The AM Forum
March 28, 2024, 10:17:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes  (Read 28075 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10057



« on: June 23, 2005, 11:50:31 AM »

I recall this topic being discussed here several weeks ago.  Well, the Court has announced its decision.

From a Washington Post article:
Quote
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.  "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."


Court  Decision
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2005, 12:11:08 PM »

I always thought the supreme court was a little more on the ball than the 2 other braches of belt way bandits NOT ANY MORE.

This scam is to grab land and turn it over to a private person to make big bucks.

I'm glad our elected officials and appointed are more concerned with the people of Iraq and every other rat hole on the planet than the tax payers.
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2005, 12:14:12 PM »

My guess is, this also the reason they want to close the sub base.

That is about as smart as moving the White House to Texas
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4409


« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2005, 12:22:01 PM »

Look at the justices(ouch) that made up the majority!

Can't blame this one on conservatizm!!!

Give it to the government, they know what better to do with it.
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2005, 12:26:06 PM »

Not liberal, not conservative I call it the lobby basXXXX in control of this country.
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10057



« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2005, 01:31:34 PM »

Two recent decisions thus pretty much give "the government" abolute power.  The medical marijuana decision nullified anything that was left of states rights vs the federal government, and this one nullifies individual property rights over state governments.

City and county governments are ultimately arms of the state government.  I was taught that years ago in my US History class at university.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
Todd, KA1KAQ
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4310


AMbassador


« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2005, 01:47:43 PM »

This is the part that rakes my 'roids:

"The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy."

Absolute BS. Might look good on paper, but everytime you increase density in some way (more homes, more businesses, etc), you also end up increasing public services like water, fire protection, police, medical, infrastructure, maintenance, etc.

The fact that you can't put a pricetag on it up front doesn't mean it isn't there. I would bet that the necessary upgrades and increased services needed for the project will far outweigh any perceived revenue gained through taxation, for a long time to come. It's about impossible to get them out of that 'tax and spend' mentality, though.
Logged

known as The Voice of Vermont in a previous life
Glenn K2KL
Guest
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2005, 01:56:57 PM »

Is there anything at all that can be done to reverse this?


Quote from: k4kyv
I recall this topic being discussed here several weeks ago.  Well, the Court has announced its decision.

From a Washington Post article:
Quote
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.  "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."


Court  Decision
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2005, 02:00:41 PM »

I don't remember anything in the constitution about the government's job to increase money coming into the system. I do remember serve the good of the people.
This serves the good of a couple of Roland's scum bag pals.
The supreme court was too blind to see that.  
The belt way bandits now control the third branch too.

Who is next Irb?
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2005, 02:04:12 PM »

Gee, Maybe we should have a hotel resort built on the boosh family place in Me. And how about that fine Kennedy place.
Logged
Todd, KA1KAQ
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4310


AMbassador


« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2005, 02:08:22 PM »

Quote
Is there anything at all that can be done to reverse this?


Sure, it can be overturned at some point. Problem is, you have to get rid of the idiots who voted in favor of it first, and that takes time (stepping down, retirement, death) and the luck of having a president in office (who believes in less government control) to appoint new justices with similar views. Then you have to work around the obstructionists who object because they like that type of judge instead of your appointment, and if they don't have the necessary votes to defeat you in a fair vote, they'll filibuster.

How patient are you?  :roll:
Logged

known as The Voice of Vermont in a previous life
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2005, 02:10:51 PM »

I'm sure we will have total gun control first.
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2005, 02:13:31 PM »

That is a fact Mark!

The people of Iraq are more important than us tax paying , FICA paying pigs
Logged
W4LTM
Guest
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2005, 02:23:10 PM »

Not that this matters a poot at this point, but I was surprised by O'connor's reply.  I thought she would have voted in favor of the Government.  This is going to have major ramifications down the road for private citizens with nice frontage property on country acres, or waterfront beaches - not to mention the ever expanding small community roads.

Darn revenuers...

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers."
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2005, 02:28:47 PM »

God needs to clean house again.
Logged
Glenn K2KL
Guest
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2005, 02:50:48 PM »

That's very scary since I'm about to move to a new house in a different state... extremely scary...

 

Quote from: Todd, KA1KAQ
Quote
Is there anything at all that can be done to reverse this?


Sure, it can be overturned at some point. Problem is, you have to get rid of the idiots who voted in favor of it first, and that takes time (stepping down, retirement, death) and the luck of having a president in office (who believes in less government control) to appoint new justices with similar views. Then you have to work around the obstructionists who object because they like that type of judge instead of your appointment, and if they don't have the necessary votes to defeat you in a fair vote, they'll filibuster.

How patient are you?  :roll:
Logged
W1UJR
Guest
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2005, 04:05:32 PM »

Judging from the comments here, looks like everyone was in shock as well.

What the heck is this country's highest court doing to our rights?
Now greedy developers can come in and buy our property if it can be shown to have a public benefit, i.e. more taxes dollars to the policies.
So the people who make the decision for a public taking have a direct benefit from the results.
Does that strike anyone else as unethical?

Was anyone else looking for a "punch line" as they read this article?
I kept thinking this was a joke.
Sadly, it is not.

Our country is getting more and more away from the traditional values of our forefathers and the US Constitution.
Sorry guys, Irb is right.

