Bad news for individual rights

[SouthStndJunkie]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

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.

[SouthStndJunkie]

It stinks of rotten shi* if you want my opinion.

The day that private business trumps individual rights is a dangerous day for sure, because $$$$$$ talks.

SSJ

[Hercules Rockefeller]

"Public use" is now pretty much going to be whatever a municipality deems it to be after this ruling, which means that people aren't going to win eminent domain proceedings very often.

[Beantown Bronco]

I have a feeling the "do you pack heat" thread will be resurrected soon.....with several new "yes's".

[SouthStndJunkie]

This just wreaks of local government/private sector abuse.

SSJ

[epicSocialism4tw]

Wow. I hate that. My grandparents held on to their place for years until they both had died. The Memphis airport was expanding and they had property right below the runway. They were able to refuse the under-value bids by locals for years, but now they can be swept away. This is not good. Many times you are dealing with the elderly in these situations who just cant supplant themselves and move.

[Rock Chalk]

There are no words in any language of human beings to describe this level of idiocy. How in the **** do Supreme Court justices who have studied the consitution for a good portion of their lives allow this kind of **** to be ruled in favor of? I barely know the constitution but I know it doesnt allow for governmental seizure of property for "economic development" against your will.

[SouthStndJunkie]

It's your property and you can pay for it and maintain it and make it your home....until someone with more money takes it away from you against your will.

A crock of crap in my book.

SSJ

[Meck77]

We have the debate going downstairs. It seems the Democrats on the supreme court voted it in. You guys think LA will even show up to defend his (Can do no wrong party?)

[SouthStndJunkie]

It is a travesty no matter who voted it in.

SSJ

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's your property and you can pay for it and maintain it and make it your home....until someone with more money takes it away from you against your will.

A crock of crap in my book.

SSJ

It's for the "betterment of the community" right? Lets force the elderly or the poor to take one for the team at bottom dollar. There is no truer mark of a benevolent society.

[SouthStndJunkie]

It's for the "betterment of the community" right? Lets force the elderly or the poor to take one for the team at bottom dollar. There is no truer mark of a benevolent society.

Even paying market value for property and homes is crap. You cannot put a dollar value on the value and meaning of owning property and a home. It is someplace that people pour their heart and hard work into and a $$$$ value cannot be placed on that. Sure someone might pay what the market deems it is worth, but the worth that an individual might place on it cannot be valued.

SSJ

[epicSocialism4tw]

The really sad thing is that this goes against the capitalist philosophy where demand determines market value. If my property value skyrockets because a big business needs my 'product' to achieve growth, shouldn't the business accomodate price increase due to the long term effect of the growth on the bottom line?

This is another piece of evidence that shows you that we have a government and it is in disguise. It is big business and it is not accountable for it's actions.

[Meck77]

Can a mod merge these threads?

I agree SSJ that it's a shame that this passed but all the crying about the Republicans helping the rich get richer seems to have gone out the window today because the liberals on the court just sunk TRILLIONS into the wealthy class if they can start tearing down homes for profit. Maybe there is something I'm missing here but that's the way it appears to me.

[jonny1]

I didn't know there were any liberals on the Supreme Court . . .

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It's for the "betterment of the community" right? Lets force the elderly or the poor to take one for the team at bottom dollar. There is no truer mark of a benevolent society.

The worst part is that the one's who need the most help to fight these actions, will likely have the least means available to do it.

[Hotrod]

I didn't know there were any liberals on the Supreme Court . . .

:twitch:

[Merlin]

We have the debate going downstairs. It seems the Democrats on the supreme court voted it in. You guys think LA will even show up to defend his (Can do no wrong party?)...I agree SSJ that it's a shame that this passed but all the crying about the Republicans helping the rich get richer seems to have gone out the window today because the liberals on the court just sunk TRILLIONS into the wealthy class if they can start tearing down homes for profit.
This is absolute nonsense. It is a well-known fact that the conservative/republican wing controls the supreme court. If your short memory requires any refreshing all give you one brief reminder. Which court elected a president and in the process also stated their decision could not be used as a precedent (btw, stating that it cannot be used as a precedence is absolute idiocy since that is one of the purposes of the court, needless to state that is the only supreme court decision that had that proviso attached to it)?

Merlin

[PatsWin2002]

There are no words in any language of human beings to describe this level of idiocy. How in the **** do Supreme Court justices who have studied the consitution for a good portion of their lives allow this kind of **** to be ruled in favor of? I barely know the constitution but I know it doesnt allow for governmental seizure of property for "economic development" against your will.

Exactly.....bizarre.

These are the people that should know more than anyone that if they create some bizarre gray area that it will be abused by the wealthy.

This is not good.

[Hotrod]

This is absolute nonsense. It is a well-known fact that the conservative/republican wing controls the supreme court. If your short memory requires any refreshing all give you one brief reminder. Which court elected a president and in the process also stated their decision could not be used as a precedent (btw, stating that it cannot be used as a precedence is absolute idiocy since that is one of the purposes of the court, needless to state that is the only supreme court decision that had that proviso attached to it)?

Merlin

Did you research who voted for this??? or are you still to hung up on the "stolen election" to be bothered by trivial details such as that.

[Meck77]

This is absolute nonsense. It is a well-known fact that the conservative/republican wing controls the supreme court. If your short memory requires any refreshing all give you one brief reminder. Which court elected a president and in the process also stated their decision could not be used as a precedent (btw, stating that it cannot be used as a precedence is absolute idiocy since that is one of the purposes of the court, needless to state that is the only supreme court decision that had that proviso attached to it)?

Merlin


Yeah ok It's only in every article on the WWW but you call it nonsense.

Earth calling Merlin. Come in Merlin. Let me help you. Follow the... :wave:


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aqC4Fk1aPpQ8&refer=us


You don't like Bloomberg? Try google.com and look up every other article.

Government Power to Take Property Backed by Top Court (Update3)
June 23 (Bloomberg) -- Local governments have broad power to take over private property to make way for shopping malls, office parks and sports stadiums, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The court said government agencies can constitutionally take property in the name of economic development -- and even transfer it to another private party -- as long as the landowner receives compensation. The 5-4 ruling, which split the court largely along liberal-conservative lines, came in a case involving land near a Pfizer Inc. plant in New London, Connecticut.

``Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority in Washington. He said the justices ``decline to second-guess the city's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan.''

The ruling is a setback for property-rights advocates angered by what they say is an increasingly common practice, now used thousands of times a year.

``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in dissent. ``The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''

Joining O'Connor's opinion were three conservatives, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Kennedy Opinion
:welcome: :welcome:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote, joined liberals Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority.
Yikes! :welcome: :welcome:
Kennedy wrote separately to say that the court might give more exacting scrutiny to government land seizures in other cases, such as those that involve ``the risks of undetected impermissible favoritism of private parties.''

The Institute for Justice, a Washington-based group representing seven property owners in the Connecticut case, had urged the high court to put new restrictions on government ``eminent domain'' power.

``The decision is an open invitation for the abuse of eminent domain by government and private developers,'' said Dana Berliner, an attorney for the group.

New London wants to raze a residential neighborhood to make room for a five-star hotel, luxury condominiums and office buildings near the Pfizer research facility. The city says it is trying to reverse decades of economic decline.

Hotel and Condos

The case was one of the most closely watched disputes in the court's 2004-05 term, which is scheduled to end Monday. The justices still must rule in cases involving online piracy of copyrighted songs and movies, high-speed Internet access and Ten Commandments displays on public property.

The end of the term also might be the occasion for a retirement announcement from Rehnquist, 80, who is battling thyroid cancer.

The Connecticut case centered on the U.S. Constitution's takings clause, which requires government agencies to pay compensation when they take over private property ``for public use.'' The property owners argued that the public-use prong requires more than simply the possibility of economic revitalization.

The justices ruled in 1954 that government agencies can condemn blighted property as long as they compensate the owners. Thirty years later, the court said governments could take over property to break up an oligopoly on land ownership.

Pfizer Plant

The latest question concerned bids to take over property that isn't blighted and doesn't involve an oligopoly.

New London's development plan, enacted in 2000, calls for the takeover of 115 homes and small businesses in the 90-acre Fort Trumbull neighborhood adjacent to the Pfizer facility. The city also set up a private entity, the New London Development Corporation, to manage the project.

The plan coincided with the decision by Pfizer, the world's largest drugmaker, to open a new research headquarters in New London. Pfizer isn't directly involved in the litigation, and its property wasn't at issue in the high court case.

A handful of property owners refused to sell their property and instead sued. The Connecticut Supreme Court, in a divided opinion, said the city and development corporation were acting legally.

Stevens said the New London plan ``unquestionably serves a public purpose.'' He said there is ``no principled way to distinguish economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized.''

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.

