Arkady Renko Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Apparently, your home can be taken away from you on the whim of a corrupt politician looking to line his pockets by helping out a rich developer. The liberal justices certainly just proved themselves to hardly be a defender of the working men and women of this country. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2300783_pf.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I can't possibly see how this could go bad in a hurry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJPearl2 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Last time in checked the conservatives have a 5-4 majority in the Supereme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Last time in checked the conservatives have a 5-4 majority in the Supereme Court. 365382[/snapback] Hmm.. no, there are two swing voters that switch sides. You actually might want to read the article see who was on each side of this decision before you express such ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Last time in checked the conservatives have a 5-4 majority in the Supereme Court. 365382[/snapback] The four most conservative judges (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) dissented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 This is fuggin scary. Its one thing for the govt. to use "Eminent Domain" for the purpose of public projects like road work and what not. But to use it for PRIVATE projects? WTF? THIS is something the ACLU should get involved in, no? Instead of freaking out over a Christian teacher uttering the word "God", how about THIS issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 This is fuggin scary. Its one thing for the govt. to use "Eminent Domain" for the purpose of public projects like road work and what not. But to use it for PRIVATE projects? WTF? THIS is something the ACLU should get involved in, no? Instead of freaking out over a Christian teacher uttering the word "God", how about THIS issue? 365393[/snapback] The ACLU picks and chooses which rights it deems worthy of protecting... I would be surprised if they stepped up here since private property is of little importance to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Last time in checked the conservatives have a 5-4 majority in the Supereme Court. 365382[/snapback] Oops. "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," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Glad to see the liberals on the march to end this absurd concept of private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I work near New London, in fact I can see that neighborhood from my lab...it's a dump...most people took the money and left...the rest wanted more money and filed these suits...they're not being evicted without compensation...they are being paid market value....they just got greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I work near New London, in fact I can see that neighborhood from my lab...it's a dump...most people took the money and left...the rest wanted more money and filed these suits...they're not being evicted without compensation...they are being paid market value....they just got greedy. 365423[/snapback] Nobody said they were being evicted without compensation. The point is that the government can kick people out of their homes and businesses. There is nothing to stop the corruption that will inevitably result from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 ...they're not being evicted without compensation...they are being paid market value.... 365423[/snapback] Pretty much the definition of "eminent domain". No one's evicted on that principle...they're forced to sell at market value. Even so...the decision is setting a bad precedent for personal property rights, in that it establishes that local governments can exercise eminent domain for commercial projects if they're deemed to be "in the public good", which is at best a questionable argument. And I guarantee you that people in DC are drooling over this decision, too. One of the difficulties in building the new baseball stadium on the Anacostia waterfront has been that, while the stadium itself falls under the traditional definition of a public work subject to eminent domain, the rest of the waterfront development plans were unquestionably commercial (I've seen them; wife's company is doing the legal work) and eminent domain was NOT applicable. With this decision, the DC government can now, if they choose, force everyone to sell on the principle that the stadium's efficacy as a public work is diminished in the absence of further development...hence the rest of the development plans qualify as a "public work" as well under the SC's decision. And THAT will be a major shitstorm...and a grave injustice, as a great many homeowners in DC will cease to be homeowners, as they won't be able to buy anywhere else in the region in this overheated market. The bottom line is that the SC's decision makes it substantially more difficult for lower income homeowners in urban markets to remain homeowners... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Nobody said they were being evicted without compensation. The point is that the government can kick people out of their homes and businesses. There is nothing to stop the corruption that will inevitably result from this. 365426[/snapback] I admit that I think ultra-conservative lobbies like "Focus On The Family" are really just a bunch of hate-mongers. But, reading stuff like this, and realizing that the Gov really does not care about the family structure if the home is no longer something you can count on as being secure and dependable, makes me rethink my criticism of groups like that. I know, the homeowner is still going to get paid, but a home should be more than money. Didn't we start a Revolution over this a couple a hundred years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Pretty much the definition of "eminent domain". No one's evicted on that principle...they're forced to sell at market value. Even so...the decision is setting a bad precedent for personal property rights, in that it establishes that local governments can exercise eminent domain for commercial projects if they're deemed to be "in the public good", which is at best a questionable argument. The bottom line is that the SC's decision makes it substantially more difficult for lower income homeowners in urban markets to remain homeowners... 365437[/snapback] I pretty sure you don't know New London...they really do need to do something...it's a dying city...if this helps them complete the plan to reviatilize the city it's great. Why would it make it more difficult to remain a homeowner? You sell at market value you buy at market value...it's a wash...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I pretty sure you don't know New London...they really do need to do something...it's a dying city...if this helps them complete the plan to reviatilize the city it's great. Why would it make it more difficult to remain a homeowner? You sell at market value you buy at market value...it's a wash...right? 365445[/snapback] Government projects don't revitalize cities - they are a panacea at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I pretty sure you don't know New London...they really do need to do something...it's a dying city...if this helps them complete the plan to reviatilize the city it's great. 365445[/snapback] Slippery slope, my friend. It is easy to say that it is not a problem, unless it is your home or business that is being uprooted. Let's say the government decides that it needs a new shopping mall in your neighborhood. The problem is that your house is in the way. Now the government tells you that you need to move. You are going to say, "Well, since it is for the greater good of my former neighborhood, I will leave."? I am guessing not. If you do not have a problem with it, let me know. I change professions and become a developer in your neighborhood. I could make a crapload of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Slippery slope, my friend. It is easy to say that it is not a problem, unless it is your home or business that is being uprooted. Let's say the government decides that it needs a new shopping mall in your neighborhood. The problem is that your house is in the way. Now the government tells you that you need to move. You are going to say, "Well, since it is for the greater good of my former neighborhood, I will leave."? I am guessing not. If you do not have a problem with it, let me know. I change professions and become a developer in your neighborhood. I could make a crapload of money 365458[/snapback] you really want me to be honest? If they gave me what I could sell my house for on the open market? I say sure...hey, I put tons of work into it and love it...but it's still just a house...it's 4 walls. Maybe I'm nuts but that is how I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Do you guys remember Poletown? I am pretty certain that the factory closed down pretty soon afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I work near New London, in fact I can see that neighborhood from my lab...it's a dump...365423[/snapback] OMG. Dump is being kind. I remember visiting New London when the Navy had subs there. What a blight. If several houses held up my entire town or region from revitalizing, such as the waterfront in Buffalo, I'd consider torching the places myself. Do these people actually wish to stay or extort more $$ ? I understand the principle completely but is this ruling a broad brush ? I can't see an army of bulldozers charging down the highways of America, ready to push under any neighborhood, due to a random developers blueprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Please keep reminding me that I live in a "free" country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 OMG. Dump is being kind. I remember visiting New London when the Navy had subs there. What a blight. If several houses held up my entire town or region from revitalizing, such as the waterfront in Buffalo, I'd consider torching the places myself. Do these people actually wish to stay or extort more $$ ? I understand the principle completely but is this ruling a broad brush ? I can't see an army of bulldozers charging down the highways of America, ready to push under any neighborhood, due to a random developers blueprint. 365467[/snapback] oh Mark....you're so dreamy.... Bravo!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts