Cities can now take your homes
6/23/05, 11:33 PM
#1
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 26, 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yahoo news posted this. Heres the link for those who don't want to read this whole thing:
Cities can take your homes
WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.
"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.
The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.
At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. 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.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."
New London once was a center for 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 including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices 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.
Cities can take your homes
WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.
"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.
The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.
At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. 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.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."
New London once was a center for 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 including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices 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.
6/24/05, 04:23 AM
#3
GTR Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,749
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
They can do that over here, but not for economic reasons. The regularly compulsory purchase houses to demolish them and build roads (or runways as my local airport did....).
Also, the government can demolish houses for urban regeneration, i.e. to get rid of the old tenement houses to make way for more modern dwellings.
It is ludacrous that they can take you home because they want to build a mall though.....
Also, the government can demolish houses for urban regeneration, i.e. to get rid of the old tenement houses to make way for more modern dwellings.
It is ludacrous that they can take you home because they want to build a mall though.....
6/24/05, 09:44 AM
#4
Shelby GT500 Member
The abuse of Eminent Domain was something I was always against. Over here they already have bulldozed homes for a mall and Walmart. Even more recently, they're about to do it for the new Dallas Cowboy Stadium.
I was totally disappointed, nay, peeved at the courts decision. I only see this as one less right for the private individual.
I was totally disappointed, nay, peeved at the courts decision. I only see this as one less right for the private individual.
6/24/05, 10:46 PM
#6
I lust for a M24
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Football HOF, Canton OH
Posts: 7,045
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Horrible, Horrible Ruling! How can you be a Supreme Court Judge and not understand a fundamental principal in the United States Constitution? I mean, come on, have lawyers screwed up this country this bad? No offense to lawyers, but to argue that increasing tax revenue is a better public use of private property is downright wrong. It's undermining the principals of this country. Now everyone's home can be in jeopardy. Think it's not true? It is. If your neighborhood is a well kept, middle class neighborhood and a private developer wants it... it's gone. All's they have to prove now is that the Wal-Mart, mall, office complex, etc will bring in higher tax dollars and you might as well start packing. It's a complete load of B.S.! Like the extra land you bought around your house? If a contractor decides that putting homes on it will increase it's value you better prepare to meet your new neighbors. Load of Crap!
And all this crap the Democrats are pulling with the judicial fillibusters is helping to contribute to this problem (not a flame). The best hope to overturn this aweful ruling is to be able to put consertive judges on the bench to help right this horrible wrong. The worst part is that there's no guarantee that Bush's nominations would do any different. Let's face it, he's not a small government guy either.
AAARRH! Public use was ment for Schools, Police Stations, Roads, etc... Clear public use! I'm not a Constitutional expert (I went to government schools too), but isn't there something in the Constitution about the private citizen's right to property? Maybe I'm wrong, anyone know?
How about Congress quits worrying about saving the Flag and instead saving the Constitution?
Sorry, rant over. Let me go put my Flame Suit on.
And all this crap the Democrats are pulling with the judicial fillibusters is helping to contribute to this problem (not a flame). The best hope to overturn this aweful ruling is to be able to put consertive judges on the bench to help right this horrible wrong. The worst part is that there's no guarantee that Bush's nominations would do any different. Let's face it, he's not a small government guy either.
AAARRH! Public use was ment for Schools, Police Stations, Roads, etc... Clear public use! I'm not a Constitutional expert (I went to government schools too), but isn't there something in the Constitution about the private citizen's right to property? Maybe I'm wrong, anyone know?
How about Congress quits worrying about saving the Flag and instead saving the Constitution?
Sorry, rant over. Let me go put my Flame Suit on.
6/24/05, 11:04 PM
#7
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
Welcome to america where your rights are dwindeling by the moment.
Wonder what the government will take away from us next?
OUr slogan of "land of the free" is rapidly falling to peices
Wonder what the government will take away from us next?