[Tredici]

We have the debate going downstairs. It seems the Democrats on the supreme court voted it in. You guys think LA will even show up to defend his (Can do no wrong party?)

Point the finger. Divide and conquer. Send the sheep off arguing who did it. That will occupy them until the why passes. Also expend their outrage.

Works every time.

[Hotrod]

Point the finger. Divide and conquer. Send the sheep off arguing who did it. That will occupy them until the why passes. Also expend their outrage.

Works every time.

True enough the main point everyone needs to get is how serious an issue this really could be. The liberals passed it and thats not good for them but more important is what are the long term effects of it. Of course its just the big bad repubs in bed with big business right :loopy:

[Meck77]

Point the finger. Divide and conquer. Send the sheep off arguing who did it. That will occupy them until the why passes. Also expend their outrage.

Works every time.


I rarely ever chime in on political discussions because it's always a waste of time but this one is over the top. I've read enough BS from some liberals around here about how Bush is in bed with Corporate America yet you have the liberals on the Supreme court making bone head rulings like this.

They are all idiots. IMO

I hear you loud and clear Tred but the damage appears to be done. Or atleast for now.

[yavoon]

Point the finger. Divide and conquer. Send the sheep off arguing who did it. That will occupy them until the why passes. Also expend their outrage.

Works every time.

and what do the non-sheep do?

[Merlin]

Meck,

You are missing the point. The Supreme court is not dominated by liberals, it is dominated by the conservative wing. As you note, the so called liberal jurists could not have passed this by themselves, they needed the support of the conservative wing. Moreover, there are few if any liberal jurists on the bench, so to use such a term is a misnomer. There are 3-4 liberal leaning jurists, but they are nonetheless conservative by many measures.

PS, my point about the election was to highlight the fact that the conservative bench can and does dictate the final outcome of decisions. To conclude that liberal jurists can dictate the final outcome of any present supreme court decision means they at the very least one cannot count.

Merlin

[yavoon]

Meck,

You are missing the point. The Supreme court is not dominated by liberals, it is dominated by the conservative wing. As you note, the so called liberal jurists could not have passed this by themselves, they needed the support of the conservative wing. Moreover, there are few if any liberal jurists on the bench, so to use such a term is a misnomer. There are 3-4 liberal leaning jurists, but they are nonetheless conservative by many measures.

PS, my point about the election was to highlight the fact that the conservative bench can and does dictate the final outcome of decisions. To conclude that liberal jurists can dictate the final outcome of any present supreme court decision means they at the very least one cannot count.

Merlin

ur going through a lot of effort when the votes are public. the liberal judges whether u consider them or not voted for it, they gathered one swing vote and it passed.

really its open and shut.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

There are 4 liberals on the Court (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens), 3 conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas), and 2 right-leaning judges (Kennedy and O'Connor) who have moved left in recent years. Those two are by no means liberals or left-leaning in their overall sense, but they are definitely not conservatives either. It is not a conservative court. The liberal judges have to pick off 1 vote to gain a majority, the conservatives have to get 2.

That's why all hell will break loose in DC if someone besides Rehnquist retires, it will tip the balance of the Court.

[Merlin]

ur going through a lot of effort when the votes are public. the liberal judges whether u consider them or not voted for it, they gathered one swing vote and it passed.really its open and shut.
As I said, learn to count. The "liberals" cannot dictate any decision. The fact that a conservative voted with them clearly indicates that the conservative wing decides what passes. If the conservatives don't wan't this, it does not pass. Simple math.

Merlin

[Meck77]

As I said, learn to count. The "liberals" cannot dictate any decision. The fact that a conservative voted with them clearly indicates that the conservative wing decides what passes. If the conservatives don't wan't this, it does not pass. Simple math.

Merlin

So you are saying the one swing vote is the only one that really mattered? Come on now Merlin.

It's time for me to go feed my goats while I still can. Just a matter of time before this liberal vote will come knocking on my door with Home Depot.

It's a joke. Relax. ;D

[Rock Chalk]

Dude I dont even care who passed it or why, Im just mad that they did. I mean, Im ****ing outraged here. This is a obvious and GROSS abuse of power. Does it really ****ing matter if the dems or reps passed it? NO! Morons, the only thing that matters is that in the name of "economic development" you can get your property that you PAID for taken from you and there isnt **** you can do about it.

[yavoon]

As I said, learn to count. The "liberals" cannot dictate any decision. The fact that a conservative voted with them clearly indicates that the conservative wing decides what passes. If the conservatives don't wan't this, it does not pass. Simple math.

Merlin

read prior post, zero conservatives voted for it. they got one swing vote. good job. and in a much larger stupidity scale, judges dont vote as blocks, they vote as individuals. much moreso than anywhere else in gov't because they never go up for re election and thus need none of the political maneuvering to that end.

[Rock Chalk]

As I said, learn to count. The "liberals" cannot dictate any decision. The fact that a conservative voted with them clearly indicates that the conservative wing decides what passes. If the conservatives don't wan't this, it does not pass. Simple math.

Merlin
Are you stupid?

Lets say, for arguments sake, that there are 4 dems and 5 reps on the Supreme Court. (I dont know the numbrs, I dont care).

If 4 dems vote it in and one republican votes it in for the majority, are you sitting here telling me that 1 in 5 republican justices that voted for it makes it a republican thing?

I guess I just answered my original question. Yes, you are stupid.

[Merlin]

There are 4 liberals on the Court (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens), 3 conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas), and 2 right-leaning judges (Kennedy and O'Connor) who have moved left in recent years.
If you are going to make these claims based them on facts. What makes any of these jurists liberal by the true meaning of the word (which by the way it is not, "they disagree with my right wing ideology"). The 3 you identify as conservatives have a record that speaks for itself. The 2 that have moved to the left, again provide evidence that they are liberal leaning. Assertions as facts are meaningless and contribute little information other than the speaker's thinking process.

Merlin

[Rock Chalk]

If you are going to make these claims based them on facts. What makes any of these jurists liberal by the true meaning of the word (which by the way it is not, "they disagree with my right wing ideology"). The 3 you identify as conservatives have a record that speaks for itself. The 2 that have moved to the left, again provide evidence that they are liberal leaning. Assertions as facts are meaningless and contribute little information other than the speaker's thinking process.

Merlin
As if your assertions that its a right wing agenda are based on fact.

[Meck77]

Are you stupid?

Lets say, for arguments sake, that there are 4 dems and 5 reps on the Supreme Court. (I dont know the numbrs, I dont care).

If 4 dems vote it in and one republican votes it in for the majority, are you sitting here telling me that 1 in 5 republican justices that voted for it makes it a republican thing?

I guess I just answered my original question. Yes, you are stupid.

Careful Raenos. You just jumped in with the us "Morons" you just called out a post or two ago.

[yavoon]

If you are going to make these claims based them on facts. What makes any of these jurists liberal by the true meaning of the word (which by the way it is not, "they disagree with my right wing ideology"). The 3 you identify as conservatives have a record that speaks for itself. The 2 that have moved to the left, again provide evidence that they are liberal leaning. Assertions as facts are meaningless and contribute little information other than the speaker's thinking process.

Merlin

I'll say it again, thats a lot of effort ur going through to holdup ur end of the conspiracy.

[Merlin]

Alec,

If you like being a moron, that is your decision. As to my facts, they are clearly laid out. The facts about the supreme court judges are easily available to anyone who desires to do any research about their history. There are number of think tanks that have analyized their decisions and can provide information I have just discussed. Now as to 4+1=5, yes you are right, the majority of them are what you guys are calling "liberal" (based on no information other than assertions), but the fact remains, the conservative wing decides what will be the final outcome, which is my point. To argue that the "liberal" wing of the court can dictate any opinion at this moment shows a total ignorance of the jurists and their leanings. Again, the record is easily avaiable to anyone interested.

Merlin

[Hercules Rockefeller]

If you are going to make these claims based them on facts. What makes any of these jurists liberal by the true meaning of the word (which by the way it is not, "they disagree with my right wing ideology"). The 3 you identify as conservatives have a record that speaks for itself. The 2 that have moved to the left, again provide evidence that they are liberal leaning. Assertions as facts are meaningless and contribute little information other than the speaker's thinking process.

Merlin

You attempt to speak like you know the law as well as the Court. By claiming that I've categorized the Justices as I have based on how they stack up to my own political views, tells me that this appears to be your first real attempt at a legal discussion about the Court. Your Bush v. Gore claims show me that you've never read the decision either. Pretty much all legal commentators, regardless of their own political views or judicial philosophy, would agree with my breakdown of the Justices individual leanings. The only disagreement would be on how far to the right O'Connor and Kennedy are. But that there are 4 liberals is not really up for argument.

