This sickens me. Loss of property rights for Socialist policies and tax agendas by the local authorities. Where will this stop? Maybe it's time for me to stop bitching about stuff like this and go into politics myself.
-------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.
Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.
Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.
They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.
O'Connor 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," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
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."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Good auld American Irish judge O'Connor. She won't go down too good.At least these poor people will get some compensation.Thank their Stars & Stripes for the 5th Amendment.
Tombstone for President
Tombstone for President
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
You had better get into the fray Tombstone. That decision is wrong in so many ways it makes my head swim. I’ve spent a lot of years working for city government. I’ve worked through a lot of these development issues. The one thing I was always thankful of , was that property ownership, when it came to development, was between the property owners. I never wished I could get involved.
I went to condemnation once and that was to build a flood control dike and tide gate. It was clearly an issue of a property owner standing in the way of something the community needed.
I cannot believe this. They have lost the bubble.
I went to condemnation once and that was to build a flood control dike and tide gate. It was clearly an issue of a property owner standing in the way of something the community needed.
I cannot believe this. They have lost the bubble.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Tombstone wrote: This sickens me. Loss of property rights for Socialist policies and tax agendas by the local authorities. Where will this stop? Maybe it's time for me to stop bitching about stuff like this and go into politics myself.Tell me, Tombstone, do you have the same criticism of a local authority forcibly buying private land or buildings for public works - like building a new road, for example? I realize that US cities usually have grid roads, but I can imagine that by-pass or relief roads must be needed as population densities change.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
How are they acquiring the property? Do they compensate the families at fair market value or do they get rock bottom prices? Not that money makes up for being told your home is being destroyed. It would be worse for people living in homes that had been in the family for a long time.
A woman who lived up the street in the city I just moved from was told that her house had been built (by former owners) too close to the pipeline and she had to "remove it" at her own expense. The property was still hers but no house could be built on it. I don't know how it was resolved. The regulations were all in the city planning department when the house was built but no one enforced them for over forty years, I guess. Now she is supposed to pay the price. It made us all laugh when we heard it until we realized they were serious.
A woman who lived up the street in the city I just moved from was told that her house had been built (by former owners) too close to the pipeline and she had to "remove it" at her own expense. The property was still hers but no house could be built on it. I don't know how it was resolved. The regulations were all in the city planning department when the house was built but no one enforced them for over forty years, I guess. Now she is supposed to pay the price. It made us all laugh when we heard it until we realized they were serious.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
spot wrote: Tell me, Tombstone, do you have the same criticism of a local authority forcibly buying private land or buildings for public works - like building a new road, for example? I realize that US cities usually have grid roads, but I can imagine that by-pass or relief roads must be needed as population densities change.
i realize this was addressed to tombstone. however, i must needs point out that at issue here is NOT bypass or relief roads, or public works - that's why this is such an upsetting issue for so many. never before has 'generating more tax revenue' been seen as a legitimate grounds for forcible taking by the government. *public* works - a freeway, most typically - have brought about forcible taking on numerous occasions since the great highway systems were first built in this country after world war II. these have always been upheld because they are for the greater public need, and the greater public good. but now, that concept has been horribly widened to include non-public works - privately funded works - that local governments believe will swell their coffers with more tax revenue than the property taxes the individual homeowners remit. office space is not a public work. a shopping mall is not a public work. it's private business. and while i'm all in favor of private business, i do not believe it should include displacing people from their homes because the businesses 'need' the tony location, and the local government 'needs' the tax revenues.
this is a dangerous distortion of the fifth amendment, and i'm frankly shocked by it.
i realize this was addressed to tombstone. however, i must needs point out that at issue here is NOT bypass or relief roads, or public works - that's why this is such an upsetting issue for so many. never before has 'generating more tax revenue' been seen as a legitimate grounds for forcible taking by the government. *public* works - a freeway, most typically - have brought about forcible taking on numerous occasions since the great highway systems were first built in this country after world war II. these have always been upheld because they are for the greater public need, and the greater public good. but now, that concept has been horribly widened to include non-public works - privately funded works - that local governments believe will swell their coffers with more tax revenue than the property taxes the individual homeowners remit. office space is not a public work. a shopping mall is not a public work. it's private business. and while i'm all in favor of private business, i do not believe it should include displacing people from their homes because the businesses 'need' the tony location, and the local government 'needs' the tax revenues.
this is a dangerous distortion of the fifth amendment, and i'm frankly shocked by it.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
anastrophe wrote: this is a dangerous distortion of the fifth amendment, and i'm frankly shocked by it.It does seem to go far further than the nuances discussed on findlaw, as at:
As governmental regulation of property has expanded over the years--in terms of zoning and land use controls, environmental regulations, and the like--the Court never developed, as it admitted, a "set formula to determine where regulation ends and taking begins." Rather, as one commentator remarked, its decisions constitute a "crazy quilt pattern" of judgments.The reason I focused on public roads is that, as you say, there's an obvious public need coupled with an obvious public benefit with the public road, and I wondered how that was balanced in Tombstone's mind. The local authority would contend, I imagine, that there's an equally obvious public benefit, while admitting no obvious public need, in this proposal. The fifth amendment and associated case law haven't yet polished that facet as gleamily as they'll need to now. It goes against the grain of "need", I can't see it being allowed in the long term.
