed by the first 200 people in the phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. I agree, although I don't know if I'd want to be governed by AAA Towing Company...
Apparently it proves that not everyone appreciates a good play on a Simpsons quote.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
OK, I just read the whole dang thing.
I have no problem saying that, for this case, the dissenting position should have been the majority position, for reasons beyond the fact that I agree with the immediate outcome.
I further have no problem in stating that the 3 of the 4 dissenters are the most consistently conservative members of the SCOTUS, while those in the majority vary from conservative to moderately liberal. (There are no currently no consistently liberal voices on the bench)
However, this does not mean that the majority opinion is "liberal", or even that the dissenting position is necessarily "conservative"; there's somewhat more complex issues at play here.
Let's consider another rubric, in which we consider the "political inclination" of the reasoning behind the differing opinion, ordered by the weight given in their argumentation:
Supporting the Majority:
1. State's Rights / Federal Gov't Defer to State-Level Authority: (the determination of the Conn. Supreme Courts were deferred to); this is "classically conservative" position
2. Strict Consideration of Law and Precedent: this is rather specific to how the SC conducts its business, but I think it's also fair to say that they used "conservative" reasoning in their approach (i.e. they saw no need to disrupt tradition or precedent, and so sought to follow it)
3. Favoring the General Public Good over the Individual Public Good: (the specifics of the case were examined and held that the development planning process was handled above board) - favoring the public good is generally considered to be a liberal position, but in the majority opinion there was little emphasis on the "public good" beyond the state's right to determine what this means.
Supporting the Minority:
1. Gov't may Not Interfere with Private Property - this is a classically conservative position
2. Federal Gov't May Override State-level (local) Issues - during the Civil War this defined the "Republican" position - however, since the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's this has been re-framed as the liberal position
3. Proposed Amendment/Clarification of Existing Legislation - ("Legislating from the bench") - recent propaganda to the contrary, "activist judges" are liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever. However, this sort of activity may be seen as procedurally Liberal (i.e. it makes waves) just as stricter interpretations make be seen as procedurally Conservative.
My conclusion is that while it is probably fair to label the dissenting opinion as an argument rising from conservative thinking, I could just as easily label the majority opinion as such.
Ultimately, I think we have a conflict between Moderate/Conservative process (i.e. the Court not seeking to make waves) and Conservative values (i.e. the underlying goals and ideals of Conservatism).
Either way this ruling sucks, but it annoys me greatly when
people look at an issue like this and immediately start to draw party line borders. Nuance can be important.
Conservativism at one point in time stood for smaller government, it wasn't until the 80s during the Reagan administration did the definition change. (the Neoconservatism era)
Actually it was liberals who stood for a small and limited government, as did the two Thomases, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine(or TomPaine.common sense). To get a good idea of what liberals stood for read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", "Rights Of Man" or other books of his.
Should there be a Law?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to rende
hard core geek-ware
The 'status quo' was that it was improper for government to take anyone's private property unless it was for public use. They got away with doing it in some cases (at the behest of Donald Trump, etc) because victims, and even their lawyers, were not aware of how to fight it correctly.
Now, the new status quo is going to be that there is no such limitation and everyone will be a potential victim regardless of how well they know their rights or whether they can find good, well informed, representation.
This is not a good thing.
Your position sounds similar to me to saying, 'Since poor people are often victims of crime because they live in bad neighborhoods, instead of trying to prevent that from happening, lets make it easier for people in all neighborhoods to become crime victims so that it balances out.'
"True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information." - Winston Churchill
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
Got an ancestral home that you'd never willingly sell? Too bad! You can't afford to keep it, if someone else with more money than you has their eye on it.
Housing prices in your area are shooting through the roof? Doesn't matter if you're on a fixed income--you better run down to City Hall so you can get in line to pay more taxes!
I think your statement "they're [...] screwing the city out of a lot of property taxes" is quite telling. You seem to believe that the government has a God-given right to take someone's money by force. Well, heck! If your primary goal is to make this institutionalized robbery more efficient, I can suggest lots of simpler approaches. Granted, they probably wouldn't have the faint sheen of fairness and respectability that your proposal carries, but the principle would be exactly the same.
larry
The court needs to be abolished and replaced with Supreme Juries. Each case/review/whatever sees nine of us selected at random and flying out to Washington to deal with whatever the problem is.