[yavoon]

Alec,

If you like being a moron, that is your decision. As to my facts, they are clearly laid out. The facts about the supreme court judges are easily available to anyone who desires to do any research about their history. There are number of think tanks that have analyized their decisions and can provide information I have just discussed. Now as to 4+1=5, yes you are right, the majority of them are what you guys are calling "liberal" (based on no information other than assertions), but the fact remains, the conservative wing decides what will be the final outcome, which is my point. To argue that the "liberal" wing of the court can dictate any opinion at this moment shows a total ignorance of the jurists and their leanings. Again, the record is easily avaiable to anyone interested.

Merlin

"They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights"

funny also how the heavier conservatives voted against it. are u going to continue chasing down ur conspiracy when its obvious ur hippie tree hugging welfare giving democrats like to concentrate all the power they can in gov't and not in individuals?

[Merlin]

I'll say it again, thats a lot of effort ur going through to holdup ur end of the conspiracy.
Yavoon,

From past discussion with you I realize you have a fairly poor reading capacity and that you easily feel injured, but at the very least bother to try reading a little harder. Nowhere did I ever state there was a conspiracy (that is a reflection of you having to quickly categorize information because you are incapable of analyzing). I clearly stated that no decision could be dictated by the so called liberal wing without the support of the conservative jurists because they do not have the numbers. Basic arithmetics.

Merlin

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Alec,

If you like being a moron, that is your decision. As to my facts, they are clearly laid out. The facts about the supreme court judges are easily available to anyone who desires to do any research about their history. There are number of think tanks that have analyized their decisions and can provide information I have just discussed. Now as to 4+1=5, yes you are right, the majority of them are what you guys are calling "liberal" (based on no information other than assertions), but the fact remains, the conservative wing decides what will be the final outcome, which is my point. To argue that the "liberal" wing of the court can dictate any opinion at this moment shows a total ignorance of the jurists and their leanings. Again, the record is easily avaiable to anyone interested.

Merlin

To claim that any wing controls the outcome of the Court, shows complete ignorance on your part. There are both a liberal and conservative wing of the Court. However, neither has a majority. The outcome of any SCOTUS decision will always hinge on what way O'Connor and Kennedy go. These two are not conservatives, therefore the conservative wing down not dictate the final outcome on any decision.

[Rock Chalk]

Careful Raenos. You just jumped in with the us "Morons" you just called out a post or two ago.
Naw, I dont care who passed it. But his logic was clearly flawed...most likely he is using female logic :)

[yavoon]

Yavoon,

From past discussion with you I realize you have a fairly poor reading capacity and that you easily feel injured, but at the very least bother to try reading a little harder. Nowhere did I ever state there was a conspiracy (that is a reflection of you having to quickly categorize information because you are incapable of analyzing). I clearly stated that no decision could be dictated by the so called liberal wing without the support of the conservative jurists because they do not have the numbers. Basic arithmetics.

Merlin

u keep trying to twist this into the conservatives giving consent when its obviously crap. all that happened was a liberal agenda was supported by one OTHER supreme court justice. thats it, no conservative consent. there is no secret conservative pact(or maybe more accurately pact of all ppl non uber liberal) that promises to always vote the party line. these are supreme court justices, they do what they want.

ur the one chasing down this idiocy like u can't bear the idea that this thing is liberal when infact it stinks of liberal to high heaven. oh and of course thanks for the personal attacks, it makes ur case much stronger.

[Merlin]

You attempt to speak like you know the law as well as the Court. By claiming that I've categorized the Justices as I have based on how they stack up to my own political views, tells me that this appears to be your first real attempt at a legal discussion about the Court.

I notice you have not bothered to address my point and instead attempt to rely in a subtle expression of ad hominym. Again, you either have never bothered to read legal discussions on these jurists and/or you just base your opinions on personal opinions (be it your own or other right leaning ideological commentators)

Your Bush v. Gore claims show me that you've never read the decision either.
I have, in its entirety, not some simple summary given by some journalist. BTW, you are aware of its conclusion right? You are aware it is the ONLY supreme court decision to have that proviso (which makes absolutely no sense, unless they know that such a decision would be dangerous to have as a precedence)

Pretty much all legal commentators, regardless of their own political views or judicial philosophy, would agree with my breakdown of the Justices individual leanings.
OK, I'll make this simple for you. Name me one article published within a respected law journal that supports your claim. Or one bar association. Or an independent think tank specializing on legal questions.

Merlin

[Merlin]

u keep trying to twist this into the conservatives giving consent when its obviously crap.
Yavoon,
simple math, it does not pass without the conservative vote. Again, simple reading comprehension, nowhere do I claim a conspiracy on either side.

PS. Stating that you are soft skinned and that you have trouble reading is only being supported by previous and present statements by you.

Merlin

[Rascal]

Merlin,

You are an idiot. You claim that this is a conservative court, then explain why a liberal decision was reached?

[Merlin]

To claim that any wing controls the outcome of the Court, shows complete ignorance on your part .
Again, do you read any law journals? Have you bothered reading any historical analysis of this court for the past 10 years? Do you have any knowledge of this court other than what is expressed by mass media?

Merlin

[yavoon]

Yavoon,
simple math, it does not pass without the conservative vote. Again, simple reading comprehension, nowhere do I claim a conspiracy on either side.

PS. Stating that you are soft skinned and that you have trouble reading is only being supported by previous and present statements by you.

Merlin

u've stated such crap as conservative consent. honestly if all u sed was "one non liberal voted for it." no1 would respond to u because thats saying nothing. its all around ur unwillingness to admit that this is a liberal agenda that got through. it is the liberals who wish to take away and peddle ur property as a political tool and the liberals who want to concentrate economic power inside gov't.

good job liberals.

[Merlin]

Merlin,
You are an idiot. You claim that this is a conservative court, then explain why a liberal decision was reached?
Rascal,
Not that you are a moron, but do you have any ability to comprehend simple statements? I clearly state that the "liberal" (which is a questionable term at the very least) jurists cannot dictate any decision in this court. By necessity they need to support of the conservative jurists. Can you read 3 sentences without getting lost?

Melrin

[yavoon]

Rascal,
Not that you are a moron, but do you have any ability to comprehend simple statements? I clearly state that the "liberal" (which is a questionable term at the very least) jurists cannot dictate any decision in this court. By necessity they need to support of the conservative jurists. Can you read 3 sentences without getting lost?

Melrin

no they dont, they need the support of one other justice. not all the remaining ones are conservative. and again, they dont vote as a block. for **** sakes u r trying to slip by this idea that the conservatives gave consent to this when in reality that never happened. ONE PERSON went w/ it.

infact I remember the "conservative jurists." voting against it, lemme check...oh yah they did.

[PatsWin2002]

I'm getting confused....let's make 3 groups:

The morons in group 1, the idiots in group 2, and everyone else in group 3.

[Merlin]

u've stated such crap as conservative consent. honestly if all u sed was "one non liberal voted for it." no1 would respond to u because thats saying nothing. its all around ur unwillingness to admit that this is a liberal agenda that got through. it is the liberals who wish to take away and peddle ur property as a political tool and the liberals who want to concentrate economic power inside gov't. good job liberals.
Yavoon,

For the love of God, could you at least try and write like someone who has at least an 11th grade education. Your need to write like a 6 th grader totally ignores that this is a forum and not some chat group. Now, please explain this liberal conspiracy/agenda you suggest. How is this decision based on liberal ideology? How is a liberal agenda forwarded in any manner by this decision? The Fifth Amendment already addressed any concerns a liberal ideology may have (the tension between individual and social needs), as you all note, this is a commerce vs private need.

Merlin

[yavoon]

Yavoon,

For the love of God, could you at least try and write like someone who has at least an 11th grade education. Your need to write like a 6 th grader totally ignores that this is a forum and not some chat group. Now, please explain this liberal conspiracy/agenda you suggest. How is this decision based on liberal ideology? How is a liberal agenda forwarded in any manner by this decision? The Fifth Amendment already addressed any concerns a liberal ideology may have (the tension between individual and social needs), as you all note, this is a commerce vs private need.

Merlin

I suggest zero conspiracy. it is merely the liberals centralizing economic power in the gov't while simultaneously denying individual economic freedoms. its not a conspiracy, its just what the liberals are.

and yes I'm sure one amendment completely satiated any liberal desire to make further laws that go along lines they agree w/. ur so right, they pretty much quit after that passed.

[Spider]

Sorry SSJ , I didnt see you start this Thread , my bad bro ........
This one up here is alot nastier then the one in the political forum ..........
as everyone knows I am a Democrat and I am pissed as hell ........ I am pissed that my Party went for this , I want these Judges held in contempt , as a registered Democrat I am raising hell ........ Slice it dice it anyway you want quibble over who is liberal who isnt , I am pissed this got passed , I am pissed that the Democratic Judges helped pass this ......

