It was funny in Caddyshack... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Psycho Dad · 06-23-2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)

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.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

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.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"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."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

If you don't think this will be abused like a crackwhore with low self esteem you have another think coming.

This is the type of shit that makes me think those people buying guns and property in rural Idaho and Montanna may be on to something.

ngdawg · 06-23-2005, 09:58 AM

This has been front page news here in NJ for the last few years as towns, running out of space, resort to 'eminent domain' rights to take over farms, neighborhood areas and individual homes in the interest of developers.
The Supreme Court ruling goes beyond capitalism at its worst-it is akin to the communist eastern bloc of old. Why do we 'purchase' and exactly what are we purchasing and then paying taxes on? It is not the homeowner's fault the town let development run so rampant that now it caters to builders by taking privately owned land.
In today's paper, the town of Lodi, NJ will be using eminent domain to evict 500 people from a trailer park so that developers can use the land for shops and senior housing. Young families, hardpressed to afford larger homes, people who have lived there for almost 30 years, seasonal construction workers and all other residents-out. The part that gets me? Won't see this happen in areas of $1/2 million homes.
My grandfather escaped the Bolshevik Revolution, then the Turkish Holocaust to come to the US and live in peace. Poor guy would be turning in his grave to hear of these things.
Trailer Park Comdemnation

streak_56 · 06-23-2005, 10:52 AM

Personally, this is really f**king stupid. It basically gives local governments more power to just uproot people. Just think if you were not liked by many people in your local town, and a new office complex was slated to be put in.... and someone brings up your name. It's exactly like what was said above.... communism. The only thing that *might* be considered different is that they hopefully will get compensation. I think that at face value for your property wouldn't be enough for me. It would have to include many more times the proprty is worth.

jorgelito · 06-23-2005, 11:57 AM

*sigh* This just makes us pro-business, pro-capitalism people look bad. Unacceptable, there should be no excuse for this.

canuckguy · 06-23-2005, 12:11 PM

I grew up on a farm, our area had something similar happen when the local indian tribe attempted to get the land back from the government. I was young when that happened so i am not sure on the details, but say in a situation were the government would want to take my house down to build a 7-11 might make me a bit pissed. not sure that it is right to do that.
Now on the other hand, in a town i use to live in there is one section of area were it is all businesses, everything from car dealerships, fast food, retail..etc stuck in the middle is one house. looks odd to be that one house. I'm guessing the owner stuck it out and resisted to sell to the township. Not sure that was a good idea as the house has to be worth nothing now. Not sure I would want to hang out in my backyard to the sounds of air guns going off next door to a gas station.

Zeraph · 06-23-2005, 12:37 PM

I thought they could already do that. But its pretty much BS, government should protect its people not invade them.

Drider_it · 06-23-2005, 03:02 PM

which comes back to yet agian.. we dont live in a democracy we live in a republic. or another way of looking at it.. the good of the whole out weights the rights of the few.

Psycho Dad · 06-23-2005, 03:17 PM

But this has nothing to do with the good of the whole out weighing the rights of a few. This opens the door for abuse and corruption on many levels. This is for allowing for private economic development and it will be used by those who have the resources to have their say where those who are removed from their homes will have no voice.

The_wall · 06-23-2005, 03:26 PM

I too think this is a bad descision, it's a slippery slope as they say.

The house my parents bought and I have lived in my whole life was almost a victim of eminent domain. We live right on an s curve on a busy road, and the state wanted to straighten the road out. Luckily for us it never happend, which is especially good considering our house is at least 200 years old and is a small part of the towns history.

Telluride · 06-23-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

*sigh* This just makes us pro-business, pro-capitalism people look bad. Unacceptable, there should be no excuse for this.

This decision is not compatible with capitalist ethics, but I have a feeling that a lot of people will mistakenly believe that it is. I honestly don't see how anybody could justify eminent domain except in cases where the property was somehow being used to violate the rights of others, or maybe - and this is a big maybe - for military-related national security emergencies.

Marvelous Marv · 06-24-2005, 01:30 AM

This is what happens when you appoint justices for life.

I hope a movement starts for a contitutional amendment against this kind of thing.

Psycho Dad · 06-24-2005, 02:49 PM

From another board where I posted the same link:

Quote:

Originally Posted by M17s,Jun 24 2005, 05:06 PM

You know, a bunch of holier-than-thou mother-fuckers want Constitutional amendments to outlaw gay marrage and flag burning. They claim the very future of America is at stake. Bullshit. There is nothing at stake with those issues, that's why so many politicians will make such big deals about it, win or lose it doesn't matter.

