| Author |
Message |
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
 Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:33 pm High court OKs personal property seizures |
|
| Quote: | High court OKs personal property seizures
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/scotus.property.ap/index.html |
Another win for big Businesses over the little people. What is the US coming to?
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:39 pm |
|
I dont like this at all. People are haveing their homes taken from them, so the rich have a better office to work in
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:41 pm |
|
I don't like it either. Well the world is getting more greedier.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:45 pm |
|
I don't think it's a win for the businesses--I think it's a win for government. It gives them MUCH TOO MUCH control. It goes against the flipping 5th Amendment on the FOUNDER'S constitution, not this Liberal one that we are receiving.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:22 pm |
|
The homes weren't blighted and these people are getting thrown out some some office buildings and such can get put up in thier place.
Also, this gives the local governments, who are given contributions by businesses, the right to seize land when they want.
It's a win for business, not the government.
| The Bill of Rights wrote: | Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. |
-------signature-------
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"A man's respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck." Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:28 pm |
|
It's very *beep*. Glad I live in a very very very veeeeery rural area that should be safe for awhile.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:43 am |
|
That's *beep*. Talk about un-American  .
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:01 am |
|
This is stupid. Businesses shouldn't have the power to disrupt people's lives like this. If the houses were falling down, or a new school needed to be built, I could understand it. But for facilities for rich people? Whatever happened to the land of the free?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:38 am |
|
I've heard about this, and I read the article! I see it as more of a win for advocates of greater government control, NOT businesses! And NOT rich people! The businesses aren't going in and doing this--the government is.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:45 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I've heard about this, and I read the article! I see it as more of a win for advocates of greater government control, NOT businesses! And NOT rich people! The businesses aren't going in and doing this--the government is. |
It's both. The government ultimately has the power to seize land, but the businesses are the ones with enough money and influence to bribe government officials into seizing land that benefits their business. 
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:39 pm |
|
It's not that they have to bribe them. Businesses just have to prove that by building there they can generate taxable income.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:52 pm |
|
I'm suprised anyone is suprised by this. Private property (as in land) ownership has ALWAYS been at the forbearance of the government, and anybody who didn't already know that is a fool.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:39 pm |
|
yes, That is know as you can see by looking up at the bolded part of the Fifth Amendment that I posted.
It's more the fact that now it's local governments, not state or federal that can do it. Which means businesses can go and ask for prime real estate and they may get it no matter if it displaces numerous amounts of people.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:19 pm |
|
| Quote: | | The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
I dunno. I think the constitution is pretty clear here. Maybe the supreme court just didn't see it as "unreasonable". I would though.
Another win for big government. I wouldn't say big business is a winner here, they're as vulnerable (if not more so) as anyone now.
Now lets say... Greenpeace wanted to shut down a lumber company, they could bribe government the same way anyone could. It's not just big business, any organzation can bribe someone. Fact is, this is all about big government, without big government to interfere, big organizations don't have anyone to bribe. (If that's what you're worried about)
Frankly, i'd be more worried that some bonehead communist would try some kind of government land grab stunt, and seize your house as some nature preserve to save an endangered parasite or something.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:22 pm |
|
| Quote: | States Mobilize Against Property Ruling
By MAURA KELLY LANNAN, AP
CHICAGO (July 19) - Alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes and turning the property over to developers, lawmakers in at least half the states are rushing to blunt last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain.
In Texas and California, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments to bar government from taking private property for economic development. Politicians in Alabama, South Dakota and Virginia likewise hope to curtail government's ability to condemn land.
Even in states like Illinois - one of at least eight that already forbid eminent domain for economic development unless the purpose is to eliminate blight - lawmakers are proposing to make it even tougher to use the procedure.
"People I've never heard from before came out of the woodwork and were just so agitated," said Illinois state Sen. Susan Garrett, a Democrat. "People feel that it's a threat to their personal property, and that has hit a chord."
The Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Connecticut case that was decided by the Supreme Court, said at least 25 states are considering changes to eminent domain laws.
The Constitution says governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Governments have traditionally used their eminent domain authority to build roads, reservoirs and other public projects. But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., had the authority to take homes for a private development project. But in its ruling, the court noted that states are free to ban that practice - an invitation lawmakers are accepting in response to a flood of e-mails, phone calls and letters from anxious constituents.
"The Supreme Court's decision told homeowners and business owners everywhere that there's now a big `Up for Grabs' sign on their front lawn," said Dana Berliner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. "Before this, people just didn't realize that they could lose their home or their family's business because some other person would pay more taxes on the same land. People are unbelievably upset."
Don Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, which backed New London in its appeal to the high court, said government's eminent domain power is important for revitalizing neighborhoods. He said any changes to state law should be done after careful reflection.
"There's a rush to respond to the emotional impact. Our view is, step back, let's look at the issue in the broadest sense and if there are changes that are reflected upon, that's appropriate," he said.
In Alabama, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is drawing up a bill that would prohibit city and county governments from using eminent domain to take property for retail, office or residential development. It would still allow property to be taken for industrial development, such as new factories, and for roads and schools.
In Connecticut, politicians want to slap a moratorium on the use of eminent domain by municipalities until the Legislature can act.
One critic of the ruling has suggested local officials take over Supreme Court Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel. Souter voted with the majority in the Connecticut case.
Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, *Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the taking of private property for economic development except to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly on the question.
Illinois state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger, a Republican who is considering a run for governor, said the state's blight laws need to be more restrictive.
"The statutory definition of blight in Illinois is broader than the Mississippi River at its mouth," he said. "They have taken everything from underdeveloped lakefront property to open green-grass farmfields as being defined as blighted."
Action also is taking place at the federal level, where a proposal would ban the use of federal funds for any project moving forward because of the Supreme Court decision. And the Institute for Justice said it will ask the Supreme Court to rehear the New London case, but acknowledged that the prospects of that happening are dim.
"One of the things, I think, that is elemental to American freedom is the right to have and hold private property and not to interfere with that right," Rauschenberger said. "For Americans, it's like the boot on the door. You can't kick in the door and come in my house unless I invite you."
07/19/05 13:56 EDT
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press
|
*Total yay.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:33 pm |
|
I'm totally surprised that California's one of the first, but I like it. This is EXCELLENT news. I hope Colorado's soon.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
