| Mando |
Oh man....this is scary!
---------------
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities
Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
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.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
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, Connecticut, 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.
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.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"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."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/s...y.ap/index.html |
|
|
| nightguy |
I was just about to post this. This is a big deal. The high court just voted to encourage local government corruption. I know somebody that's been sitting on property they've been offered money for for many years and they don't want to move. They'll almost certainly have to now. The 5-4 vote is slightly encouraging to me - maybe there's a chance they'll revisit this.
I'm curious what LL thinks.... |
|
|
| Warzau |
I think this sucks!
It's one thing for PUBLIC reasons, meaning expanding highways to ease congestions. BUT another for private corps. What a bunch of crap. What's next if someone has enough money and likes you house they can buy it from under you. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
There has always been a constant battle to balance the rights of property owners against towns that want to develop certain areas. Should the rights of a few hinder the progress for an entire community.
Basically, the Court has left it up to your local officials, whom you elect, to make the decisions. You place those officials into office are are to blame for their choices.
The decision does smell of a pro business and the fact that O'Connor sided with the dissent also tells me something. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
There has always been a constant battle to balance the rights of property owners against towns that want to develop certain areas. Should the rights of a few hinder the progress for an entire community.
Basically, the Court has left it up to your local officials, whom you elect, to make the decisions. You place those officials into office are are to blame for their choices.
The decision does smell of a pro business and the fact that O'Connor sided with the dissent also tells me something.
Sounds to me like there were only 4 conservative justices on this ruling. Maybe time to get this court a little more conservative and less into the redefining of the constitution.
G |
|
|
| Blackura |
I'm not at all surprized. This trend has been so blatantly obvious for the past four + years. And thanks to what they see as a mandate/ landslide, you can look forward to lots more of this in years to come. More for the ultra rich, less for you and me.
I was a fairly conservative republican for most of my life, but saw a very ugly trend growing in the party in the 90s and now I'm independent. Its very scary. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by Blackura
I'm not at all surprized. This trend has been so blatantly obvious for the past four + years. And thanks to what they see as a mandate/ landslide, you can look forward to lots more of this in years to come. More for the ultra rich, less for you and me.
I was a fairly conservative republican for most of my life, but saw a very ugly trend growing in the party in the 90s and now I'm independent. Its very scary.
I think you got this backward. If you will look at which justice voted which way you will see that the truly conservatives justices voted for the property rights of owners. It was the liberal justices and marginal conservatives that voted for big government and the socializing of society.
G |
|
|
| Blackura |
Say I'm a local pol and I decide for some reason I don't like you. I can now take your house, the one your family has grown up in for 100+ years, give you a low price and then sell to to a big corporate developer. He gets fabulously rich, you're screwed and homeless. That's what I mean.
It's happening right now in New England. Families out, big developers in. Family values my ass. Compassionate conservatism my ass. Just follow the money and the motivation becomes ever clear.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm fearful of what this country is becomming. Conservative used to mean small gov't, supporting the bill of rights, lower taxes, no deficits, state's rights, honesty, liberty and justice for all. Obviously, things have changed mightily. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
It's a little harder than that to exert eminent domain. The decision does keep the federal folks out of our backyards.
What it really requires is a participation in local government. |
|
|
| nightguy |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
It's a little harder than that to exert eminent domain. The decision does keep the federal folks out of our backyards.
What it really requires is a participation in local government.
I live in a city where there has been corruption on the city council. My concern is how many of these bribes don't get found out. |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by Blackura
I'm not at all surprized. This trend has been so blatantly obvious for the past four + years. And thanks to what they see as a mandate/ landslide, you can look forward to lots more of this in years to come. More for the ultra rich, less for you and me.
I was a fairly conservative republican for most of my life, but saw a very ugly trend growing in the party in the 90s and now I'm independent. Its very scary.
The only problem with your statement is that the liberal members of the court were the ones who sided with this issue. Property rights is a traditionally conservative issue. You may need to re examine your opinions. |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by Blackura
Say I'm a local pol and I decide for some reason I don't like you. I can now take your house, the one your family has grown up in for 100+ years, give you a low price and then sell to to a big corporate developer. He gets fabulously rich, you're screwed and homeless. That's what I mean.
It's happening right now in New England. Families out, big developers in. Family values my ass. Compassionate conservatism my ass. Just follow the money and the motivation becomes ever clear.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm fearful of what this country is becomming. Conservative used to mean small gov't, supporting the bill of rights, lower taxes, no deficits, state's rights, honesty, liberty and justice for all. Obviously, things have changed mightily.