This is unworkable if you want to maintain justice. At least judges are supposed to be knowledgeble of the USA Constitution, most citizens aren't nearly as knowledgeble. Having said that I am a strong believer in Jury Nullification and a Fully Informed Jury.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sadly, much new development is just a redistribution of wealth since apparently most developers CAN'T afford to even do thier development w/o tax breaks and other incentives from the municipalities involved. If they could afford the true cost of the development, they could likely entice the owners out of their realestate with fists full of cash (or a nice home).
We are living in a real-estate bubble (commercial and residential). Development costs are being held artificially low by government subsidy (interest rates and otherwize) and pricing is being held up by speculators (borrowing on margin to try to get returns higher than the simple interest rate). Maybe one of these days we will pay the piper (like Japan did) and I'll predict it'll make the dot-bust look like a blip, but as long as the government is manipulating things, not much will be changing...
Stupidest thing I've ever read.
Second stupidest.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
> This Supreme Court ruling is great news if you're a giant corporation.
> It's also the direct opposite of economic conservatism.
Which is exactly why the 'progressives' on the court voted in favor of allowing government to exceed it's constituitional bounds yet again and why a too small by one minority of conservatives voted against yet another unlawful expansion of government power. Go read the list of who voted for and against. O'Conner was notable for being on the right side for a change.
In reality the only reliable defenders of the Rule of Law and the Constituition are Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Even though several of the others were appointed by Republican Presidents they were either appointed during times when Democrats were in control of Congress or by non-conservative Republicans.
Democrat delenda est
Oh, sorry. I forgot. All of Clinton's appointees are religious right fanatics. Thanks for reminding me.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
It isn't really fair to say that the conservative judges would oppose emminent domain for any reason. Emminent domain is preserved in the Constitution, but it is very likely that the "conservative" justices would construe it more narrowly.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
I used to think conservatives were the ones who stood for fiscal responsibility and small government with limited powers.
Vinnie will be stopping buy to discuss this matter further. =)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I don't post here often but I heard about this this morning and saw there was a /. article, so I read it. As for replying, I can't resist tearing your argument apart in public.
What exactly is wrong with not "redeveloping" your property? What gives you the right to tell some one to renovate their home if it's up to code? Why should some one be forced to "improve" their home, and who is the judge of what exactly qualifies as an "improvement"?
Now we get to the heart of this: class warfare. "Oh my God those people have way more money than me; they are evil! You should all just give your money away to the poor because they aren't as well off as you! I'm jealous of your money and because I can't have it you shouldn't either! Those are the feelings behind arguments like yours. For your information, this ruling affects everyone, rich and poor alike. And one other thing. Just because some one has more money than you damn sure don't make them less than you, nor does it make them evil. There's a helluvalot of filthy rich people in this world who are good people, who worked hard for their money and worked themselves up from the bottom of the economic food chain.
Whether that's good for everyone is debatable, but it damn sure ain't good for the people whom are being evicted from their homes. Put yourself in their shoes. If some one came to you, wanted to pay you a quarter for your home, and when you didn't pay up the county forced you to sell it for twenty-five cents you'd damn sure be squeeling like a stuck hog! It's high time people like yourself grew up and realized this ain't an us-vs-them problem here. This effects all Americans, rich, poor, or inbetween.
I'm calling bullshit here. If anyone living in the "ghetto" was in this position there are plenty of lawyers who would take this case pro bono to make a name for themselves, twice as many if this was a minority. And here's another thing for you to wrap your pea brain around. How many minorities are specifically affected by this case? I bet you don't even know. You just blindly assume this is only "rich white people".
Honestly, how did some one with so little common sense manage to get online?
P.S. Learn to use capital letters!
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
I'll give you Thomas and Rehnquist, but not Scalia. He sided with the majority regarding medical marijuana, obviously a states' rights issue.
"Neo-Conservative", falling away from the traditional budget hawk positions to a Nationalistic "protect the citizens at all costs"
I would say that Neo-Cons are more woried about Empire than protecting it's citizens. It's really a read herring to say that they are strong on Defence. Our military is by far the most powerful in the world even under the post cold war restructuring under Bush Sr. and Clienton. This ruling is actually a victory for the Neo-Cons. The Neo-Con movement seemed to grow out of the Nixonian period. Remember that Bush Sr. and Rummy were close to Nixon. I personally would not be suprised if the Republican party eventually has a schism between the Conservatives and the Neo-cons.