[Rascal]

Rascal,
Not that you are a moron, but do you have any ability to comprehend simple statements? I clearly state that the "liberal" (which is a questionable term at the very least) jurists cannot dictate any decision in this court. By necessity they need to support of the conservative jurists. Can you read 3 sentences without getting lost?

Melrin

There are three conservative judges, four liberals, and two independents. I don't care who put them in office, you need to look at their voting record to determine it.

4+1=5
3+1=4

simple math simpleton.

For the liberals to win any issue all they need is one of the independants, whereas the conservatives needs both indepedants. Simple enough for you or should I make a chart?

[Spider]

Lets get busy ............ http://www.castlecoalition.org/

[Merlin]

I suggest zero conspiracy. it is merely the liberals centralizing economic power in the gov't while simultaneously denying individual economic freedoms. its not a conspiracy, its just what the liberals are. and yes I'm sure one amendment completely satiated any liberal desire to make further laws that go along lines they agree w/. ur so right, they pretty much quit after that passed.
OK,
Lets take this one step at a time Yavoon.
First, could you please explain what you mean by liberal ideology? I agree that the notion of centralization is associated with many of their goals, but this decision is one relating to private vs commercial needs. Historically liberal ideology has sided with the private needs. So could you please explain your assertions and on what facts they are based? Again, please try and read a little more carefully. Nowhere do I state that the Fifth Amendment (btw, have you ever bothered reading it, or the constitution for that matter?, it would be quite interesting for you to have all these cherished opinions based on general ignorance) addresses all the concerns that deal with Liberal ideological goals. I simply stated that with regards to property, the liberal agenda you seem to have discovered would only focus on the good of the individual vs the good of the community (and the latter relates to social good not commerce). In fact, one of the failings of much liberal dogma is its inability to frequently consider the importance of commerce, and this decision like many have noted is flawed because it places the needs of private commerce over the needs of the individual (again, a logic that is fairly incongruent with much of the liberal doctrine).

Merlin

[Beantown Bronco]

Both sides are idiots, plain and simple....if either party were that much better, then everyone would be a member of that party. Neither serve the masses, and the way the current government is set up, why would they?

[Merlin]

4+1=5...3+1=4...simple math simpleton...For the liberals to win any issue all they need is one of the independants, whereas the conservatives needs both indepedants. Simple enough for you or should I make a chart?
Rascal,
You have yet to demonstrate any of your claims regarding the jurists. Again, I made very simple. Find a site related to respected legal journals or independent think tank focusing on legal questions that validates your assessment. You can't because you are wrong. Simpletons require a simple and superficial understanding of reality, and it is clear simple your view is.

Merlin

[Merlin]

Both sides are idiots, plain and simple....if either party were that much better, then everyone would be a member of that party. Neither serve the masses, and the way the current government is set up, why would they?
:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

Merlin

[yavoon]

OK,
Lets take this one step at a time Yavoon.
First, could you please explain what you mean by liberal ideology? I agree that the notion of centralization is associated with many of their goals, but this decision is one relating to private vs commercial needs. Historically liberal ideology has sided with the private needs. So could you please explain your assertions and on what facts they are based? Again, please try and read a little more carefully. Nowhere do I state that the Fifth Amendment (btw, have you ever bothered reading it, or the constitution for that matter?, it would be quite interesting for you to have all these cherished opinions based on general ignorance) addresses all the concerns that deal with Liberal ideological goals. I simply stated that with regards to property, the liberal agenda you seem to have discovered would only focus on the good of the individual vs the good of the community (and the latter relates to social good not commerce). In fact, one of the failings of much liberal dogma is its inability to frequently consider the importance of commerce, and this decision like many have noted is flawed because it places the needs of private commerce over the needs of the individual (again, a logic that is fairly incongruent with much of the liberal doctrine).

Merlin

the liberals always want to funnel all good through gov't. this is exactly what they are accomplishing now.

[Old Dude]

I don't know why you guys consider this a "liberal" decision.

Colorado's conservative Republican Governor Bill Owens has vetoed two bills which would have thrown roadblocks in front of a privately constructed toll highway, nicknamed "Super Slab." This is a private initiative - - a private highway -- but
one bill would have denied developer Ray Wells the ability to condemn and take over private land, which Wells said would have killed the project. The other would have required corporations to notify all landowners whose property might be affected.

The project is officially called the "Front Range Toll Road," which will cut a 660-mile slab, with one mile of easement on both sides, through the property of thousands of property owners.

Now, maybe some of you think this is a good idea and some think it's bad, but it's a clear example of a conservative Republican governor who is all for expanding the power of Eminent domain.

It's a political thing, but it's not a "liberal" thing or a "conservative" thing. It just depends on who stands to benefit at any given time.

[SouthStndJunkie]

Sorry SSJ , I didnt see you start this Thread , my bad bro ........
This one up here is alot nastier then the one in the political forum ..........
as everyone knows I am a Democrat and I am pissed as hell ........ I am pissed that my Party went for this , I want these Judges held in contempt , as a registered Democrat I am raising hell ........ Slice it dice it anyway you want quibble over who is liberal who isnt , I am pissed this got passed , I am pissed that the Democratic Judges helped pass this ......

I agree. This really hit a nerve with me.

SSJ

[Rascal]

You are kidding me right? You are seriously arguing about who is liberal and who is not in the Supreme Court? Go talk to any lawyer and they will tell you how it breaks down. I talked to two (both very liberal BTW) and they confirmed the below:
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are the conservatives
Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer are the liberals.
Kennedy and O'Connor are the independants and the typical swing votes (O'Connor espeically).

I seriously can't believe you are arguing that. LOL!!

[yavoon]

I don't know why you guys consider this a "liberal" decision.

Colorado's conservative Republican Governor Bill Owens has vetoed two bills which would have thrown roadblocks in front of a privately constructed toll highway, nicknamed "Super Slab." This is a private initiative - - a private highway -- but
one bill would have denied developer Ray Wells the ability to condemn and take over private land, which Wells said would have killed the project. The other would have required corporations to notify all landowners whose property might be affected.

The project is officially called the "Front Range Toll Road," which will cut a 660-mile slab, with one mile of easement on both sides, through the property of thousands of property owners.

Now, maybe some of you think this is a good idea and some think it's bad, but it's a clear example of a conservative Republican governor who is all for expanding the power of Eminent domain.

It's a political thing, but it's not a "liberal" thing or a "conservative" thing. It just depends on who stands to benefit at any given time.

thats the thing though, those are all specific cases w/ specific greed benefiting. no1 will stand up and say the repubs aren't rigging things and basically going aroudn being dicks about their power.

this however is a scotus ruling, it is inherently different. it has far more reach and it doesn't have the ability to be confined to case by case. it is an easement of the ability overall.

I have no familiarity w/ the highway u speak, does it run through a bunch of ranches or something? u made it sound less like homes and more like mere properties...neway not as important.

[Hogan11]

"This ruling sets a frightening precedent that will affect poor and middle class families across the nation." said Michael Dixon, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Dazzled by the possibility of increasing tax revenue and employment opportunities, local government officials will now be able to claim entire communities for the benefit of private corporations."

While the Libertarian Party supports the right of corporations to do business, "we even more strongly support the constitutional rights of the individual," Dixon declared. "And those constitutional rights are being trampled on by local governments around the country."

Because the Supreme Court's decision gives government agencies much broader power to confiscate private property, the Libertarian Party calls on both state legislatures and Congress to stand up for the rights of private landowners.

"This country was founded on the principle that people have the right to protect their lives, their lands and their liberty," Dixon said. "It is the sworn duty of elected officials to stand up for the individual rights of their constituents. Now is the time for them to do so."

[Rascal]

I don't know why you guys consider this a "liberal" decision.

Colorado's conservative Republican Governor Bill Owens has vetoed two bills which would have thrown roadblocks in front of a privately constructed toll highway, nicknamed "Super Slab." This is a private initiative - - a private highway -- but
one bill would have denied developer Ray Wells the ability to condemn and take over private land, which Wells said would have killed the project. The other would have required corporations to notify all landowners whose property might be affected.

The project is officially called the "Front Range Toll Road," which will cut a 660-mile slab, with one mile of easement on both sides, through the property of thousands of property owners.

Now, maybe some of you think this is a good idea and some think it's bad, but it's a clear example of a conservative Republican governor who is all for expanding the power of Eminent domain.

It's a political thing, but it's not a "liberal" thing or a "conservative" thing. It just depends on who stands to benefit at any given time.

We are blaming liberals for this because we had a chance to stop it from happening, granted by both parties, and they took a giant step backwards from protecting the average american. Looking at the judges that voted, despite what that moron merlin says, the liberals of the supreme court (and one independant) screwed up big time.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You are kidding me right? You are seriously arguing about who is liberal and who is not in the Supreme Court? Go talk to any lawyer and they will tell you how it breaks down. I talked to two (both very liberal BTW) and they confirmed the below:
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are the conservatives
Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer are the liberals.
Kennedy and O'Connor are the independants and the typical swing votes (O'Connor espeically).