OUr slogan of "land of the free" is rapidly falling to peices
6/24/05, 11:11 PM
#8
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 26, 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Constitution
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
My question is this. What "just compensation" are they referring to? Because the defination of "just compensation" can be interrupted in man ways. I mean how do you put a price on an old couples farm where they have lived for 50 years & raised children & grandchildren? I don't think there is a compensation just enough for something like that. It's ALL a political game to the people in the government.
BTW ~ 05GT-O.C.D. ~ No offence taken. Although I am not a lawyer yet, nor am I currently working toward that I would like to in a few years after I get my life together. I'm only 23 so I figure I have alittle time. But I do tend to agree with you.
But I don't think I will be meeting any new neighbors anytime soon. As long as I am as sturbborn as I am & have an endless supply of sugar & sledge hammers. I think I have the upper hand when they come to develope my land
.
Also mobster~ I'm with you. Just tell me when & where to meet for the throwing.
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
My question is this. What "just compensation" are they referring to? Because the defination of "just compensation" can be interrupted in man ways. I mean how do you put a price on an old couples farm where they have lived for 50 years & raised children & grandchildren? I don't think there is a compensation just enough for something like that. It's ALL a political game to the people in the government.
BTW ~ 05GT-O.C.D. ~ No offence taken. Although I am not a lawyer yet, nor am I currently working toward that I would like to in a few years after I get my life together. I'm only 23 so I figure I have alittle time. But I do tend to agree with you.
But I don't think I will be meeting any new neighbors anytime soon. As long as I am as sturbborn as I am & have an endless supply of sugar & sledge hammers. I think I have the upper hand when they come to develope my land
.Also mobster~ I'm with you. Just tell me when & where to meet for the throwing.
6/24/05, 11:15 PM
#9
I lust for a M24
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Football HOF, Canton OH
Posts: 7,045
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally posted by burningman@June 25, 2005, 12:07 AM
Welcome to america where your rights are dwindeling by the moment.
Wonder what the government will take away from us next?
OUr slogan of "land of the free" is rapidly falling to peices
Welcome to america where your rights are dwindeling by the moment.
Wonder what the government will take away from us next?
OUr slogan of "land of the free" is rapidly falling to peices
Who knows (?) My guess is that George Washington would be pretty ticked off right now.
Edit: I better cool off before I say something that gets this thread derailed and locked. Note to self:
6/25/05, 08:19 AM
#10
After all these years,
My C/T still sucks!
My C/T still sucks!
Join Date: May 5, 2004
Location: Orlando(DP!) Florida
Posts: 7,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this actually just happened right here........
Sprawl Mart wanted land......So they built an open air mall around it. It was an old neighborhood right off the interstate here, and they paid those people something sad like $38,000 a piece. Two families refused to leave, and fought it with all they had but eventually lost.
Now all that land is a HUGE open air mall about to open(Ross Old navy, RJ Gators, Sprawlmart, Lowes A movie theater etc)........I love the mall, but I despise what they did to build it.
Sprawl Mart wanted land......So they built an open air mall around it. It was an old neighborhood right off the interstate here, and they paid those people something sad like $38,000 a piece. Two families refused to leave, and fought it with all they had but eventually lost.
Now all that land is a HUGE open air mall about to open(Ross Old navy, RJ Gators, Sprawlmart, Lowes A movie theater etc)........I love the mall, but I despise what they did to build it.
6/25/05, 09:44 AM
#11
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 1, 2004
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have already written my Congressman.......for all the good that will do. Sincerely hope there is a general politcal firestorm regarding this. I don't think some people really understand what this means. Now, when local governments cannot fiscally manage, besides the old standby of raising taxes, they can hookup with some developer, etc, take property if it means higher tax revenues. Then they will say it is for the "common good". This is a total DISGRACE!!!!!!!!
6/25/05, 09:51 AM
#12
I lust for a M24
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Football HOF, Canton OH
Posts: 7,045
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I have a question:
Where is the press on this issue? I see daily stories on the Michael Jackson trial, Brad Pitt hooking up with Jolie, blah blah blah, but barely a peep on a Major Constitutional issue that affects ALL Americans. Have I just missed it?
