High court OKs personal property seizures

[Raerlynn]

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

That...is in a short of phrase as I can muster... complete and utter bullshit.

To sum up, the Supreme Court has ruled that your city may take your private property against your will and give it to private developers if they can prove it will be helpful to the city in the long run. The city must compensate you for your property.

Does anyone else see the huge gaping hole marked with neon signs that screams "ABUSE ME!!! BY ALL MEANS BEND MY WORDING UNTIL I SNAP!!!!"

Seriously, in addition to the not cool things that can come about from simple bad luck and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy shenannigans, you have corporations that can pull a few strings with the city (Walmart's little town bullying ring any bells?), strip your land, and stick a small business or whatnot there, and you have no say in the matter. It could be used as a form of retribution against lawsuits.

In short...this is the shittiest thing to pass the Supreme Court. Yes, this includes the PATRIOT Act.

[adamark]

HOLY ZEUS!!!

This is HORRIBLE! An ABOMINATION! Are we for individual rights or not??? This is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from socialism where you won't even have property rights. Everything is for the "public good." I say screw the public! If I have a choice piece of real estate, let the corporations bargain with ME directly for my plot of land. This decision was wrong, wrong, wrong!

[mxyzptlk]

With Bush in office and these justices on the bench, it sucks to be a libertarian right now.

A scary thought occurred to me as I saw this on the news. This is a pretty obvious case of the courts not caring about privacy. Isn't privacy what the Roe v. Wade verdict was based upon?

[Red Fighter 1073]

i cannot believe that this idea would EVER be approved. does anyone else think this new idea is actually leaning towards a communist society?? i mean, after all, in a true communist society the government DOES own your land.

yes, i agree with adamark. what ever happened to individual rights?? this might be a little self-centered, but WHY should you give away your property for some company's store that in the end might go bankrupt or do horribly?? thats what i wanna know.

[Archbio]

Just before I cam in I was learning about this by way of that: http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=728

This is not a step towards socialism, but rather a step to the side. This is certainly not about collective ownership or property (or even the lack thereof). This is just like keeping the "right to private property" scheme in place, but crossing out the "right" part of it.

There is private property; it's just that individual private property stops being protected, which was the positive point of private property to begin with: it's existence as a right.

While this includes mechanisms in appearance much like those that would operate in any sort of socialist, communist, collectivist or anarchist transition, I do believe this is far worse in principle.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Raerlynn, I was about to mention the bulldozing part in Hitchhiker's Guide before I saw that you already did. ^_^

I've agreed with everyone so far. This is bullshit in its most potent form. But, what kind of "compensation" do the homeowners recieve? Another house? A monetary sum equal to the market worth of their property? Is another place of residence arranged before their houses are torn down?

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

So does this mean the seizures will be regulated somewhat? Or are they just speculating who will take the most advantage of this ruling?

I have seen this country slipping slowly into totalitarianism, and I've always defended it in the name of safety. But, this is too far.

[Dante]

If you look at it a certain way, it's not so bad - the state finally has the power to deal with recalcitrant landowners who refuse to cooperate with govenment building projects, and thus hold up the way of progress.

[Phobic]

all right, this is nothing new, this has been in the law and the status qou for years.

A few years ago in Las Vegas, the airport wanted to expand into the land occupied by several housing developments. There were people wo didn't want to sell their homes, or were trying to hold out for a ton of money. Those people's home were condemned by the city, and the land subsequentlyclaimed be the city. It was then sold to the airport for a very cheap price. The people who wanted to stay were given NO compensation because their homes were condemned.

one of the other ways this law already exists is in mineral rights. when you buy a house, or plot of land you very rarely get the mineral right to that land. so if something is found under your house, that someone wants to mine, they buy the mineral rights to your land. They now have just as much right to whats under your house as you have toy your house. They can raze your building dig up your land and leave you with a big hole in the ground. Again they are not required to give you compensation for your home. This happened to many people in wisconsin about 10 or 15 years ago.

As i said, this is nothing new.

[Lucas]

I can only see this making sense for the placement of highways and other huge projects, apart from that, the wording of the legislation is poorly done, improperly guarded, and rife with holes to be abused. Honestly, its like they didn't even bother asking a lawyer how to write a legal contract before they drafted this.