As governmental regulation of property has expanded over the years--in terms of zoning and land use controls, environmental regulations, and the like--the Court never developed, as it admitted, a "set formula to determine where regulation ends and taking begins." Rather, as one commentator remarked, its decisions constitute a "crazy quilt pattern" of judgments.The reason I focused on public roads is that, as you say, there's an obvious public need coupled with an obvious public benefit with the public road, and I wondered how that was balanced in Tombstone's mind. The local authority would contend, I imagine, that there's an equally obvious public benefit, while admitting no obvious public need, in this proposal. The fifth amendment and associated case law haven't yet polished that facet as gleamily as they'll need to now. It goes against the grain of "need", I can't see it being allowed in the long term.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
An 80 year old couple has lived in the same house since they got married 60 years ago. The city has grown up around them and the property they own has been zoned commercial. Wal Mart wants to build a big box on an adjacent parcel but lacks 7,000 square feet to satisfy the code for parking. Because the couple’s home is a nonconforming use that is hindering a job producing business from locating in a commercial zone, they won’t get to live out their lives in the home they raised their children in.
Only one of the sad scenarios that comes to my mind.
Only one of the sad scenarios that comes to my mind.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Clint wrote: Only one of the sad scenarios that comes to my mind.Good God, Clint, I thought you were telling me the facts of the case up 'til then.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
posted by tombstone
This sickens me. Loss of property rights for Socialist policies and tax agendas by the local authorities. Where will this stop? Maybe it's time for me to stop bitching about stuff like this and go into politics myself.
Tsk tsk. no socialist would tolerate compulsory land purchase for private gain. This doesn't look like a socialist policy, or even one for the commonweal at all it's a pure land grab for private profit. Government dictat at the behest of private industry. Calling it a socialist policy hides the real issue IMO. If you'll excuse a non american offering an opinion.
This sickens me. Loss of property rights for Socialist policies and tax agendas by the local authorities. Where will this stop? Maybe it's time for me to stop bitching about stuff like this and go into politics myself.
Tsk tsk. no socialist would tolerate compulsory land purchase for private gain. This doesn't look like a socialist policy, or even one for the commonweal at all it's a pure land grab for private profit. Government dictat at the behest of private industry. Calling it a socialist policy hides the real issue IMO. If you'll excuse a non american offering an opinion.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
So it is, Scrat. GMC, I'd appreciate it if your quote attributed that text to Tombstone and not to me. My perspective on socialism is, he would agree, viewed from a different angle than his.
Tombstone looks down on me, for I am lower class. Tombstone looks up to anastrophe, for anastrophe is upper class. Anastrophe and I doesn't even notice each other, for I am too far below him to matter and he is too high above me for my spit to reach. Tombstone himself is middle class, and consequently pays all the taxes.
Tombstone looks down on me, for I am lower class. Tombstone looks up to anastrophe, for anastrophe is upper class. Anastrophe and I doesn't even notice each other, for I am too far below him to matter and he is too high above me for my spit to reach. Tombstone himself is middle class, and consequently pays all the taxes.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
posted by spot
So it is, Scrat. GMC, I'd appreciate it if your quote attributed that text to Tombstone and not to me. My perspective on socialism is, he would agree, viewed from a different angle than his.
My apologies to both of you.
I do not claim to be infallible. There can't be many places where you can confuse a spot with a tombstone and be old off by a spot. Surreal or what.
So it is, Scrat. GMC, I'd appreciate it if your quote attributed that text to Tombstone and not to me. My perspective on socialism is, he would agree, viewed from a different angle than his.
My apologies to both of you.I do not claim to be infallible. There can't be many places where you can confuse a spot with a tombstone and be old off by a spot. Surreal or what.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Scrat wrote: Personally I almost died laughing at Tombstones remark about getting involved and doing something about it.
Granted some Americans may but you had better believe that the money will flow at some point and it will fall apart. Americans are too ignorant too selfish and too scared to do anything about it.
therefore, you are too ignorant, too selfish, and too scared to do anything about it.
Granted some Americans may but you had better believe that the money will flow at some point and it will fall apart. Americans are too ignorant too selfish and too scared to do anything about it.
therefore, you are too ignorant, too selfish, and too scared to do anything about it.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Scrat wrote: Wrong boyo, I have alternatives.
so you're _not_ an american, is that what you're now maintaining? you said it yourself, i was merely verifying your own words.
so you're _not_ an american, is that what you're now maintaining? you said it yourself, i was merely verifying your own words.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Scrat wrote: Personally I almost died laughing at Tombstones remark about getting involved and doing something about it.
Granted some Americans may but you had better believe that the money will flow at some point and it will fall apart. Americans are too ignorant too selfish and too scared to do anything about it. (TEXT ENLARGED by BTS TO SHOW SCATTS IGNORANCEOh 'really.......or O 'Reilly as me great gramps would have said.............
too ignorant too selfish and too scared
I gotta chuckle Scatt. This same issue has been brewing for years. Only the socialists commies in this country who are trying to to take working Americans land......HUH you say.