I seriously can't believe you are arguing that. LOL!!
Kennedy and O'Connor are independents? Where, when did they ever say that?
Do you have access to their voting records?

--------

.Current Supreme Court Justices
Name Year
Appointed Appointing
President General Voting
Record
Stephen G. Breyer 1994 Bill Clinton Liberal
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1993 Bill Clinton Liberal
Clarence Thomas 1991 George Bush Conservative *
David Souter 1990 George Bush Conservative
Anthony Kennedy 1988 Ronald Reagan Moderate
Antonin Scalia 1986 Ronald Reagan Conservative
Sandra Day O'Connor 1981 Ronald Reagan Moderate
John Paul Stevens 1975 Gerald Ford Liberal
William H. Rehnquist** 1972 Richard Nixon Conservative

* Peltason & Davis state that Thomas is a moderate, but any examination of his voting record would suggest otherwise
** Elevated to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan
http://cfcc.quinnell.us/info/court.htm

[Merlin]

We are blaming liberals for this because we had a chance to stop it from happening, granted by both parties, and they took a giant step backwards from protecting the average american. Looking at the judges that voted, despite what that moron merlin says, the liberals of the supreme court (and one independant) screwed up big time.
I was going to leave you alone to wallow in your ignorance, but you just don't know when to stop. As I said, before you make any moronic statements about the ideological leanings of the judges read legal journals or at the very least investigate with independent think tanks specializing on legal issues. Unlike you I don't have to ask some lawyer friend, and yes I do read legal journals and I read the findings of think tanks (both independent and ideological) dealing with legal questions. You have already established your total ignorance about the judicial system and an inability to perform simple research about a jurist's record. If you want to sit here and discuss each jurist independent of the others and their total history and ideological assumptions that can be made, bring it on. But do not assume that your statements by themselves carry any weight because absent of supporting evidence they are just the ramblings of an ignorant, ideologically driven, misinformed individual.

Merlin

[Antilles]

Before we get too nuts, remember that the government has always had the power to take privately owned land. All the Gov't needs to do is establish that it reasonably believes that a taking benefits the public at large and pay just compensation (fair market value). This is not a high standard. Moreover, "public benefit" is not limited to taking property for governmental purposes. For example, back in the day most of the land in Hawaii was owed by just a few individual families, so the gov't seized the land and divided it up for the purpose of increasing land owner diversity.

Paradoxically, this case sounds like a somewhat conservative decision, not because it benefits big business, but because it purports to entrust cities and local communities with the authority to make such "public benefit" decisions. As far as I know, historically the State and the Fed exercised this discretion almost exclusively.

As for the impact of the case, the optimist in me hopes that smaller localities will be more sensitive to local political pressures and will be hesitant to exercise this power (since it will be easy for voters to remove local officials who abuse it).

At the very least, the Court is never dull. There are definitely political forces at work on the Court and you can always count on one side throwing the rhetoric of the other side back at them in the majority opinion. I can’t believe Stevens et. al. had the nuts to say that local officials know best whether a project is in a community’s best interest. How amusing.

[baja]

and what do the non-sheep do?

Resist

[Bronco_Beerslug]

For those who may be interested in reading the laws regarding governments taking individual property.

----------------------------------------------------------
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.

certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut

No. 04-108.Argued February 22, 2005--Decided June 23, 2005
After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the "public use" restriction in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings.

Held: The city's proposed disposition of petitioners' property qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 6-20.

(a) Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U. S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986. Pp. 6-13.

(b) The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan's comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court's review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.

(c) Petitioners' proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners' argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court's precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties' legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U. S., at 26. Pp. 13-20.

268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

SUSETTE KELO, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut

[June 23, 2005]

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas." 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 A. 2d 500, 507 (2004). In assembling the land needed for this project, the city's development agent has purchased property from willing sellers and proposes to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation. The question presented is whether the city's proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.1
(<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108#dissent1">CONTINUED</a>)

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Both sides are idiots, plain and simple....if either party were that much better, then everyone would be a member of that party. Neither serve the masses, and the way the current government is set up, why would they?

The only solution I know is to disband all political parties and make all candidates run as independents. That way they will be accountable to their electorate rather than to their party.

[Old Dude]

I think its also a little tough to cast all the justices as either liberal or conservative or moderate. Sometimes you get a mix of positions. For example, Whizzer White was extremely liberal on first amendment issues, but one of the most conservative on the rights of defendants.

Right now, I'd say that Renquist and Thomas are almost always in the conservative camp and that Stevens is usally on the other side, but the remaining six can go various ways depending on the issue.

[Alkazar]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

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.

Umm, ever hear the term "Eminent Domain"? This policy has been in force since the inception of the United States. Talk about old news...

[BroncoInferno]

I think its also a little tough to cast all the justices as either liberal or conservative or moderate. Sometimes you get a mix of positions. For example, Whizzer White was extremely liberal on first amendment issues, but one of the most conservative on the rights of defendants.

Right now, I'd say that Renquist and Thomas are almost always in the conservative camp and that Stevens is usally on the other side, but the remaining six can go various ways depending on the issue.

Best take on the thread. Those trying to turn this against liberals clearly don't know the history of these justices. Every liberal I've talked to today is enraged about this, as am I.

[Sarcastro]

Umm, ever hear the term "Eminent Domain"? This policy has been in force since the inception of the United States. Talk about old news...

There is a difference between the government buying someone's land/house to use for public works, and the government forcing someone to sell their property so a private corporation can use it to make money.

[SouthStndJunkie]

Umm, ever hear the term "Eminent Domain"? This policy has been in force since the inception of the United States. Talk about old news...

Yeah, but the loophole just got a lot bigger for abuse by the private sector.

SSJ

[epicSocialism4tw]

Best take on the thread. Those trying to turn this against liberals clearly don't know the history of these justices. Every liberal I've talked to today is enraged about this, as am I.

I just hate that people are making this into a rep/dem issue period. These are your rights. This is what you remain an American citizen for. It's to fundamentally be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. In today's society that means being able to provide your family with security and comfort. If your local government can assume power regarding your assets (property is many peoples' most valuable asset) and give you 'fair market value' for them, then something is wrong. The buyer is setting the price and the seller is unwilling.

The accomodation of the general good is not a bad thing. If the local government needs the property, they should offer top dollar (as any business would for prime product). They should move the family into a nicer home and provide incentive for them. If someone has to take one for the team, why not let the real estate company (or the city council members)? Force them to sell another property at lower cost to the displaced family.
That would be fair since the real estate developer gains in the long run. But we arent looking for fair, we are looking to accomodate big business.

[ScottXray]

"This ruling sets a frightening precedent that will affect poor and middle class families across the nation." said Michael Dixon, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Dazzled by the possibility of increasing tax revenue and employment opportunities, local government officials will now be able to claim entire communities for the benefit of private corporations."

While the Libertarian Party supports the right of corporations to do business, "we even more strongly support the constitutional rights of the individual," Dixon declared. "And those constitutional rights are being trampled on by local governments around the country."

Because the Supreme Court's decision gives government agencies much broader power to confiscate private property, the Libertarian Party calls on both state legislatures and Congress to stand up for the rights of private landowners.

"This country was founded on the principle that people have the right to protect their lives, their lands and their liberty," Dixon said. "It is the sworn duty of elected officials to stand up for the individual rights of their constituents. Now is the time for them to do so."

Well, shades of ROBOCOP. To wit: A private company takes over Detroit, throws thousands out of their homes so they can build a new better "Community Center" (Downtown area.), They also privatize the police force, and turn it into theri own private army. Horrible experiments ensue and we end up with a ..... cybernetic HERO. Meanwhile the private /public entity is shown to be evil. What could be more liberal?

This ruling sets the stage for that type of Urban re-developement. As long as the public interest would be served, it doesn't matter if its a private or public group. Note that it still says the displaced must be compensated. (Heres a pizza and a moving truck..go away kid ..ya bother me.)

In some ways this isn't anything new at all. It just upholds the power of eminent domain, which has been in place all along. It simply extends that power to a private group acting in concert with, and according to a public group or entity. Something that is occurring anyway, has just been said to be OK.

I was surprised at the vote...but in reality this is a LIBERAL issue...the govt. MUST be afforded the ability to act in the public interest, even when that may abridge the rights of an individual. It really isn't out of line with liberal thinking at all, as that has ALWAYS been the policy of the Liberals. They have also TRIED to ensure that fair and just compensation must be offered and given. And That is where the law gets sticky, and the system breaks down. As to the governents right to take your property...it's unchanged.
:devil:

[SouthStndJunkie]

I just hate that people are making this into a rep/dem issue period. These are your rights. This is what you remain an American citizen for. It's to fundamentally be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. In today's society that means being able to provide your family with security and comfort. If your local government can assume power regarding your assets (property is many peoples' most valuable asset) and give you 'fair market value' for them, then something is wrong. The buyer is setting the price and the seller is unwilling.