If they placed multiple safeguards as well as a say from the people unwilling to sell their land, then i'd be much more inclined to accept the notion that one jerk shouldn't be able to stop a highway, but seeing as my father and i have been working on developing condominiums for the past few months, i can see how this can be totally a point of interest for large developing firms. The door has basically been thrown wide open for a pack of convicted rapists to come in and have their way with a tied down virgin. Its sick.

[Dante]

It's been done in my country before.

If there's a 90+% majority of people who agree to sell, then they can ignore the naysayers. This keeps greedy bastards from holding out for a better deal from the developers, who might eventually give up and loo kfor another project.

Obviously, nobody should be forced to give up his home for arbitrary reasons, but nobody should be prevented from improving his life because of one or two holdouts.

[Krylo]

However, Dante, this doesn't specify that the land is ONLY sold with any percentage of agreeance. It's if the city government says that whatever is being built will be better for the community, it doesn't matter if not a single person in the area wants to sell. Their homes will be stolen from them and they will be compensated as the state sees fit (most likely far below market value).

In other words, it's not about ignoring one or two naysayers. It's about completely ignoring everyone with property rights so that businesses can do whatever they want.

This would be so easy to abuse for people in real estate. Convince the local council that an apartment building would be good in x spot, compensate the people currently living there in houses for half the market value of their homes, and then rent them apartments, as that they can't afford a new home, now, and have no place else to go.

And I'm certain I could think of a hundred different abuses (X corporation convinces council that x land currently owned by a rival corporation should go to them for building one of their buildings, scenario above, etc. etc.)

[Dante]

After re-reading the article, I am going to agree with the OP in that this SC ruling is a Bad Thing, mostly because it's essentially saying "The corporations who convince the State that your property would be better as a shopping center will screw you into a four-room flat and half the cash you used to have while you look forlornly at the site of your former house which you now can't afford to enter."

Better hope the people in charge can be trusted.

[Raerlynn]

Better hope the people in charge can be trusted.

Hah.

Actually, nearby we had something similar happen when some new stores were being built, the city widened a road which evicted twenty...I want to say twenty three homes. Bear in mind that the local market for housing right now is about 130k for 3bed 2 bath 1 garage. I believe each of these owners were given 85k. As Krylo pointed out, what the state ses as fair and what an actual real estate will speculate can be wildly different.

Another similar incident happened in a town to the north. Walmart came in and decided to build a store. 93.6% of the residents said they did not want a Walmart. The City Council and Mayor however decided to do it anyway and built it directly across the street from the schools, almost in the heart of its housing district. *shakes his head*

EDIT: Actually Krylo, I'm worried more about the way this could be abused to intimidate and gain retribution from people seeking lawsuits from big corporations. You sue them, and they turn around, tell the city they want to build on your house, promise good business, maybe plenty of bribe money or pot (whichever is more popular), and BOOM! You're gone and they can laugh at you on the street.

[Viper Daimao]

Best quote (http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/archives/2005_06.html#002806) I've seen on it. "So according to recent Supreme Court decisions, the government has no business in your bedroom (unless you're growing marijuana), but they can drive a bulldozer right through it?"

Here's the break down of the decision. Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
Minority: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

Note, that the minorty are all the "convservative" judges (except for O'Connor who sometimes rules conservative, and sometimes liberal). Still I would agree with criticism of Bush and the Connecticut governor for not stepping in and stopping this.

Some good discussion of this here (http://www.scotusblog.com/discussion/) as well is all around the blogosphere.

[Astral Harmony]

Thank God I don't plan to own any property in the US...at least not now. But still, that's fuckin' ridiculous. I can actually see riots and bodies piling up about this for some reason.

[Heavy 3PO]

This would be so easy to abuse for people in real estate. I agree with you, Krylo, that it would be incredibly easy to abuse, but as a real estate agent myself, I have to say that I personally fought against this exact thing happening here in Florida.

A private developer was using the local city government to invoke Eminent Domain on an entire neighborhood (roughly 130 homes) in a low to middle income area. The city wanted to do it because these homes were close enough to the Atlantic to be considered oceanfront, and being an older area, the city wasn't gaining as much tax revenue as they would like.

Thankfully there was enough public outcry that it was shot down. Unfortunately, this happened only 6 months ago, and I fear that the developer and the city will try it again under this new ruling.