I am talking about the Ranchers/Farmers here in my country (not yours evidently) who have stood up to this same kind of BS... We have been fighting and winning the Socialist mindset that want to take our land that we (Ranchers/Farmers) own and turn it over to touchy our feely greenies that live amongst us..........
Weird thing is, the land they are trying to take they call "The LAST pristine lands around"......... HUH why is that? "The LAST pristine lands around"
Could it be we cared for and nurtured that land? I'd like think so.
Here you wanna see how ignorant we are?....
Fighting IGNORANT RANCHERS SITE HERE
http://www.rangemagazine.com/
Granted some Americans may but you had better believe that the money will flow at some point and it will fall apart. Americans are too ignorant too selfish and too scared to do anything about it. (TEXT ENLARGED by BTS TO SHOW SCATTS IGNORANCEOh 'really.......or O 'Reilly as me great gramps would have said.............
too ignorant too selfish and too scared
I gotta chuckle Scatt. This same issue has been brewing for years. Only the socialists commies in this country who are trying to to take working Americans land......HUH you say.
I am talking about the Ranchers/Farmers here in my country (not yours evidently) who have stood up to this same kind of BS... We have been fighting and winning the Socialist mindset that want to take our land that we (Ranchers/Farmers) own and turn it over to touchy our feely greenies that live amongst us..........
Weird thing is, the land they are trying to take they call "The LAST pristine lands around"......... HUH why is that? "The LAST pristine lands around"
Could it be we cared for and nurtured that land? I'd like think so.
Here you wanna see how ignorant we are?....
Fighting IGNORANT RANCHERS SITE HERE
http://www.rangemagazine.com/
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
spot wrote: Tombstone looks down on me, for I am lower class. Tombstone looks up to anastrophe, for anastrophe is upper class. Anastrophe and I doesn't even notice each other, for I am too far below him to matter and he is too high above me for my spit to reach. Tombstone himself is middle class, and consequently pays all the taxes.
Ok, this made me laugh until my side hurt. Thanks, Spot. (wry grin)
I'm totally NOT taking sides here; it just appealed to my twisted sense of humor...and I've made a mental note to self to never spit upwards.
Ok, this made me laugh until my side hurt. Thanks, Spot. (wry grin)
I'm totally NOT taking sides here; it just appealed to my twisted sense of humor...and I've made a mental note to self to never spit upwards.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
I spent a LOT of time researching non conforming use last year. It is a legal non conforming use if, at the time of purchase, the use was within the current zoning. There is also a grandfather clause to protect uses that have been in effect for a specified time period (25 years in Canada). The issue seems to be of government declaring a necessary social use. In Canada they can reserve areas for roadways but have to wait for a rezoning application to mark the area reserved. They can't touch anything that is being used in a previously unmarked, unreserved plot.
What are the regs in the US?
What are the regs in the US?
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
In Scotland-thanks to an accident of history, the only form of land tenure is feudal.-no freehold no leasehold just feudal. Mind you if the Royal family ever try and exert their rights I think you would see them gone very fast indeed.
Most of the big estates are in private hands or owned by companies.
Come the revolution what side would you be on?
Most of the big estates are in private hands or owned by companies.
Come the revolution what side would you be on?
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
koan wrote: I spent a LOT of time researching non conforming use last year. It is a legal non conforming use if, at the time of purchase, the use was within the current zoning. There is also a grandfather clause to protect uses that have been in effect for a specified time period (25 years in Canada). The issue seems to be of government declaring a necessary social use. In Canada they can reserve areas for roadways but have to wait for a rezoning application to mark the area reserved. They can't touch anything that is being used in a previously unmarked, unreserved plot.
What are the regs in the US?
I’m no attorney but here is how I understand it.
Here, the law can vary from state to state and even some from local jurisdiction to local jurisdiction within the states. The overriding rule these days comes from “case lawâ€Â. Supreme Court decisions are considered a president that overrides standing laws throughout the country.
If a local law provides for grandfathering (in my understanding some do) and a Supreme Court ruling says imminent domain is determined by each jurisdiction’s governing body, as they see fit. Everyone assumes they would lose in court if they make a contrary decision. The Supreme Court, in effect, legislates because case law is so widely accepted.
Zoning laws here also set aside land for future uses. Even if the land is zoned for a highway or some other public use, it can’t be used unless it has been purchased by the public. Even the new ruling would require the public or the developer to pay a fair market value price for the property. The property would have to be appraised by at least one licensed appraiser (the process usually includes the opinion of several) to determine its value. The public cannot be held up by an individual property owner.
The public is not allowed to pay more than what the property is appraised for. This is probably the biggest motivator for developers to have their projects determined to be in the public’s interest. This way they don’t have to negotiate with a reluctant property owner and end up paying more than appraised value.
What are the regs in the US?
I’m no attorney but here is how I understand it.
Here, the law can vary from state to state and even some from local jurisdiction to local jurisdiction within the states. The overriding rule these days comes from “case lawâ€Â. Supreme Court decisions are considered a president that overrides standing laws throughout the country.