The accomodation of the general good is not a bad thing. If the local government needs the property, they should offer top dollar (as any business would for prime product). They should move the family into a nicer home and provide incentive for them. If someone has to take one for the team, why not let the real estate company (or the city council members)? Force them to sell another property at lower cost to the displaced family.
That would be fair since the real estate developer gains in the long run. But we arent looking for fair, we are looking to accomodate big business.

Very solid take.

SSJ

[Meck77]

There is a difference between the government buying someone's land/house to use for public works, and the government forcing someone to sell their property so a private corporation can use it to make money.


Exactly. I'm going to switch gears here for a second and give you my take on who is going to be effected.

Usually when condimnation occurs it is when someone's property does not fit a "Master Zoning Plan" of a city. We are talking about infill property here not the sticks. People aren't going to be losing their single family homes. What I see happening is people that I refer to as "Homestead Holdouts" will be the onces effected. This is Mr. and Mrs smith who own a house on acreage in the middle of a city where big block stores or condos are going up for example. Mr. and Mrs Smith are usually older people who have lived on these properties for decades and have already been soliticed by brokers to develop their properties. Mr. and Mrs Smith have already been offered alot of money and probably don't care about the money and would rather die than to see their land developed.

The rest of the people that own these parcels of land that the zoning is in question are investors/speculators. They will not fall victims to the goverment interference because they are the ones trying to figure out how to maximize the value of the land to build. Infact a reason these speculators are not selling out or developing is they simply do not have enough land to make the project work. They will probably end up getting in bed with the city to see how they can take Mr and Mrs Smith's land. Or they may have utilility issues/drainage issues, traffic issues and need the economies of scale of the adjacent land owners to make the project feasible. Or they are simply holding onto the land for a market change. In the end with this new ruling the developer will get paid, the corrupt city officials who helped **** Mr. and Mrs Smith will get paid, and the taxes will flow into the city for the beaurocrats to blow on more land aquistion schemes.

When it comes to developing land adjacent land owners(Developers) who have been mortal enemies for decades who have even sued one another will suddenly turn their attention to Mr. and Mrs Smith and swallow up their land to shake up their positions. It's like a game of chess. There can be a stalemate for many reasons and this is going to shake things up big time.

I've seen all sorts of things being in the land business myself. I have seen lawyers(that were cousins) choke one another at an office in downtown Denver across a table while fighting for their clients land position.

Infact I know alot of Mr and Mrs Smiths by the nature of my work and I'm going to let them know what is on the horizon for them. These people need to be prepared to protect themselves and if any of you own similar properties or can relate to what I just said I'd suggest the same for you.

This deal stinks to no end regardless of who voted for it. I plan on educating myself further on the issue to get all the facts. Infact I plan on contacting my stinking lawyers soon to get a better understanding of the impact for the sake of my clients that I represent, my future clients, and myself.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Exactly. I'm going to switch gears here for a second and give you my take on who is going to be effected.

Usually when condimnation occurs it is when someone's property does not fit a "Master Zoning Plan" of a city. We are talking about infill property here not the sticks. People aren't going to be losing their single family homes. What I see happening is people that I refer to as "Homestead Holdouts" will be the onces effected. This is Mr. and Mrs smith who own a house on acreage in the middle of a city where big block stores or condos are going up for example. Mr. and Mrs Smith are usually older people who have lived on these properties for decades and have already been soliticed by brokers to develop their properties. Mr. and Mrs Smith have already been offered alot of money and probably don't care about the money and would rather die than to see their land developed.

The rest of the people that own these parcels of land that the zoning is in question are investors/speculators. They will not fall victims to the goverment interference because they are the ones trying to figure out how to maximize the value of the land to build. Infact a reason these speculators are not selling out or developing is they simply do not have enough land to make the project work. They will probably end up getting in bed with the city to see how they can take Mr and Mrs Smith's land. Or they may have utilility issues/drainage issues, traffic issues and need the economies of scale of the adjacent land owners to make the project feasible. Or they are simply holding onto the land for a market change. In the end with this new ruling the developer will get paid, the corrupt city officials who helped **** Mr. and Mrs Smith will get paid, and the taxes will flow into the city for the beaurocrats to blow on more land aquistion schemes.

When it comes to developing land adjacent land owners(Developers) who have been mortal enemies for decades who have even sued one another will suddenly turn their attention to Mr. and Mrs Smith and swallow up their land to shake up their positions. It's like a game of chess. There can be a stalemate for many reasons and this is going to shake things up big time.

I've seen all sorts of things being in the land business myself. I have seen lawyers(that were cousins) choke one another at an office in downtown Denver across a table while fighting for their clients land position.

Infact I know alot of Mr and Mrs Smiths by the nature of my work and I'm going to let them know what is on the horizon for them. These people need to be prepared to protect themselves and if any of you own similar properties or can relate to what I just said I'd suggest the same for you.

This deal stinks to no end regardless of who voted for it. I plan on educating myself further on the issue to get all the facts. Infact I plan on contacting my stinking lawyers soon to get a better understanding of the impact for the sake of my clients that I represent, my future clients, and myself.

Meck, is it so unrealistic to add a human touch to a human problem Take for instance: Mr. and Mrs Smith have dreamed of spending a year in Italy, their stance softens a little bit when the developer comes in and asks what they would like in addition to a new home. The Smiths hear genuine concern from a representative of the developer and the developer in turn, accomodates the Smith's wishes if they agree to sell the developer the home for average market value plus a certain % to upgrade the Smiths' prospective home. Why not pad the fall? Would it not eventually even out with lawyer and court fees in the long run?

[Rausch]

Well, how communist of them.

****ing idiot judges...

[Meck77]

Meck, is it so unrealistic to add a human touch to a human problem Take for instance: Mr. and Mrs Smith have dreamed of spending a year in Italy, their stance softens a little bit when the developer comes in and asks what they would like in addition to a new home. The Smiths hear genuine concern from a representative of the developer and the developer in turn, accomodates the Smith's wishes if they agree to sell the developer the home for average market value plus a certain % to upgrade the Smiths' prospective home. Why not pad the fall? Would it not eventually even out with lawyer and court fees in the long run?

Absolutely. There are thousands of feel good stories about the Smith's partnering up with good developers. I'm not saying they don't. All I was trying to do is bring some perspective to what I think this ruling might do to those who have no interest in conforming to the zoning around them or participating with the cities "master plan". Infact that is exactly what my role is as an agent/developer is. In any business there is a ethical and non-ethical way of doing business. I'm just concerned about the cities getting involved in the private sector when it has to do with private entities and someone else's land who is not interested in participating. It's very simple really.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

This site has tons of info on fighting eminent domain.
http://www.castlecoalition.org/

And this stuff has been going on for years.

[Meck77]

This site has tons of info on fighting eminent domain.
http://www.castlecoalition.org/

And this stuff has been going on for years.


Wasn't it you just a month or so ago raising holy hell about Walmart and now you are down playing this?

Cut the party lines slug and take a step back. You can do it.

[Spider]

I see Mecks Point ...... this is a very slippery slope ruling , not enough precautions set in .... For Example , Tim and Peggy has had the same land in their family since Grandpa settled it in the 1900's , the happy little Spread happens to be east of lathrop road , Near Hat 6 road , Betty Luker has been deveoping everything East of Wyoming BLV to Hat 6 road , So what happens to Tim and Peggy when they dont want to Sell ?
Can the powers to be in Casper City council say Tim and Peggy , We want to build a a Large building for Dancing bears , right where you are cause you have Perfect Water location So therefore you have to sell ?
Should Tim and Peggy be foreced to sell ?
should Tim and Peggy be able to say hey I was raised here , I have put alot of Heart and my soul into this place to make it a home , My Memories are tied up here This place is me ?
PS ...Name of the Roads and the People are real , the Dancing bear thing was made up ;D

[Spider]

I am just saying , there are no boundries in this ruling ...... Thats a scary thing ....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Wasn't it you just a month or so ago raising holy hell about Walmart and now you are down playing this?

Cut the party lines slug and take a step back. You can do it.
Hardly. I've been talking about the Wal-marting of America (Chinese outlet stores) for years. Who's downplaying anything? Read through that site I posted and you will see this has been happening for years.

[Meck77]

Ok Slug I have a question for you. Why do you think your fellow liberals supported this ruling? Simple question.