Let's see if one of those spineless bastards will call for a Constitutional amendmend to explicitly ban this.

I thought this was a pretty damn good point. Were my neighbors wanting to engage in homosexuality, as long as my asshole is left out I'm not affected. Yet with this ruling if there were a motel across the street needing more parking, I could be uprooted from my home. Too bad politicians aren't as concerned with my property as they are my asshole.

chickentribs · 06-24-2005, 06:00 PM

I haven't read through this yet to understand it fully, but eminant domain has been around since manifes destiny. The ruling, if I understand it, is pushing authority that Federal and State Government has had a long time. The point being if it is invoked, I want to at least debate the value of the land with an elected official close to me instead of sitting across the country in Washington. Ideally this removes some power from the Federal Government and pushes towards more of a self rule model.

I hate the idea of eminant domain. It was invoked not long ago in Detroit as the city was negotiating with Ford about whether or not Ford was going to build a new factory in Detroit on adjacent land to the current facility, or do what GM has been doing and move overseas.The land needed had about 50 houses. of the 50, 45 came to a fair market value deal with Ford. 5 waited for those houses to sell and refused to sell $50,000 homes for less than $450,000, and held 5,000 new employees for Ford hostage so they could get something for nothing.

I have no opinion about it. There are several links where this was discussed in depth if you would like read about it. We like that the government can jail, muder, seize funds in your bank account etc., for citizens who behave in ways detrimental to society. Some would argue a check for the value of your house and asking you to move is much less intrusive. Not me.

Ustwo · 06-24-2005, 06:37 PM

This is un-American, and congress must act.

Manuel Hong · 06-25-2005, 07:25 AM

In Beijing, there are many small communities or neighborhoods called hou tong. They were built long ago in traditional stone and brick and housed many families. I thought they were beautiful, but they were being razed to make room for new high rises and to make the city more modern looking for the influx of tourism during the coming olympic games (among other reasons). I asked repeatedly where the government planned to relocate the many people who lived in all the hou tong throughout the city and never got a satisfactory answer...
I thought that sort of thing could never happen here...
What an eye-opener.

absorbentishe · 06-25-2005, 07:56 AM

Part of this case hits Toledo rather hard. Jeep wanted to expand to a new site, and Toledo offered this huge plot of land, which had a large neighborhood on it. Before the deal could be signed, eminent domain was not inforced. They planned on buying out all of the homes and business. Well, the prices offered weren't what any of the people wanted, so eminent domain was enforced. This went to the state supreme court. And the city won. Now with this ruling, the next expansion won't have to go to the court.

Pretty shitty if you ask me.

Blackthorn · 06-25-2005, 09:55 AM

This is really a scary proposition and the fact that this decision came down 5-4 in either direction is dumbfounding let alone the fact that is was decided this way.

Here's an idea to any potential developer in the North East: There's a tract of land I've heard is about 1600 acres on Martha's Vineyard with beach front access. I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that you could condemn that land under eminent domain and put up a couple of hundred condos at a price tag of at least a half a mil. Everyone should have access to that beach and in fact by allowing the local government to charge an entry fee it would generate even more revenue. I'm sure the Kennedy's won't mind moving.

Blackthorn · 06-25-2005, 10:08 AM

I guess the fifth amendment doesn't specifically exclude the condemnation of private property for PRIVATE use.

Quote:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AVoiceOfReason · 06-25-2005, 10:42 AM

Although I'm an attorney, I haven't read this case yet. It will be interesting to see if this is something that Congress and/or the various state legislators can fix. My understanding, based solely on what I've read and heard in the media, is the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court means that the law in Connecticut allows for the taking for private development if a public purpose (more tax revenues) are allowed, and such does not violate the US Constitution. That would not prevent the various legislative bodies in the states, and perhaps in Congress itself, from prohibiting such by law.

Flinn · 06-25-2005, 01:53 PM

This is rather frightening, does this mean any local govt has free reign of the area? They could just smash all the houses and businesses and build an amusement park if they wanted?

MageB420666 · 06-26-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

This is what happens when you appoint justices for life.

Appointing justices for life is a protection from long-term changes caused by temporary views or changing political fads. It is a method to help protect the minority from the majority, because the post of office is not dependant upon voter popularity.

Although it does not always work, as evidenced by this ruling.

Brewmaniac · 06-26-2005, 02:30 PM

This is absolute FUCKING BULLSHIT!!! Thanks to our past Republican presidents!

greytone · 06-26-2005, 02:51 PM

Emminant domain comes to us as part of English Common Law and the 5th ammendment properly limited it to projects for "public use." For more than 200 years we have understood that to mean the the project would indeed be public. In other words, it would be government property and therefore belong to the citizens.