Thank you for that fine assessment.
Lucky for me, the "other party" has a stranglehold on my blue state and voting Republican would be pissing my vote away as well as leaving me feeling rather disgusted. I was pleased that since my state's electoral votes were never in jeopardy (guaranteed Gore/Kerry state) I could afford to toss my vote over to a well-deserving 3rd party where it would be appreciated and make a difference by boosting their ranks - even though it would not affect the election outcome.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
I suppose what bothers me most about this decision is the tax issue. People in most locales pay real estate taxes for the entire term of their property ownership. Consider this: If you pay off your mortgage, you still have to pay real estate taxes. If you fail to pay the tax at any time, the government takes your property. Paying this tax is essentially the same as paying protection money to organized crime. Now, the government can *take* your property for private use, using the argument that the increased taxes benefit the community. So, tax more tax revenue (Ie Protection Money) collected, the better the community? Take this decision a little further down the slippery slope and what you find is a bidding process for how much protection money an individual is willing to pay for the privledge of owning property.
to act politically when you are working 1 job at walmart to pay for child care, and another job at the 7-11 to pay for gas, rent, and medicine for your kid who is sick from being in daycare? Most of the people for whom this is a problem work so hard they don't have any time for political action.
i am so very tired....
OK, although I do not like this decision, but I think there is a bigger issue. The way it works now, taking property by eminent domain is decided by a few politicians, usually by some council or other assembly vote.
Now, the same legislative body cannot levy property tax (at least in Ohio) without an election. So why can't eniment domain issues, which are relatively rare, be voted on by the public? I mean, if it really is for public use (or benefit), should the public have a say in it?
Personally, I would think that an eminent domain election would certainly be better for both sides. Whether it was for highways, schools, or commercial projects, at least there is a process (or scruntinization) that seems more true to the public interest than the agendas of only a few politicians.
Coderz 4 Life
"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or one."
The needs of the many may or may not outweigh (for however you want to quantify that) the needs of the few or the one... but that's irrelevant. The *rights* of the individual are inviolable (or at least should be) period. Let the individuals that make up "the many" figure out how to solve their own problems without infringing on the rights of others who are not party to their situation.
And for those in "the many" just realize that "the many" is simply an abstraction and not a real entity... and it's membership can change at anytime. So while you defend socialistic policies today because you benefit from them, realize that tomorrow you could be the one getting fucked in the name of "the many."
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Not if the rich ban guns.
There is a reason for the 2nd amendment.
There is a reason why socialists want the 2nd amendment appealed.
You make a good point about how these people may be richer than others who have been affected by immenent domain before, but the people trying to get them off their land are even richer and more than they are.
Don't cheer for the super rich just because they're going after the moderately rich. Emminent domain property being handed out to private parties, is unbelievably bad. How long will it be before personal vendettas are used by city or county commissions to take away the land of some one they just don't like, or from a political enemy.
Needless to say, the little guy loses to the commercial developer this case...
We didn't lose to the commercial developer, we lost to the fucking government! Maybe if we hadn't spent so much time worrying about Evil Business, we might have noticed that our government was reaching critical mass.
Business isn't the problem. Business don't have the power of eminent domain. Business don't have police and armies. And most of all, businesses don't have court systems arbitrarily deciding to take away the unalienable and natural rights you were born with. Only government does that.
Business didn't do this, the fucking government did this. And it wasn't the federal government that started it either, but some pissant little city council with too much time on their hands. For all your bitching about Bush or Kerry you never noticed that all the real tyrants in the US are your neighbors on the city council.
Yes, there are many businesses that lobby and court the government. But don't blame the addict, blame the pusher. Political power wouldn't be for sale if the government didn't put it up for auction to the highest bidder.
We're screwed now. This is a SCOTUS ruling. There's no one we can appeal this do. The only option we have to get our rights and property back is another revolution. The problem is that no one else but me cares. As long as the stop the Home Depot from building on the empty lot down the street, you guys will let the local government do whatever the fuck they want.