If a local law provides for grandfathering (in my understanding some do) and a Supreme Court ruling says imminent domain is determined by each jurisdiction’s governing body, as they see fit. Everyone assumes they would lose in court if they make a contrary decision. The Supreme Court, in effect, legislates because case law is so widely accepted.
Zoning laws here also set aside land for future uses. Even if the land is zoned for a highway or some other public use, it can’t be used unless it has been purchased by the public. Even the new ruling would require the public or the developer to pay a fair market value price for the property. The property would have to be appraised by at least one licensed appraiser (the process usually includes the opinion of several) to determine its value. The public cannot be held up by an individual property owner.
The public is not allowed to pay more than what the property is appraised for. This is probably the biggest motivator for developers to have their projects determined to be in the public’s interest. This way they don’t have to negotiate with a reluctant property owner and end up paying more than appraised value.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Clint wrote: I’m no attorney but here is how I understand it.
Here, the law can vary from state to state and even some from local jurisdiction to local jurisdiction within the states. The overriding rule these days comes from “case lawâ€Â. Supreme Court decisions are considered a president that overrides standing laws throughout the country.
not intended as a spelling flame - however within the context of the conversation, i think it appropriate to note that i believe you meant 'precedent' rather than 'president'. could confuse those not familiar with our system of government.
Here, the law can vary from state to state and even some from local jurisdiction to local jurisdiction within the states. The overriding rule these days comes from “case lawâ€Â. Supreme Court decisions are considered a president that overrides standing laws throughout the country.
not intended as a spelling flame - however within the context of the conversation, i think it appropriate to note that i believe you meant 'precedent' rather than 'president'. could confuse those not familiar with our system of government.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
anastrophe wrote: not intended as a spelling flame - however within the context of the conversation, i think it appropriate to note that i believe you meant 'precedent' rather than 'president'. could confuse those not familiar with our system of government.
Thank you kind sir, my spelling is not my strength. I knew the difference on that one and it got by me anyway. You are welcome to correct me anytime.
Thank you kind sir, my spelling is not my strength. I knew the difference on that one and it got by me anyway. You are welcome to correct me anytime.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
gmc wrote: posted by tombstone
Tsk tsk. no socialist would tolerate compulsory land purchase for private gain. This doesn't look like a socialist policy, or even one for the commonweal at all it's a pure land grab for private profit. Government dictat at the behest of private industry. Calling it a socialist policy hides the real issue IMO. If you'll excuse a non american offering an opinion.
tsk. tsk. It is not for private profit. Read it again and understand where the money ends up.
Tsk tsk. no socialist would tolerate compulsory land purchase for private gain. This doesn't look like a socialist policy, or even one for the commonweal at all it's a pure land grab for private profit. Government dictat at the behest of private industry. Calling it a socialist policy hides the real issue IMO. If you'll excuse a non american offering an opinion.
tsk. tsk. It is not for private profit. Read it again and understand where the money ends up.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
gmc wrote: posted by tombstone
Tsk tsk. no socialist would tolerate compulsory land purchase for private gain. This doesn't look like a socialist policy, or even one for the commonweal at all it's a pure land grab for private profit. Government dictat at the behest of private industry. Calling it a socialist policy hides the real issue IMO. If you'll excuse a non american offering an opinion.
gmc,
You're missing the point of this ruling then.
Tsk tsk. no socialist would tolerate compulsory land purchase for private gain. This doesn't look like a socialist policy, or even one for the commonweal at all it's a pure land grab for private profit. Government dictat at the behest of private industry. Calling it a socialist policy hides the real issue IMO. If you'll excuse a non american offering an opinion.
gmc,
You're missing the point of this ruling then.
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
spot wrote: So it is, Scrat. GMC, I'd appreciate it if your quote attributed that text to Tombstone and not to me. My perspective on socialism is, he would agree, viewed from a different angle than his.
Tombstone looks down on me, for I am lower class. Tombstone looks up to anastrophe, for anastrophe is upper class. Anastrophe and I doesn't even notice each other, for I am too far below him to matter and he is too high above me for my spit to reach. Tombstone himself is middle class, and consequently pays all the taxes.
This is an interesting response. Have you and I had an online spat that I didn't know about? Or...are you trying to start a fight?
Tombstone looks down on me, for I am lower class. Tombstone looks up to anastrophe, for anastrophe is upper class. Anastrophe and I doesn't even notice each other, for I am too far below him to matter and he is too high above me for my spit to reach. Tombstone himself is middle class, and consequently pays all the taxes.
This is an interesting response. Have you and I had an online spat that I didn't know about? Or...are you trying to start a fight?
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Tombstone wrote: This is an interesting response. Have you and I had an online spat that I didn't know about? Or...are you trying to start a fight?
Forgive him, for he does not know what he is doing.
Spot, taking cheap shots at Tombstone is dangerous.
Forgive him, for he does not know what he is doing.
Spot, taking cheap shots at Tombstone is dangerous.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
posted by cvx
tsk. tsk. It is not for private profit. Read it again and understand where the money ends up.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
So the developers are giving ALL the profit to the community are they? When they knock down your house to build a walmart I trust you will be duly grateful or the opportunity to contribute to the community.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
I'm wary of commenting on US local politics since I know almost nothing about them. But a land grab for private the benefit developers coated in the sugar of being in the public good is still a land grab.