This is a quote from Dictionary.com on Eminent Domain-
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to compensate the owner of property taken by eminent domain, stating “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” State constitutions contain similar provisions requiring that the property owner receive just compensation for the property taken.The problem with this is that Fair Market Value and Actual Value differ signifigantly. As any homeowners here will attest to, the Tax Assessor for a city estimates the Fair Market Value at roughly 70% of Actual Value. This is why people that have their homes taken are given less than what it would normally be sold for.

[Cheerful Coffin]

First before I say how I feel, let me point out this is NOT a socialist descision. As a socialist myself giving power to major coporations only fuels the capitalism wheel. Which is the exact OPPISITE of what a communist or socialist society would want. No, this is IMPIREALISM. (Like Star Wars..)

Now, let me tell you how I feel about this..

"Already?"
Already because I KNEW this would happen. I come from a long line of witches in my family and have preminitions. These premenitions and communes with spirits give me insight on what is to come. That whole "culture war" thing you're told isn't just some bullcrap comment to scare you. It's a reality. But don't think you're safe just cause you pick a side. There is no winners in this war.

On the rightside, you have a bunch of selfish prick dictators who care only about themselves and how much power they can seize. No freedom, no liberty, just what they believe is good for you and you're either going to like it or lump it. (Which is a nice way of saying die.)

On the leftside, you have a massive number of inidividualists who have forgotten right from wrong and are simply barbarians because they have the freedom to be. Hectic anarchy, filled with gang-rapes, murder, and a dangerous nation where law means nothing.

Wether you choose America (Red States.) or New America (Blue States), you will know nothing but fear, anguish, and suffering. I can only play some greater country (And by greater I mean less stupid.) bombs the hell out of us and erases our plague of an exsistance from the history books. However I feel even that might not be enough. As America has implanted the seed of destruction overseas, and our sick culture has peverted the entire world to some extent.

And as usual I blame the whiteman for this because of thier need to parade across the globe in boats and rape/pillage other lands during the more primitive times. But I think that go's without saying.. :bmage:

[Lucas]

So i'm reading through the new posts on this thread, mmkay. So i'm saying to myself "good point", "fine", "didn't think of that" "burn the whiteman. wait..."

And as usual I blame the whiteman for this because of thier need to parade across the globe in boats and rape/pillage other lands during the more primitive times. But I think that go's without saying.. Yeah, okay there. Y'know, I'm white, italian, actually, and I see these types of comments all the time in school from teachers, or from friends, and on forums too. I understand the sentiment behind it, but i also understand the sentiment that drives the KKK. Understanding doesn't mean I endose; endorsement means I think you walked the right path, understanding means i know what path you walked to end up where you are.

That said, I'm sorta getting pissed off when people decide to dump their problems to the whiteman (one word, because its a noun in and of itself). I'm sorta pissed off that people find it acceptable to do so. I find that these race driven arguments don't really fly unless they use caucasians as the butt of their attack, and i don't think that's fair. Had you said something like "well, its obvious that america's problems are caused by black people who steal too much, thus causing us to need too much police" people would have been up in arms.

That said, this isn't the first post I see of yours with this... cringe-inducing point of view. I really hate writing posts like this, and I would have rather attacked your points to show that you're completely retarded, but the spirit in which you made your post was so odious to me that I couldn't help but feel disgusted despite not being American.

[Krylo]

Alright, guys, and by guys I mostly mean Mr. Down-with-whitey with a lesser call to those wasting their valuable time responding, this isn't a discussion on race, and turning it into one would NOT be a good idea, as that it would annoy me. Greatly.

Secondly: We don't live in the mystical lands of trolls and faeries, and as such your premonitions don't really hold water. Especially when your premonition is a completely jack-assed view of a world future that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand.

Maybe that'd work in it's own thread, but not here.

In short, Coffin, that entire post was spam. Particularily annoying spam that nearly derailed the thread. You're warned.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

What I wonder is how long until Walmart kicks me out of my home?

Still, instead of griping about how crappy this is, I think I'm going to write my Senators/Congressman and see if there's anything that can be done. The Supreme Court only ruled on how things are, as the laws currently stand. It might be possible that with enough public push, laws could be passed which could put a stop on this.

I think I might contact my state Congressman/Senate as well. It can't hurt.

SWK

[Viper Daimao]

I think state laws in some states could be made, but what i think some people are forgetting is that this is not a law, its the Eminent Domain clause of the 5th amendment. To change what the Judges did would either take a reversal from future supreme court judges, or another amendment.