Emigrating to Iraq or Afghanistan is starting to look better and better. At least they have a future.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Who is taking money from our children and grandchildren in the form of massive deficit spending? Is it a liberal? No! It's W! Who is giving huge tax breaks to the rich, and to nobody else (thus, in your words "taking money from these people and giving it to someone else?" Is it our liberal president? No! It's W!
San Francisco Photographers
here is the complete PDF file with the ruling, I found it from The Supreme Court website.
Although I live in the other side of the Atlantic, I wrote about this issue on my blog. I read most of the ruling, and I didn't like it.
Here's what happened:
I wrote this overview quickly from my memory after reading most of the 04-108 ruling. I encourage you to read it, too, as it contains many interesting references to other court rulings too.
It's already happened. One millionaire was killed by police during a 'drug raid'. Turned out they were trying to seize his land through the drug seizure laws because the sheriff wanted it...
It just keeps moving up. This is why I'm pissed at government right now, because they keep trying this sort of stuff, and the courts keep ruling for them, sooner or later.
I don't read AC A human right
victory for states rights
Over the people.
This is the opposite of what the founders intended. The court has recently, consistantly been ruling:
Federal Government > State Government > The People
It should be:
The People > The State Governments > The Federal Government
I don't read AC A human right
Exactly which "rule of law" were they defending in their dissent to Rasul v. Bush, where they wiped their asses with the Fifth Amendment?
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
So who defines "adequate compensation?" If I bought land, built a home with my own two hands, and watched my kids grow up playing in my back yard it would be worth much more than market value to me.
There's no question that many Americans are so overworked that civic activism is not really feasible. Perhaps this was all planned by particular politicians? The work (or lack of work) of politicians has a lot more to do with how the economy works that I think most people realize.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Hardly. The position of the conservatives on the court (who opposed this decision) is that this clearly opens the way for "the rich to own all the businesses and property" precisely because "we're so close to the rich, government, and businesses all being the same."
To quote from the minority opinion of Sandra Day O'Connor, under the majority ruling:
"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."
Adding that: "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."
So, in fact, what the conservative judges worry about is exactly the possibility that this will be used to unfairly benefit the rich.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
This statement is factually incorrect. Bork was nominated by Reagan, not Bush.
The word is "except" not "accept".
I have one word for you: beachfront. We've had a lot of this happening in Florida. People whom many slashdotters would probably classify as "rich" have had their beachfront property -- extremely expensive pieces of land -- stolen by local governments for private development purposes (typically codos or hotels). In fact, this pseudo-eminent-domain chicanery has been running rampant throughout the past several years, it just doesn't get much coverage in the press.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
When I was 8 years old after a long legal battle the CT state department of transportation eminent domained my Family's land and many of our neighbors. They wanted to build a highway that didn't need to be built and for which they had been expressly told by the department of environmental protection that they could never have the permits to build. Among other things we had a river in our back yard, 90% of the land was considered wetlands, and the property abutted Nathan Hale State Forest ( I'll point out some of the land for which was sold to the state at a deep discount by my grandfather who was/is an avid conservationist) My parents were given $180,000 for a house that was appraised at $280,000. Beyond the value of the property my entire extended family lived right in the same area (grandfather was a farmer who gave his land to his children) My aunt and her family lived across the street, and my uncle and his family lived next door. Needless to say my family was scattered after they took their houses too. Today more than 17 years later the highway was never built and the house which my father built with his own hands on land his father gave him sits abandoned. I hope the people in New London stand their ground against the bulldozers. And when the first officer comes to physically remove them from their land I'll be crying tears of joy if they blow his head off with a shotgun.
Well I did it, wrote letters to my two Senators, my Governor and my state representative. Signed my name with a pen and will send them certified mail this morning. In this age of phone calls, E-mail, chat and text messaging hoping that a good old fashioned form of communication gets noticed. My anger goes beyond political ideologies. Common sense and decency has been violated the 5th Ammendment has been raped. My mother lives on a "fixed income" in California her taxes are locked in by Prop. 13. What is to stop cash strapped California from declaring Emmient Domain, kicking her out of the house then putting it up for sale so some one can move in at the new tax rate. Because at 77 years she wasn't paying her fair share of taxes. Be afraid, very afraid... I know I am.
And enough voters just sit around and let those who do this get re-elected. Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently - and for the very same reason.