I don’t want to get off on a rant here, but what is wrong with our country when today’s heroes are rap stars who make millions extolling the “virtues” of drugs, violence and abuse of women? When the underclass no longer need to work and instead are given privileges and benefits that those who do work do not even have; free education, healthcare, housing, food, transportation, etc. The liberal media elites mock our leaders and soldiers as stupid and their sacrifices as useless. Those who espouse traditional values are mocked as backward or worse – racist?

Something is deeply wrong in this country, and it did not happen overnight. I don’t think we need to worry about Islam; we are destroying this country very well ourselves.

Perhaps this decision will be a wake up call for fellow citizens to take up the cause and return American to Americans.

Frank says that "God needs to clean house again." and I do agree those days are right down the road.
Only this time it may not be water, but the atom.

.
Logged
Ott
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 176



« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2005, 04:35:52 PM »

This leaves me feeling sorta sorry for Irb... right about now I'm expecting his town to be offering him $1000 an acre for his unimproved land... and could the Tron be next?

Logged
W1RKW
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4410



« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2005, 05:21:29 PM »

What I'd like to know is how eminent domain in this particular case benefits me as a member of the public. I'm 25 miles away from New London.   Apparently there's no demarcation line.  I guess the taking for personal property for tax revenue here on the east coast benefits those on the west coast.  

And on another subject close to home,  I just heard Pfizer is going to outsource some of their R&D to India.
Logged

Bob
W1RKW
Home of GORT. A buddy of mine named the 813 rig GORT.
His fear was when I turned it on for the first time life on earth would come to a stand still.
W8AMD
Guest
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2005, 06:45:31 PM »

Well comrades those property owners should feel proud to have the privilege of aiding the collective.  Upon their backs the great socialist state rises to new heights.  Comrade Lenin would be proud of our new-found enlightened policies.

Wait a minute.  I thought we won the Cold War.  Seems we have been beaten by our own hand.  

Property rights are essential to a free state.  It's one of the benchmarks you can judge a nation's commitment to liberty by.  They are all but gone in this nation.  If the government can take it from you,  you don't own it.  They do!
Logged
Ott
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 176



« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2005, 07:42:51 PM »

Quote from: W8AMD
Well comrades those property owners should feel proud to have the privilege of aiding the collective.  Upon their backs the great socialist state rises to new heights.  Comrade Lenin would be proud of our new-found enlightened policies.

Wait a minute.  I thought we won the Cold War.  Seems we have been beaten by our own hand.  

Property rights are essential to a free state.  It's one of the benchmarks you can judge a nation's commitment to liberty by.  They are all but gone in this nation.  If the government can take it from you,  you don't own it.  They do!


Nah AMD...

It's still "equal justice under the law" but... WITH IN YOUR CLASS...
Logged
W1UJR
Guest
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2005, 09:15:57 PM »

Quote from: Ott
This leaves me feeling sorta sorry for Irb... right about now I'm expecting his town to be offering him $1000 an acre for his unimproved land... and could the Tron be next?




Well the fact is they, the developers need to pay market value, but too often such land is NOT replaceable with $s. And we all should have a right to say no; otherwise those with the deep pockets control the game.

So if Donald Trump decides my little coastal enclave is a prime spot for a new casino, he can now do it. After all, think of all the tax dollars that casino will bring in vs. my little radio ranch. Sorry, that’s just wrong.

I am astounded and angered by this, from a court which I felt was fair and even somewhat conservative.

The Fifth Amendment provides that private property may only be taken for public use if just compensation is paid. Seizing land for commercial development on the behalf of developers when the state stand to gain sizable compensation through taxation of such a business is not in this citizen’s opinion “public use”.

Anyone care to speculate the coruption this will breed as deep pocketed developers pay off the politicans to take said land?HuhHuh

.

.
Logged
VE3BEE
Guest
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2005, 09:25:45 PM »

This crap has been going on here in Niagara Falls, Ont for the last 20 years..One notable Land Developer (Marine Land and Game Farm) bought all the property around his location...Except one old guy refused too sell no matter what price...So about 75 feet from his property there is now a 250 foot man made Mountain which now is used for the drop for a roller coaster...The city also told all the people living along a noted hi-way too the entrance too the city,  that they had a year too move out...Well all the houses were bulldozed down and now there are trees and a sign which says Welcome too City of Niagara Falls...
Logged
Ed W1XAW
Guest
« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2005, 09:30:56 PM »

I'm as horrified as the next person about this thing.  I can see where the argument is going . . .somebody is going to blame it on the damn liberals.  Everybody knows that progressive people spend a lot of time plotting how to side with developers on land grabs.  If only we could get a bunch of pro-business, conservative judges on the bench we wouldn't have to worry about the robber barrons taking property. . . sure thing.   Wake up.

Ed
Logged
W1UJR
Guest
« Reply #24 on: June 23, 2005, 09:34:09 PM »

Quote from: Ed W1XAW
I'm as horrified as the next person about this thing.  I can see where the argument is going . . .somebody is going to blame it on the damn liberals.  Everybody knows that progressive people spend a lot of time plotting how to side with developers on land grabs.  If only we could get a bunch of pro-business, conservative judges on the bench we wouldn't have to worry about the robber barrons taking property. . . sure thing.   Wake up.

Ed


It has little to do with politics and a great deal to do with greed.
And greed is on both sides of the political fence, as you well know.


... -.-
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.068 seconds with 18 queries.