[Spider]

Ok Slug I have a question for you. Why do you think your fellow liberals supported this ruling? Simple question.
What Kind of question is that . it is obvious what Happened , the Liberal Judges was drug by the conservitive Judges , to make the liberal Judges look bad ..... ;D sheesh I got to think of everything around here :thumbsup:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ok Slug I have a question for you. Why do you think your fellow liberals supported this ruling? Simple question.
My fellow liberals? Maybe the same reason your "fellow conservatives" supported it? Maybe they thought it was the right thing for each local government to make their own decisions regarding eminent domain.
I, myself agree with the way the law is generally applied (I posted a link to it earlier) not this decision.


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.

[NaptownChief]

Ok Slug I have a question for you. Why do you think your fellow liberals supported this ruling? Simple question.



Slug would be for spreading cancer to children if his socialist leaders told him it was a good thing.

[Spider]

Slug would be for spreading cancer to children if his socialist leaders told him it was a good thing.
you mean it isnt ?

[NaptownChief]

you mean it isnt ?


Depends on which neighborhoods you targets I suppose. ;D

[Spider]

Depends on which neighborhoods you targets I suppose. ;D
;D . on the + side I hear you guys got a punter that will **** us up

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Slug would be for spreading cancer to children if his socialist leaders told him it was a good thing.
Seen any semis lately Naptin?

[elsid13]

Slug would be for spreading cancer to children if his socialist leaders told him it was a good thing.


I thought that was Karl Rowe role in life.

[Spider]

Seen any semis lately Naptin?
Hilarious! . I remember that

[epicSocialism4tw]

Absolutely. There are thousands of feel good stories about the Smith's partnering up with good developers. I'm not saying they don't. All I was trying to do is bring some perspective to what I think this ruling might do to those who have no interest in conforming to the zoning around them or participating with the cities "master plan". Infact that is exactly what my role is as an agent/developer is. In any business there is a ethical and non-ethical way of doing business. I'm just concerned about the cities getting involved in the private sector when it has to do with private entities and someone else's land who is not interested in participating. It's very simple really.

Sure. There is unlimited danger in unlimited power. I was just wondering how the developer might be able to sweeten the pot to the point where it is nearly impossible to say no.

There will always be those retirees who do not care about Italy or dollars or a better place. My grandmother was one of those and they lowballed her for 20 years before she died.

[Meck77]

Slug would be for spreading cancer to children if his socialist leaders told him it was a good thing.


LOL

Yeah America definetly needs a more innovative approach to electing our officials. It's gotten so black and white and us against them that the common good of the people doesn't even matter. Peons like us end up fighting with one another on boards like this while BILLIONS of dollars are being shuffled into private jets and mansions while they laugh at the support we give our parties.

One week the liberals are bashing Bush policies and then making excuses when their own fuel the corruption. It makes no sense.

[NaptownChief]

One week the liberals are bashing Bush policies and then making excuses when their own fuel the corruption. It makes no sense.



It makes sense it is just pathetic...They don't have any principles they believe in other than "whatever the Republicans are for we are against..."

[Spider]

It makes sense it is just pathetic...They don't have any principles they believe in other than "whatever the Republicans are for we are against..."
you say that like it is a bad thing

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LOL

Yeah America definetly needs a more innovative approach to electing our officials. It's gotten so black and white and us against them that the common good of the people doesn't even matter. Peons like us end up fighting with one another on boards like this while BILLIONS of dollars are being shuffled into private jets and mansions while they laugh at the support we give our parties.

One week the liberals are bashing Bush policies and then making excuses when their own fuel the corruption. It makes no sense.
Pretty sad Meck, jumping into bed with a chiefs fan who thinks he's being funny using cancer for children analogies.

[NaptownChief]

Pretty sad Meck, jumping into bed with a chiefs fan who thinks he's being funny using cancer for children analogies.


Nah, he knows how pitiful you are and that unfortunately more truth to the statement than we all care to know.

[Spider]

Nah, he knows how pitiful you are and that unfortunately more truth to the statement than we all care to know.
Ha! . most loones see Helicopters . you see Semis

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nah, he knows how pitiful you are and that unfortunately more truth to the statement than we all care to know.
Seen any semis sneaking up on you lately Naptin?

[NaptownChief]

Seen any semis sneaking up on you lately Naptin?


Got a job yet? Maybe Spider can teach you to drive a semi.

[Spider]

Got a job yet? Maybe Spider can teach you to drive a semi.
Knowitall

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Got a job yet? Maybe Spider can teach you to drive a semi.
Make sure and let us know if Paytown is sneaking out on you now, ya hear?

[Spider]

Make sure and let us know if Paytown is sneaking out on you now, ya hear?
http://thinks.com/jigsaw/people/binoculars.jpg
Ole Nappy is on the job ;D

[NaptownChief]

Make sure and let us know if Paytown is sneaking out on you now, ya hear?


Let me know when you decide to earn your own way so I and the rest of us capitalist can take a day off.

[gunns]

Can a mod merge these threads?

I agree SSJ that it's a shame that this passed but all the crying about the Republicans helping the rich get richer seems to have gone out the window today because the liberals on the court just sunk TRILLIONS into the wealthy class if they can start tearing down homes for profit. Maybe there is something I'm missing here but that's the way it appears to me.

3 of the justices were nominated by Republican presidents, 2 by Clinton.

[Meck77]

Pretty sad Meck, jumping into bed with a chiefs fan who thinks he's being funny using cancer for children analogies.

Relax slug. Nappy was making a joke. No need to take it personally. You are just driving home my point of people simply defending their party line blindly. I simply asked you the question why the liberal judges supported it and you quickly jumped on the defensive.

Well this was my annual political discussion posting session. I swore I wouldn't debate politics in forums anymore and haven't in a long time. Now I remember why. It's pointless and a waste of time.

I'm out.

I'll stick to planning food for the tailgates. It's alot less offensive and atleast something get's accomplished.... :thumbsup:

I will continue to read your daily rants on Bush though. Some of them are amusing.

[Spider]

Relax slug. Nappy was making a joke. No need to take it personally. You are just driving home my point of people simply defending their party line blindly. I simply asked you the question why the liberal judges supported it and you quickly jumped on the defensive.

Well this was my annual political discussion posting session. I swore I wouldn't debate politics in forums anymore and haven't in a long time. Now I remember why. It's pointless and a waste of time.

I'm out.

I'll stick to planning food for the tailgates. It's alot less offensive and atleast something get's accomplished.... :thumbsup:
you sure do have a talent , I bet when it is all said and Done alot of Bronco fans wil demand you to put in the annals of Bronco lore ........ No one parties like Meck 77 ........

[NaptownChief]

3 of the justices were nominated by Republican presidents, 2 by Clinton.



Only because the Demorats probably kept them from getting good quality staunch conservatives like Thomas, Scalia and the Bork's of the world through. This is the type of $hit that happens when they compromise with the crooked left.

[Rock Chalk]

Well, shades of ROBOCOP. To wit: A private company takes over Detroit, throws thousands out of their homes so they can build a new better "Community Center" (Downtown area.), They also privatize the police force, and turn it into theri own private army. Horrible experiments ensue and we end up with a ..... cybernetic HERO. Meanwhile the private /public entity is shown to be evil. What could be more liberal?

This ruling sets the stage for that type of Urban re-developement. As long as the public interest would be served, it doesn't matter if its a private or public group. Note that it still says the displaced must be compensated. (Heres a pizza and a moving truck..go away kid ..ya bother me.)

In some ways this isn't anything new at all. It just upholds the power of eminent domain, which has been in place all along. It simply extends that power to a private group acting in concert with, and according to a public group or entity. Something that is occurring anyway, has just been said to be OK.

All of the above is fine.

I was surprised at the vote...but in reality this is a LIBERAL issue...the govt. MUST be afforded the ability to act in the public interest, even when that may abridge the rights of an individual. It really isn't out of line with liberal thinking at all, as that has ALWAYS been the policy of the Liberals. They have also TRIED to ensure that fair and just compensation must be offered and given. And That is where the law gets sticky, and the system breaks down. As to the governents right to take your property...it's unchanged.
:devil:
****ing liberals. Government, our government, was set up with the purpose of keeping us safe from foreign and domestic threats. None of this public interest ****, none of this social welfare crap. Thats such horse****. The government isnt responsible for our lives and the more people give up their individual rights for the sake of public interest, because some ****ing con man in washington told them it was the best thing to do, for the good of all, then the more they will become mindless sheep and we will lose that which makes us unique in this world, our passion and spirit and the culture of resistance against authority. Sure, it makes us crude at times, but as a result of this resistance, of this passion, of this spirit that embodies that which is an American, we have become the strongest, richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known. We are the most envied, hated, loved, feared, liked people in the world for what we have and what we can do and what we have done.