You still do not get it, do you? Libs sided with this sham, not the conservatives. Please research the issue more before sounding like an uninformed liberal ideologue. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
keremoner, I think the problem here is that we have a liberal, Blackura, here pretending to be a conservative. He wants to use this an an excuse to fling dirt at the administration, He also pretends not to know the difference between the administration and the Suprme Court.
G |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
keremoner, I think the problem here is that we have a liberal, Blackura, here pretending to be a conservative. He wants to use this an an excuse to fling dirt at the administration, He also pretends not to know the difference between the administration and the Suprme Court.
G
Well said. Another wolf in sheep's skin.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Mr. Mom |
| Under California law, a redevelopment agency may condemn property only in a "blighted area." At least eight other states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — have put similar restrictions on city redevelopment agencies. |
|
|
| Mando |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mom
Under California law, a redevelopment agency may condemn property only in a "blighted area." At least eight other states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — have put similar restrictions on city redevelopment agencies.
Mr. Mom - do you have any URLs that you can post that have info on this?
Thx! |
|
|
| Blackura |
Mea culpa
Sorry if my tone was a bit rough this morning when I posted. I read this wrong and I was tired, cranky and ticked off. My apologies to anybody I've offended. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
How come whenever an individual speaks out for or against an issue, we quickly try to pidgeon hole them into an ideology.
Is it possible that a Republican can have differences with his own party?! God forbid. Problem with this country today is that we are so left/right oriented rather than calling a spade a spade.
As for the issue on eminent domain, I actually have to side with Thomas and Scalia on this debate. At its worst, I allows private land to be transferred to privately owned developers. |
|
|
| Blackura |
| Yeah, I was definitely having an "off" day yesterday, but I still find it absolutely amazing that I agreed with the opinions of O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia and still got labeled a liberal. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by Blackura
Yeah, I was definitely having an "off" day yesterday, but I still find it absolutely amazing that I agreed with the opinions of O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia and still got labeled a liberal.
When one blames one party and/or administration for problems it is usually out of frustration, totally understandable.
When one defends an action, it is usually out of favortism.
In reality, the truth is somewhere in-between. This country runs as a 2 party system regardless of who is in the white house. Unfortunately a downside of such a system is providing politicians opportunities to deflect responsibility when there is a problem. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by DaleB
When one blames one party and/or administration for problems it is usually out of frustration, totally understandable.
When one defends the same, it is usually out of favortism.
In reality, the truth is somewhere in-between. This country runs as a 2 party system regardless of who is in the white house. Unfortunately a downside of such a system is providing politicians opportunities to deflect responsibility when there is a problem.
Sorry Pete. The way that I read your replies indicated that you were trying to blame the current administration for the errors in judgement of the liberal leaning Supreme Court ruling.
G |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
Sorry Pete. The way that I read your replies indicated that you were trying to blame the current administration for the errors in judgement of the liberal leaning Supreme Court ruling.
G
I was only expressing my perspective on ANY political situation. I did not intend to justify one positon or the other. I edited my quote more accurately, I hope.
And I was talking about politicians doing the defelctions :) |
|
|
| Mr. Mom |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
Sorry Pete. The way that I read your replies indicated that you were trying to blame the current administration for the errors in judgement of the liberal leaning Supreme Court ruling.
G
I think one can figure out which way your chad hung.:) |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
| You see, we can have sensible arguments regarding politics. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
You see, we can have sensible arguments regarding politics.
Not only that, but when you express your opinion there are those more than willing to jump in and 2nd guess your motivation. How can it get any easier? :) |
|
|
| Blackura |
Hey, no problem, G. By now, I'm used to it. No offense taken.
Most of my friends bash me for being too conservative, but around here I get slapped with the L word just because I am no fan of W et al. |
|
|
| xfactor |
quote:
Originally posted by Blackura
Hey, no problem, G. By now, I'm used to it. No offense taken.
Most of my friends bash me for being too conservative, but around here I get slapped with the L word just because I am no fan of W et al.
I understand your point... the obsolete ideological labels are useless these days. The extremists's logic in both camps baffles me to no end...:confused: |
|
|
| nightguy |
quote:
Originally posted by csimo
Please, please, PLEASE, let it come true! I would contribute!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=45029
-Joe
Sounds good to me. Need to change the cafe to "Just Deserts" though. :) There is still the issue of zoning.
Does Souter actually live there ? I would think they might make this guy's life a living hell for pointing out the exact address. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
I will be glad to invest in the project.
G |
|
|
| XStatic |
| Strong Foundation |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
And now one of the four judges that voted dissened is retiring. Let us hope that her replacement stands up for the Constitution like she did.
G |
|
|
|