We have similar issues here-London docklands or Clydeside in Glasgow, for example, but there you are talking about industrial areas where the industry no longer exists and are derilict and there were very few private homes in the first place.
posted by tombstone
This is an interesting response. Have you and I had an online spat that I didn't know about? Or...are you trying to start a fight?
It's from a famous satirical comedy sketch about British class distinctions that obviously does not cross the cultural divide. It's actually quite funny but I wll watch with interest if spot tries to explain why it is funny.
tsk. tsk. It is not for private profit. Read it again and understand where the money ends up.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
So the developers are giving ALL the profit to the community are they? When they knock down your house to build a walmart I trust you will be duly grateful or the opportunity to contribute to the community.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
I'm wary of commenting on US local politics since I know almost nothing about them. But a land grab for private the benefit developers coated in the sugar of being in the public good is still a land grab.
We have similar issues here-London docklands or Clydeside in Glasgow, for example, but there you are talking about industrial areas where the industry no longer exists and are derilict and there were very few private homes in the first place.
posted by tombstone
This is an interesting response. Have you and I had an online spat that I didn't know about? Or...are you trying to start a fight?
It's from a famous satirical comedy sketch about British class distinctions that obviously does not cross the cultural divide. It's actually quite funny but I wll watch with interest if spot tries to explain why it is funny.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Tombstone wrote: gmc,
You're missing the point of this ruling then.Here it is, put in a nutshell by Lonsberry:
PROPERTY RIGHTS DIED YESTERDAY
Freedom died yesterday.
The freedom understood and fought for by the Founding Fathers collapsed in a heap, its throat slit by big-government liberals on the Supreme Court.
It was the case of Kelo v. City of New London. It threw the notion of property ownership on the bonfire of history.
And we and our children will live to mourn the day.
It's a simple concept to explain: The government can take away your land and give it to someone else.
Period.
That's what it's about. The five liberal members of the Supreme Court have decided that you have no fundamental right to own property, you may only do so at the whim of the mayor. Or town board or village trustees or county executive. If at any time your local municipal leaders decide that they want your land to be used by someone else, you can kiss it good bye.
The case in question involved a neighborhood in Connecticut. People had lived there a long time, a real long time. It was where they'd been raised and where they'd raised their families. But somebody with big money came in and wanted to bulldoze the homes and put up a hotel. A real swanky hotel. Big, big money.
But the homeowners didn't want to sell.
So the developer went to the city and mentioned how much more tax money would flow in if he had his hotel in place of those homes and the city -- suddenly a fan of big development -- told the homeowners they had to sell. The city used the power of eminent domain -- previously only used to make way for public projects -- to condemn land and evict homeowners so that the developer could get the land.
And the Supreme Court yesterday said that is OK.
The Supreme Court said that the municipal interest in making more money was more important than the private interest in owning property. Government growth is more important than personal liberty.
That declaration, by that court, is a milestone in the decline of American freedom. This is a dramatic and fatal leap into the abyss of governmental oppression.
And it is a repudiation of the Founding Fathers and their belief in the essential nature of property ownership. They believed that the only truly free person was the person who was free to own and bequeth property. It was essential to their understanding and definition of freedom. This was based in the experience of generations in Europe, often in situations where property was only used with the permission of a prince or king.
One of the appeals of emigration to America was the ability to own land -- not just because it was available, but because it was allowed. In America, anyone who could pay a mortgage or stake a claim could be a landowner -- he could create his own little kingdom, him home could be his castle.
But that is over now. At any point a majority of members of your village board or city council -- or the mayor -- decide that they want to use your land for something, you're gone. Period. If they decide -- on criterion of their own selection -- that the government would be better off if you were displaced, you are displaced.
Think this through.
Say your family has had a little cottage on a lake for years and years. Just a tiny thing your grandfather built for summer weekends. Let's say a developer comes in and wants to put up some giant rich-guy mansion on that land. All that developer has to do is go to the town board and explain that his development will pay far more in taxes and be far better for economic development than your family cottage. At that point your land is condemned, you will be paid a "market rate" and the bulldozers will come in.
And to hell with your right to own land.
Same thing happens if you're a farmer and some developer wants to put in a sub-division on your land. You don't want to sell, you want to keep farming, your family's owned this land for generations. Well, you're screwed. A sub-division pays much more in taxes, and helps economic growth, and the local idiots on the city council can take your farm without blinking an eye.
Say you've had a little gas station on the corner of a busy intersection for years. It's how you make your living. All the traffic supplies you a steady stream of customers. You've got a good location. Under this new ruling, some other business can come in and have you thrown off. Say it's a bigger gas station, or a nicer one, or if it's an office complex or a big restaurant, or anything city hall thinks is better or more lucrative than your business. You can, against your will, have your property taken from you. Sure, you get paid, what they decide is fair, but your business goes out of business. Your livelihood is gone.
Your neighborhood could be wiped out by plans for a shopping mall, your old home could be demolished to make way for someone else's new home, your dream could be destroyed to further the government's profit.