Where is the press on this issue? I see daily stories on the Michael Jackson trial, Brad Pitt hooking up with Jolie, blah blah blah, but barely a peep on a Major Constitutional issue that affects ALL Americans. Have I just missed it?
6/27/05, 08:55 AM
#14
Shelby GT500 Member
Reading into this, it seem the Supreme Court has made it a States issue:
Here in Texas, municipalities must follow Texas Government Code 251.001. Which says municipalities can take land for the purpose of:
the providing, enlarging, or improving of a city hall; police station; jail or other law enforcement detention facility; fire station; library; school or other educational facility; academy; auditorium; hospital; sanatorium; market house; slaughterhouse; warehouse; elevator; railroad terminal; airport; ferry; ferry landing; pier; wharf; dock or other shipping facility; loading or unloading facility; alley, street, or other roadway; park, playground, or other recreational facility; square; water works system, including reservoirs, other water supply sources, watersheds, and water storage, drainage, treatment, distribution, transmission, and emptying facilities; sewage system including sewage collection, drainage, treatment, disposal, and emptying facilities; electric or gas power system; cemetery and crematory;
It seems if you want to define what eminent domain should be, you need to get your State Representatives to define it.
As an aside, what I don't like about "just compensation", is that they'll offer the residence at residence market price, instead of the commercial market price, which usually more valuable.
Here in Texas, municipalities must follow Texas Government Code 251.001. Which says municipalities can take land for the purpose of:
the providing, enlarging, or improving of a city hall; police station; jail or other law enforcement detention facility; fire station; library; school or other educational facility; academy; auditorium; hospital; sanatorium; market house; slaughterhouse; warehouse; elevator; railroad terminal; airport; ferry; ferry landing; pier; wharf; dock or other shipping facility; loading or unloading facility; alley, street, or other roadway; park, playground, or other recreational facility; square; water works system, including reservoirs, other water supply sources, watersheds, and water storage, drainage, treatment, distribution, transmission, and emptying facilities; sewage system including sewage collection, drainage, treatment, disposal, and emptying facilities; electric or gas power system; cemetery and crematory;
It seems if you want to define what eminent domain should be, you need to get your State Representatives to define it.
As an aside, what I don't like about "just compensation", is that they'll offer the residence at residence market price, instead of the commercial market price, which usually more valuable.
6/27/05, 10:47 AM
#16
6/27/05, 11:31 AM
#17
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 26, 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by GhostTX@June 27, 2005, 9:58 AM
Reading into this, it seem the Supreme Court has made it a States issue:
Here in Texas, municipalities must follow Texas Government Code 251.001. Which says municipalities can take land for the purpose of:
the providing, enlarging, or improving of a etc....elevator.......etc.........
Reading into this, it seem the Supreme Court has made it a States issue:
Here in Texas, municipalities must follow Texas Government Code 251.001. Which says municipalities can take land for the purpose of:
the providing, enlarging, or improving of a etc....elevator.......etc.........
I've always wanted to build just an elevator & nothing else. I think I am going to go out to Texas now & take some of Bush's land for my elevator. Anyone wanna help?
6/27/05, 11:47 AM
#18
I don't agree with it, but I'd let them take my property for the right compensation. From everything I've heard from people who have had this done to them, they do pay you a heck of a lot more than what your property is worth. For me, it's take the money, buy a house in a nicer neighborhood, and keep the change. Home isn't a building or land, it's where your family is. But, just my opinion.
6/27/05, 01:47 PM
#19
Shelby GT500 Member
Originally posted by kerafaith@June 27, 2005, 11:34 AM
I've always wanted to build just an elevator & nothing else. I think I am going to go out to Texas now & take some of Bush's land for my elevator. Anyone wanna help?
I've always wanted to build just an elevator & nothing else. I think I am going to go out to Texas now & take some of Bush's land for my elevator. Anyone wanna help?
6/27/05, 07:53 PM
#20
Originally posted by mobster@June 27, 2005, 11:50 AM
http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html
That means you, that means now!