[Mike McC]

Well, there is one guy who decided to take this whole situation to his advantage. He is officially my new hero. (http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html) I seriously hope it goes through, because it would be great to see a Supreme Court Justice bit on his ass by one of the things he helped to vote in.

[Staizer]

Viper, the Eminent Domain clause was there to protect people's rights to their land, if they didn't want to sell their land they didn't have to- if the government wanted to build a highway through my house I could say no and they would have to go around or offer me an incredibly high bribe, thus building plans could be postponed for years. Now, on the other hand, because the Supreme Court has the authority to say where the elastic clause applies and where it doesn't, people have no right to own land as long as the government says otherwise: "We want to build a highway here and we will!" Oh, and here's a hundred dollars for your trouble.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

The pure irony in this made me almost die from laughter, I feel bad for the Judge if his house gets torn down, but it would be rather fitting.

[Bosolai]

The lawful evil d20 twinker in me loves this new clarification to no extent. But the rest of me thinks this clarification is just a bunch of BS. I mean, if this clarification were made back in the days of political machines, America would be owned by various "Legitimate Businessmen's Social Clubs" and such of the like. I'm certainly going to write my senator about this, because like a good portion of political action going on, I can't see this ending well.

And Bravefencer, I must applaud you on your find. Thats one of the most hilarious things I've read in a while.

[Mike McC]

And it is seriously not a joke. He really is puhing for this to go down. On the home page (http://freestarmedia.com/) for that site, he has set up links to help him with his cause.

[Dragonsbane]

Well, there is one guy who decided to take this whole situation to his advantage. He is officially my new hero. (http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html) I seriously hope it goes through, because it would be great to see a Supreme Court Justice bit on his ass by one of the things he helped to vote in.

My hero too. If it gets built, I'll make a point of visiting.

[P-Sleazy]

could someone give me the EXACT name of the case. This way i might be able to find for you guys the EXACT reasoning all the judges used when they ruled in this case. if someone wants to do this for me you might want to try "FINDLAW.COM"

I just want to say that this is one of the worst, if the THE WORST, decision the supreme court has made in all its history. The Roe v Wade was based on Privacy as was Griswald v Connecticut.

[Psrdirector]

Actually, i thought this already was a law, so this isnt news to me.... Im sure its been on the books for a long time, thats usually how they get roads built, and hospitals expanded

[Steel Shadow]

I think it's a law already over here. I don't think it's right, and I hope I'm wrong, but if it is a law, it hasn't caused me or anyone I know any trouble. but then how would I know about it outside that? It's a crapy law, and it's not fair, even though it may look good in a certain light. And I don't think there's any way to stop the guy building a hotel unless it can't be proved to be useful. And any good lawyer can prove it is. Just go on about the economy and stuff. So: Ironic justice: 1, Everything else: 0

[Raerlynn]

The law has existed for time, but the wording is that eminent domain could only be used to expand governmental properties, such as highways, hospitals, schools, etc. This case is about a private developer tearing down a neighborhood and trying to force its current residents to leave so they build a mall there.

[Psrdirector]

Yes, looked into this law a bit, they basically retooled an old law to make it better for the people who the law makers work for, the rich.

[Dragonsbane]

...You, sir, are a prime candidate for some anti-generalization pills, now in strawberry and grape flavors. Virtually every thread I have seen you post in, it comes back to the same rant against "the rich". If you have an axe to grind, why don't you start a "poor people forever!" thread, or a "Communists unite!" thread, instead of clogging the other threads here with your anti-bourgeosie hatred.

[Lucas]

"Communists unite!" You get some pills too.

[Dragonsbane]

Hey, hey, was it not a big part of Karl Marx's theories that the rich business owners, or "bourgeosie" were to blame for society's ills, and that they must be overthrown by the working class or "proletariat".

[TheSpacePope]

Despite the fact that it is way off topic and oft mispelled (I have that affliction also) Dragonsbane is correct about communisim. This law hearkens to socailism, but only in it's mechanics, not it's implementation. Was it mentioned that "the rich" compensate "The poor" for moving out of their properties....has anyone mentioned that?

And before anyone mentions it, I'm already on pills, and they make me feel really good when I type this....I also wish upon a miester that he'd regulate (as we say in my neck of the hood) this thread before it goes into the throes of, commmunisim sucks, your gay comments.