Your village or town board, your city council, your county executive or city mayor, controls the ownership of all the property in your town. So you better not tick them off, and you better hope that no screwballs run for office and win. You better hope that the developers don't pack the boards and you better hope that these "smart growth" people don't take over.
Smart growth? That's the thing where Democrats want to control all development centrally, limiting where people can live and how many roads will be built. It is a subversion of live-where-you-want-to-live into live-where-we-tell-you. This ruling gives those central planners the authority to impose smart growth, not just going forward through zoning, but retroactively through the condemning of property.
Simply put, your home is your home only as long as the government says its your home.
But the moment somebody with pull covets your home, business or property, it's gone.
You do not have the right to own property. Not after yesterday.
It went away.
The Fifth Amendment says "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Nowhere in there does it authorize the taking of private property for private use. The Constitution doesn't authorize it, but now the Supreme Court does.
Which makes two things very important: Who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
And the Second Amendment.
- by Bob Lonsberry © 2005
You're missing the point of this ruling then.Here it is, put in a nutshell by Lonsberry:
PROPERTY RIGHTS DIED YESTERDAY
Freedom died yesterday.
The freedom understood and fought for by the Founding Fathers collapsed in a heap, its throat slit by big-government liberals on the Supreme Court.
It was the case of Kelo v. City of New London. It threw the notion of property ownership on the bonfire of history.
And we and our children will live to mourn the day.
It's a simple concept to explain: The government can take away your land and give it to someone else.
Period.
That's what it's about. The five liberal members of the Supreme Court have decided that you have no fundamental right to own property, you may only do so at the whim of the mayor. Or town board or village trustees or county executive. If at any time your local municipal leaders decide that they want your land to be used by someone else, you can kiss it good bye.
The case in question involved a neighborhood in Connecticut. People had lived there a long time, a real long time. It was where they'd been raised and where they'd raised their families. But somebody with big money came in and wanted to bulldoze the homes and put up a hotel. A real swanky hotel. Big, big money.
But the homeowners didn't want to sell.
So the developer went to the city and mentioned how much more tax money would flow in if he had his hotel in place of those homes and the city -- suddenly a fan of big development -- told the homeowners they had to sell. The city used the power of eminent domain -- previously only used to make way for public projects -- to condemn land and evict homeowners so that the developer could get the land.
And the Supreme Court yesterday said that is OK.
The Supreme Court said that the municipal interest in making more money was more important than the private interest in owning property. Government growth is more important than personal liberty.
That declaration, by that court, is a milestone in the decline of American freedom. This is a dramatic and fatal leap into the abyss of governmental oppression.
And it is a repudiation of the Founding Fathers and their belief in the essential nature of property ownership. They believed that the only truly free person was the person who was free to own and bequeth property. It was essential to their understanding and definition of freedom. This was based in the experience of generations in Europe, often in situations where property was only used with the permission of a prince or king.
One of the appeals of emigration to America was the ability to own land -- not just because it was available, but because it was allowed. In America, anyone who could pay a mortgage or stake a claim could be a landowner -- he could create his own little kingdom, him home could be his castle.
But that is over now. At any point a majority of members of your village board or city council -- or the mayor -- decide that they want to use your land for something, you're gone. Period. If they decide -- on criterion of their own selection -- that the government would be better off if you were displaced, you are displaced.
Think this through.
Say your family has had a little cottage on a lake for years and years. Just a tiny thing your grandfather built for summer weekends. Let's say a developer comes in and wants to put up some giant rich-guy mansion on that land. All that developer has to do is go to the town board and explain that his development will pay far more in taxes and be far better for economic development than your family cottage. At that point your land is condemned, you will be paid a "market rate" and the bulldozers will come in.
And to hell with your right to own land.
Same thing happens if you're a farmer and some developer wants to put in a sub-division on your land. You don't want to sell, you want to keep farming, your family's owned this land for generations. Well, you're screwed. A sub-division pays much more in taxes, and helps economic growth, and the local idiots on the city council can take your farm without blinking an eye.
Say you've had a little gas station on the corner of a busy intersection for years. It's how you make your living. All the traffic supplies you a steady stream of customers. You've got a good location. Under this new ruling, some other business can come in and have you thrown off. Say it's a bigger gas station, or a nicer one, or if it's an office complex or a big restaurant, or anything city hall thinks is better or more lucrative than your business. You can, against your will, have your property taken from you. Sure, you get paid, what they decide is fair, but your business goes out of business. Your livelihood is gone.
Your neighborhood could be wiped out by plans for a shopping mall, your old home could be demolished to make way for someone else's new home, your dream could be destroyed to further the government's profit.
Your village or town board, your city council, your county executive or city mayor, controls the ownership of all the property in your town. So you better not tick them off, and you better hope that no screwballs run for office and win. You better hope that the developers don't pack the boards and you better hope that these "smart growth" people don't take over.
Smart growth? That's the thing where Democrats want to control all development centrally, limiting where people can live and how many roads will be built. It is a subversion of live-where-you-want-to-live into live-where-we-tell-you. This ruling gives those central planners the authority to impose smart growth, not just going forward through zoning, but retroactively through the condemning of property.
Simply put, your home is your home only as long as the government says its your home.
