Page 1 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

24 Jun 2005, 7:37 am

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

The Supreme Court has just ruled that cities can use Eminent Domain to evict people from their houses to make way for new commercial developments citing that job creation and economic growth is a function of government. The biggest problem I see is that there is lots of room for corrupt local politicians to receive kickbacks in exchange for invoking Eminent Domain on property that a buisnes wants. I bet disney will be the first to try this because they are looking to expand the size of their park. I bet it will take bloodshed to reverse this decision. Somethig like this is a good way to make someone go postal. My Dad already commented that if anyone did that to him, that it would take a SWAT team to get him out of his house...and my Dad has alot of respect for cops too. I really can't say I blame him.



monastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 724
Location: Indiana

24 Jun 2005, 8:27 am

Sean,
I read about that, too. I thought, well there goes my little farm. I suppose this would go for cell phone towers and parking lots for the big businesses too. How can they prove that it is essential to build their business on my property of 12 acres rather than my neighbors 80 acres, or do they have to have a reason?

Sean, I really think that the "showdown" place would be in Connecticut at present, where they are about to bulldoz houses for a motel. If enough citizens would show up to stop this travesty, just maybe they would see We The People are not to be messed with. United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

Of course, this isn't the first time the government has allowed development to take over someone elses land.....just ask the Native Americans!



Scoots5012
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2004
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,397
Location: Cedar Rapids Iowa

24 Jun 2005, 8:34 am

Yes...eminent domain, one of the little know evils of government.

I heard about this yesterday and I can't help but shake my head at this. Apparently here in the US now, property rights only apply to people who have money.

and BTW, I thought the main role of government was to protect it's citizens from all threats forigen and domestic, not give private property to all businesses, forigen and domestic....


_________________
I live my life to prove wrong those who said I couldn't make it in life...


Cato
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 129
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

24 Jun 2005, 9:38 am

I was stunned by this decision; you can be sure that none of those five members of SCOTUS have any fear that their homes will be bulldozed for a hotel complex.

Imagine the ramifications. A family could spend years saving and building a home, only to have it handed over to a developer so that a town can generate more tax revenue. A private school or church could be cleared away to make room for tax-generating shops.

I cannot understand why people are not out in the streets screaming about this. SCOTUS just took away a citizen's right to hold property and nobody seems to be upset.

Justice O'Connor had it right: this is a decision that favors wealthy developers (and their friends on local councils) and tells the average citizen, "Your rights do not matter." Those with smaller homes and rental properties do not stand a chance. Eminent domain now means "We, your local board of supervisors, have decided that you do not pay enough taxes, so we are bulldozing your home, paying you the fair market value (ha ha), and giving your land to some conglomerate that will pay us more. And this has nothing to do with said conglomerate's political connections, so there."

I live in a depressed area ripe for just this kind of government takeover. People should be afraid, very afraid.


_________________
Cato
-Ignorantia delenda est.


Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

24 Jun 2005, 10:25 am

So economic development now takes precidence over the American Citizens that stand to die when these land disputes degenerate into physical violence? This is communist! Lenin did basically the same thing in 1920 when he seized all private farms and combined them into the collective farming system in the USSR. Now history stands to repeat itself in the US.



GalileoAce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,158
Location: Australia

24 Jun 2005, 10:36 am

[DELETED]



Last edited by GalileoAce on 02 Apr 2006, 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MrMeaner
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 413
Location: san antonio, tx

24 Jun 2005, 11:49 am

We Americans are slowly losing all our freedoms and this Supreme Court decision is proof..What next? Are they going to tax our oxygen intake too? This land got stolen from the Indians a long time ago, but it's us descendents who will probably pay for it..



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

24 Jun 2005, 5:23 pm

Sean, for the first time I agree with you 100% :lol:



Sarcastic_Name
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,593

24 Jun 2005, 6:41 pm

Hasn't this always been possible? There's been talk of buldozing my neighborhood to make room for a new high school. What's worse is, many people are OK with it. Rich bastards who don't live in this neighborhood, of course!


_________________
Hello.


ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

24 Jun 2005, 6:58 pm

Sarcastic_Name wrote:
Hasn't this always been possible?


Yes, for schools & other municipal works. This means they can now take your home if someone wants to build a shopping center there. :evil:



duncvis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,642
Location: The valleys of green and grey

24 Jun 2005, 7:07 pm

Thats just plain wrong. We have compulsory purchase orders in the UK, but as far as I know they are purely for public projects like road building, urban regeneration (i.e. slum clearance etc). Forcing private citizens to sell up at the whim of a profit-driven corporation is fascistic, and completely inexcusable. Bastards. :evil:


_________________
I'm usually smarter than this.

www.last.fm/user/nursethescreams <<my last.fm thingy

FOR THE HORDE!


ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

24 Jun 2005, 7:14 pm

i'd support a Constitutional Amendment to reverse this. I won't amend the Constitution to take away rights, but gladly to restore them. :evil:



Bec
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,918

24 Jun 2005, 7:53 pm

I've already heard about that, but it is crap. I agree with you, Sean, and I think it is interesting that you feel like this. Seizing someone's personal property to support big business is exactly what Republicans support. Evil fascists! :evil:



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

24 Jun 2005, 8:30 pm

actually it was the liberals on the court who did this. The conservatives were opposed.



Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

25 Jun 2005, 1:42 am

The Justices opposed that voted against the decision were:

Clarence Thomas, Republican, Nominated by Bush Sr.
William Rehnquist, Republican, Nominated By Nixon
Antonin Scalia, Republican, Nominated by Regan
Sandra Day O'Connor, Republican, Nominated by Regan

The Justices in favor of the decision were:

Stephen Breyer, Democrat, Nominated by Clinton
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democrat, Nominaed by Clinton
David Souter, Republican, Nominated by Bush Sr.
Anthony Kennedy, Republican, Nominated by Regan
John Paul Stevens, Republican, Nominated by Ford

ed wrote:
i'd support a Constitutional Amendment to reverse this. I won't amend the Constitution to take away rights, but gladly to restore them.

I second that.

Have any liberals here given second thoughts to their position on gun gontrol and the Second
Ammendment due to bipartisan abuses of power, judges making laws, and common liberal concerns about the Bush administration?



Ante
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 604

25 Jun 2005, 1:42 am

Deleted



Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.