THis is why I am against liberal policy. This is why I am against new laws, bigger government, more restrictions in whatever name. Whether it has been done before or not, makes no difference. It wasnt right then, it isnt right now. We either fix it by rescinding this horrendous policy, or we inch closer to socialism and communism. Sure, liberals stand up for equal rights and sure Im all for that and sure I do feel compassion for those that have had many tough breaks, but I am absolutely not going to sacrifice MY freedoms and those freedoms that my friends and family enjoy because a few people have fallen on hard times. If I were on hard times, I would not ask the government for help and I would not ask the people to sacrifice even a small bit of their struggle. It is an insult to them, to our founding fathers and to everyone who has fought and died for this country.

[Meck77]

you sure do have a talent , I bet when it is all said and Done alot of Bronco fans wil demand you to put in the annals of Bronco lore ........ No one parties like Meck 77 ........


lmao thanks I think. I'm hoping I can just die in the parking lot someday as an old man with my orange on. I picture myself just limping along in the tailgate lot :injured: yelling GO BRONCOS!! :coach: and then collapsing on the BBQ. That would be perfect. :thumbs:

I'd hope that someone would throw me on the couch with a couple bags of ice and the party would continue til gametime.

Then my boy can take OF1 to the shop and rennovate it the way he wants it. Or if it's worthless by then they can just dig a hole for the bus and bury me in the big chunk of orange metal. :alky:

[Spider]

lmao thanks. I'm hoping I can just die in the parking lot someday as an old man with my orange on. I picture myself just limping along in the tailgate lot :injured: yelling GO BRONCOS!! :coach: and then collapsing on the BBQ. That would be perfect. :thumbs:

Then my boy can take OF1 to the shop and rennovate it the way he wants it. Or if it's worthless by then they can just dig a hole for the bus and bury me in the big chunk of orange metal. :alky:
;D I am sure you will go that way Meck ...... I thought I was hardcore untill I ran into you .... We need more fans like you

[Rock Chalk]

;D I am sure you will go that way Meck ...... I thought I was hardcore untill I ran into you .... We need more fans like you
Dude, we need John Elway.

[ScottXray]

THis is why I am against liberal policy. This is why I am against new laws, bigger government, more restrictions in whatever name. Whether it has been done before or not, makes no difference. It wasnt right then, it isnt right now. We either fix it by rescinding this horrendous policy, or we inch closer to socialism and communism. Sure, liberals stand up for equal rights and sure Im all for that and sure I do feel compassion for those that have had many tough breaks, but I am absolutely not going to sacrifice MY freedoms and those freedoms that my friends and family enjoy because a few people have fallen on hard times. If I were on hard times, I would not ask the government for help and I would not ask the people to sacrifice even a small bit of their struggle. It is an insult to them, to our founding fathers and to everyone who has fought and died for this country.

Alec, I wasn't saying that I agreed with any of that, just that I perceived it as not being inconsistant with a Liberal agenda. One that goes too far though.

I am a liberal republican, or a conservative democrat...take your choice.
I believe that government is necessary to provide for defense and ensure peace and tranquility. They don't owe me a job, and I don't look for a handout, but if I lost my job I would sure as hell apply for unemployment payments, until I could land something. It wouldn't be long. I believe I should receive help from the institutions I pay taxes for.

Too many laws are bad. New laws mean more taxes and that's sometimes bad. On the other hand the "liberals" helped pass labor laws back in the 30's to 50's that we take for granted now (do you get paid overtime, or work a 40 hour week?).
The 'laissez faire' attitude of the 1800s led to robber barons, monopolies, work houses in NY and other cities that are as bad or worse than
any sweat shop in Hong Kong or Shanghai. Health Benefits were unheard of, as well as paid vacations. Local governents were so corrupt they were bought and paid for. They had debtors prison, indentured servitude and other methods of slavery that were just called something else. Slavery, in other forms. It was all LEGAL.

"Liberals" are the people that got RID of those time honored traditions, and I for one would be proud to call myself someone who believes in the same principals. And in every case they had to use government institutions and laws to get rid of those institutions over the objections of others, who felt it impinged on their "rights as free men" and spouted almost exactly the same lines you did above. Not what our forefathers wanted.

The constitution IS what our forefathers envisioned. And they were brilliant enough to know that things would change so they allowed for amendments to it, in order to adapt to changing times. They put in safeguards and made it hard to do. But they left the possibility there.

I submit that they might not recognize exactly what they have created in this time, but would be proud to say it is doing what they envisioned all along. The basic form of our government and the three branches of it, WERE their design...and it has proven to be a good one.

What threatens the stability of this are two things. The encroachment of BIG business into government, and the growth of entitlement programs to such an extent that the money needed to help people that need it ,is sapped away by thsoe who have learned how to manipulate the system and never intend to stop taking benefits.

Oh well, a whole other rant.
:gossip:

[yavoon]

What threatens the stability of this are two things. The encroachment of BIG business into government, and the growth of entitlement programs to such an extent that the money needed to help people that need it ,is sapped away by thsoe who have learned how to manipulate the system and never intend to stop taking benefits.

Oh well, a whole other rant.
:gossip:

no1 fights as hard for something as when he is getting it for free.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We have the debate going downstairs. It seems the Democrats on the supreme court voted it in. You guys think LA will even show up to defend his (Can do no wrong party?)

Heh heh heh. :D

Should I feel flattered or creeped out that Meck77 and the boys are all waiting to exhale on account of lil' ol' me?

Well, let's break it down!

1) Of the five judges who voted in favor of the measure, three were appointed by republican presidents, and, of those three, at least one was a registered republican (not sure about the other two.)

But even if every last one of them was a registered Democrat, they would still have a long way to go to catch up with the rethugs in the "pander to the rich at the expense of the average Joe" department, so ixnay on the righteous indignation there, bud.

2) I don't support the decision in question, no matter who issued it.

3) Please show me where I've said the Democratic Party "can do no wrong." (Quotes and links are always nice.) BTW, just for the record, my feeling is that the majority of the current crop of Dems in D.C. are worthless pansies. Nevertheless, I'll probably continue to plug my nose and pull the lever for them since they're still the only alternative to full-fledged, unabashed crooks, liars, thieves, and illicit war mongers like bush and the repugs.

[Garcia Bronco]

I'm pretty much floored by this....words can't describe what these **********s have done. A plague on their homes and families. John Marshall is turning over in his grave. The asshats should be protested at the least daily.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Let me know when you decide to earn your own way so I and the rest of us capitalist can take a day off.
OK, I thinking about caddying for real golfers, do you have any experience in this area?


Relax slug. Nappy was making a joke. No need to take it personally. You are just driving home my point of people simply defending their party line blindly. I simply asked you the question why the liberal judges supported it and you quickly jumped on the defensive.
My party line (independent) isn't represented (not really anyway) in the SC.
And I sure didn't defend their decision.
As far as the "joke" is concerned, I guess I have a different kind of sense of humor than anyone that thinks children and cancer is funny.

As I said earlier this has been going on for years......

-----------------------------
Atlantic City, NJ Condemnation
Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Coking
The Abuse of Eminent Domain in Atlantic City

http://www.ij.org/images/clients/private_property/vera-coking.jpg

Vera Coking won her fight for her Atlantic City home against a New Jersey state agency and Donald Trump.
http://tinyurl.com/apm5m

[Atlas]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

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.

They'll get fair market value for their houses. Hey these hotels and parking lots need to be built....or so I'm told.

[elsid13]

They'll get fair market value for their houses. Hey these hotels and parking lots need to be built....or so I'm told.

Fair market value in government terms is based upon assessed tax value of the property. Which is usually ALOT lower then if where to you sell the place on the open market.

[Atlas]

Fair market value in government terms is based upon assessed tax value of the property. Which is usually ALOT lower then if where to you sell the place on the open market.

My bar sits along I35 here in Texas and they are going to widen the interestate in another 4 years or so. I might lose the bar but I would get COMMERCIAL value for it which would be plenty for me. That would be great.

[Beantown Bronco]

You're lucky....we'd get assessed value here, which is at best 80-85% of what it would sell for on the open market.

[Rascal]

A guy here in OKC is getting 10 cents on the dollar for his property ( a meet processing plant).

[Hotrod]

Fair market value in government terms is based upon assessed tax value of the property. Which is usually ALOT lower then if where to you sell the place on the open market.

Exactly. If they were to take my land and home and give me fair market value for it I would not come even close to having enough $ to buy anything close to what I have now. Nothing here sells for fair market value.

[Bronco Yoda]

I know this is vague... but the other day I was half listening to this very topic on the radio and apparently a developer is trying to make a case for domain on one of these judges estates in order to now place a mall.

I don't recall which one of these judges they're going after or what state its in.... but wouldn't it be poetic justice . Like it would ever be allowed to happen but funny nevertheless that someones is trying to screw them using their own dirty rulings.

[watermock]

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.

Unfreakingbelievable. I was totally confident the Supreme Court would overturn that. It was a 5-4 decision. So they can now tear my house down to put up an office complex or strip mall?