But the moment somebody with pull covets your home, business or property, it's gone.
You do not have the right to own property. Not after yesterday.
It went away.
The Fifth Amendment says "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Nowhere in there does it authorize the taking of private property for private use. The Constitution doesn't authorize it, but now the Supreme Court does.
Which makes two things very important: Who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
And the Second Amendment.
- by Bob Lonsberry © 2005
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
a president that overrides standing laws throughout the country.
Sorry, but the sheer irony of this spelling error made me laugh!!! :wah:
Sorry, but the sheer irony of this spelling error made me laugh!!! :wah:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Clint wrote: You had better get into the fray Tombstone. That decision is wrong in so many ways it makes my head swim. I’ve spent a lot of years working for city government. I’ve worked through a lot of these development issues. The one thing I was always thankful of , was that property ownership, when it came to development, was between the property owners. I never wished I could get involved.
I went to condemnation once and that was to build a flood control dike and tide gate. It was clearly an issue of a property owner standing in the way of something the community needed.
I cannot believe this. They have lost the bubble.
Apparently my layman's definition of condemnable property is off. Do you mean the land was liveable and otherwise useable but not what "the community needed"?
I ask because this is exactly what New London did, as I see it. I mean, the community needed the extra income, didn't it?
I went to condemnation once and that was to build a flood control dike and tide gate. It was clearly an issue of a property owner standing in the way of something the community needed.
I cannot believe this. They have lost the bubble.
Apparently my layman's definition of condemnable property is off. Do you mean the land was liveable and otherwise useable but not what "the community needed"?
I ask because this is exactly what New London did, as I see it. I mean, the community needed the extra income, didn't it?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
:-5 The thing that kills me is the amazing lack of coverage this story is getting in the press.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... vol=04-108
Here is the complete decision - all 58 pages. :yh_glasse
When a government can take a citizen's property against his will, simply by being labeled an "unwilling owner," the citizen was never the owner to begin with.
I swear I feel like I wasted 21 years serving the Air Force.
Here is the complete decision - all 58 pages. :yh_glasse
When a government can take a citizen's property against his will, simply by being labeled an "unwilling owner," the citizen was never the owner to begin with.
I swear I feel like I wasted 21 years serving the Air Force.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Accountable wrote: Apparently my layman's definition of condemnable property is off. Do you mean the land was liveable and otherwise useable but not what "the community needed"?
I ask because this is exactly what New London did, as I see it. I mean, the community needed the extra income, didn't it?
If I understand your question correctly, the land was vacant land that probably could never have been built on. It was where a flood control dike and tide gate needed to be constructed. The property owner wanted an outrageous price for the property. Because the project was for the community good (to keep homes and business from being flooded) the property owner was forced to sell for fair market value, as determined by licensed appraisers.
In the past this has been a process that local government stays away from unless it is the last resort and for what is clearly a public NEED. Now developers will be buying local officials (happens all the time) to get their projects built, even if a private property that is being occupied by the owner is involved. Developers can be ruthless when they smell cash. They are all for the right to own property as long as they are the ones that get to own it. I’ve seen them fund campaigns and ruin good people to completely replace local elected officials with ones that will make zoning laws that will maximize their profits.
I ask because this is exactly what New London did, as I see it. I mean, the community needed the extra income, didn't it?
If I understand your question correctly, the land was vacant land that probably could never have been built on. It was where a flood control dike and tide gate needed to be constructed. The property owner wanted an outrageous price for the property. Because the project was for the community good (to keep homes and business from being flooded) the property owner was forced to sell for fair market value, as determined by licensed appraisers.
In the past this has been a process that local government stays away from unless it is the last resort and for what is clearly a public NEED. Now developers will be buying local officials (happens all the time) to get their projects built, even if a private property that is being occupied by the owner is involved. Developers can be ruthless when they smell cash. They are all for the right to own property as long as they are the ones that get to own it. I’ve seen them fund campaigns and ruin good people to completely replace local elected officials with ones that will make zoning laws that will maximize their profits.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
turbonium wrote: Sorry, but the sheer irony of this spelling error made me laugh!!! :wah:
My pleasure. :-5
My pleasure. :-5
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Scrat wrote:
As for the politicos, I think we need to start hanging those greedy bastards.
That is, after all, the only thing wrong with politics ... politicians.
As for the politicos, I think we need to start hanging those greedy bastards.
That is, after all, the only thing wrong with politics ... politicians.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Did we all forget that politicians were once normal people such as ourselves? I don't blame them, I blame the ever increasing power of the rich in America. Sure it's the land of opportuity, but when 5% of the population controls 90% of the money, things can get bad like this....
As a matter of fact, the last time that happened, a lot of rich French dudes lost their heads.
But seriously, I'm actually glad that a bunch of new houses have been built around me in my neighborhood. I live close to the shooping district and I was worried my little pocket of a valley might be annexed for just this kind of thing. But now, I'm not worried because doing that would literally mean relocating a small city.
Whew!
As a matter of fact, the last time that happened, a lot of rich French dudes lost their heads.
But seriously, I'm actually glad that a bunch of new houses have been built around me in my neighborhood. I live close to the shooping district and I was worried my little pocket of a valley might be annexed for just this kind of thing. But now, I'm not worried because doing that would literally mean relocating a small city.
Whew!
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Let's not forget that the rich were once normal people such as ourselves, too.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Your rich may have been, Accountable. Ours are inbred chinless wonders, culminating in such wonderful examples of idiocy as our Head of State in Waiting, whose glorified style is "His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Great Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Lord of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty.".
With twaddle like that in the land, money is just a bonus.
With twaddle like that in the land, money is just a bonus.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
gmc wrote: posted by tombstone
Tsk tsk. no socialist would tolerate compulsory land purchase for private gain. This doesn't look like a socialist policy, or even one for the commonweal at all it's a pure land grab for private profit. Government dictat at the behest of private industry. Calling it a socialist policy hides the real issue IMO. If you'll excuse a non american offering an opinion.
gmc,
My socialism comment was made in the context of this current event. This is a forcible redistribution of wealth only made possible by local government authority.
The decisions are made by the authoritarian body: the local government. The private profit argument is a side-show and a distraction.
The motivation is the ability for the government to get more taxes to fund the government bureaucracy. The vehicle to do this through large companies or development projects.
So, excuse an American for not understanding why you Brits argue against property rights so fervently and why this decision is only seen at one level (the "evil rich" companies) when the real issue is the government's gleeful enabling of private parties to take other people's property in order to line their municipal pockets?
Tsk tsk. no socialist would tolerate compulsory land purchase for private gain. This doesn't look like a socialist policy, or even one for the commonweal at all it's a pure land grab for private profit. Government dictat at the behest of private industry. Calling it a socialist policy hides the real issue IMO. If you'll excuse a non american offering an opinion.
gmc,
My socialism comment was made in the context of this current event. This is a forcible redistribution of wealth only made possible by local government authority.
The decisions are made by the authoritarian body: the local government. The private profit argument is a side-show and a distraction.
The motivation is the ability for the government to get more taxes to fund the government bureaucracy. The vehicle to do this through large companies or development projects.
So, excuse an American for not understanding why you Brits argue against property rights so fervently and why this decision is only seen at one level (the "evil rich" companies) when the real issue is the government's gleeful enabling of private parties to take other people's property in order to line their municipal pockets?
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Accountable wrote: :-5 The thing that kills me is the amazing lack of coverage this story is getting in the press.
I agree. It's a big topic on the radio - but I'm not seeing much in the press.
I agree. It's a big topic on the radio - but I'm not seeing much in the press.
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Tombstone wrote: gmc,
My socialism comment was made in the context of this current event. This is a forcible redistribution of wealth only made possible by local government authority.
The decisions are made by the authoritarian body: the local government. The private profit argument is a side-show and a distraction.
The motivation is the ability for the government to get more taxes to fund the government bureaucracy. The vehicle to do this through large companies or development projects.
So, excuse an American for not understanding why you Brits argue against property rights so fervently and why this decision is only seen at one level (the "evil rich" companies) when the real issue is the government's gleeful enabling of private parties to take other people's property in order to line their municipal pockets?
You speak of the local municipality as though those who are elected and appointed somehow end up with tax money in their private pockets. How is that? I’ve seen what was apparent bribing and big money buying elections for control but only one instance where local public officials gained personally from increased taxes.
My socialism comment was made in the context of this current event. This is a forcible redistribution of wealth only made possible by local government authority.
The decisions are made by the authoritarian body: the local government. The private profit argument is a side-show and a distraction.
The motivation is the ability for the government to get more taxes to fund the government bureaucracy. The vehicle to do this through large companies or development projects.
So, excuse an American for not understanding why you Brits argue against property rights so fervently and why this decision is only seen at one level (the "evil rich" companies) when the real issue is the government's gleeful enabling of private parties to take other people's property in order to line their municipal pockets?
You speak of the local municipality as though those who are elected and appointed somehow end up with tax money in their private pockets. How is that? I’ve seen what was apparent bribing and big money buying elections for control but only one instance where local public officials gained personally from increased taxes.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
This is interesting..........
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Press Release
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
More: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Press Release
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
More: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Clint wrote: You speak of the local municipality as though those who are elected and appointed somehow end up with tax money in their private pockets. How is that? I’ve seen what was apparent bribing and big money buying elections for control but only one instance where local public officials gained personally from increased taxes.
No, not their personal pockets, but the government's pocket. My basic argument is that we have plenty of money going to our government. (Excise taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, permits, fees, licensing, etc.)
I just don't like the ever growing government presence both in our lives and our pocketbooks.
They've now found a way to raise additional money for their "programs" by using this neat new land grab trick.
No, not their personal pockets, but the government's pocket. My basic argument is that we have plenty of money going to our government. (Excise taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, permits, fees, licensing, etc.)
I just don't like the ever growing government presence both in our lives and our pocketbooks.
They've now found a way to raise additional money for their "programs" by using this neat new land grab trick.
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Clint wrote: This is interesting..........
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Press Release
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
More: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Very interesting. I wonder if Souter voted this way to make money on this transaction?
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Press Release
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
More: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Very interesting. I wonder if Souter voted this way to make money on this transaction?
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.