The US was created by a bunch of people who had the audacity to think that government exists to serve the needs of the people. Now John Paul Stevens comes along and says that government can take property and turn it over to a private interest that is likely to generate more tax revenue. In other words, we had better feed the hungry growing state coffers, or get out of the way.

I have heard a number of people in favor of the ruling say that this kind of theft of property will be rare and the individual local governments can be trusted to police themselves. The justices in the majority as much as said the same. Does anyone pay attention to local politics anymore. There are examples of abusing the little guy with emminant domain from coast to coast. The potential for abuse and corruption in town councils and county commisions on this issue is endless. Wallmart and similar companies are going to start donating millions in local elections, hoping to get property at cut rate prices when the owners won't agree to their lowball offers.

We really need a constititional ammendment on this, but I doubt we can count on the requisite number of state legistlatures to vote to limit their power.

In a way we are getting a little like China. There you don't own property, but "lease" it from the government for 100 years. By the way, my understanding of those who were displaced by the hutong destruction were moved into new high rise apartments. There new homes are larger and more comfortable and nicer in every way. But they are not near the occupants old locations. By necessity, their way of life and sense of community have been greatly altered. The government did maintain a few hutongs in select areas for historical reasons. There was one below my hotel window which was only a block away from the northern part of the Forbidden City. I was given the impression that it was "safe."

Gatorade Frost · 06-26-2005, 02:57 PM

Some one made the comment that to solve this problem some town in Utah should demolish an abortion clinic to make room for a Wal-Mart.

KungFuGuy · 06-26-2005, 05:58 PM

i disagree with this and it causes me to lose faith in our government.

Quote:

Not sure that was a good idea as the house has to be worth nothing now. Not sure I would want to hang out in my backyard to the sounds of air guns going off next door to a gas station.

the house is probably worthless, but the land underneath is worth a lot- any people actually wanting to buy it would be businesses that would just demolish the house and build a store on the land.

Manuel Hong · 06-26-2005, 07:22 PM

Greytone,
Thanks for the input regarding the hou tong. I was told something similar, but didn't really believe it. I heard some local friends (Korean, not Chinese) say that many of the people were SOL. I hope you are right though. It does make me feel bad that their traditional way of life was being lost.

Sorry for the thread jack.

Ustwo · 06-26-2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewmaniac

This is absolute FUCKING BULLSHIT!!! Thanks to our past Republican presidents!

Ummmm interesting take since the 'conservative' judges voted against it.

AVoiceOfReason · 06-26-2005, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ummmm interesting take since the 'conservative' judges voted against it.

Yep, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented. Of course, Kennedy and Souter were wrong on this one, so I guess what the Democrat appointees did wouldn't have mattered without those two. Maybe Brewmaniac was mad because there weren't enough conservatives on the bench?

Ustwo · 06-26-2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

Yep, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented. Of course, Kennedy and Souter were wrong on this one, so I guess what the Democrat appointees did wouldn't have mattered without those two. Maybe Brewmaniac was mad because there weren't enough conservatives on the bench?

Now that I would agree with.

We can't forgive Ford for Stephens, ever.

MSD · 06-26-2005, 09:39 PM

I've said it in politics and I'll say it here: Any government official who for any reason short of averting a disaster orders a siezure of property through eminent domain should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit armed robbery with a sentence proportional to the value of the property siezed and the number of people affected. Any government official who supports eminent domain use to hand private property over to another private entity has violated the oath of office in which he or she promised to uphold the law of the land, and should be removed immediately for this failure. The fifth amendment explicitly forbids this injustice.

An unfortunate fact is that property tax allows this. As long as you are required to pay the government for the right to own private property, it isn't yours, you are renting it from them and they can sieze it at any time if they think that they can make more money from giving it to someone else.

doodlebird · 06-26-2005, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

My understanding, based solely on what I've read and heard in the media, is the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court means that the law in Connecticut allows for the taking for private development if a public purpose (more tax revenues) are allowed, and such does not violate the US Constitution. That would not prevent the various legislative bodies in the states, and perhaps in Congress itself, from prohibiting such by law.

in all of the terrible possiblities, i think this point is lost. from my understanding, the court doesn't say "this is right." or "this is wrong." they say, "under current laws, this is allowable."

the court is just doing one of their many jobs... this one should make connecticut (and others) go back and clarify their legislation.

Ustwo · 06-26-2005, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I've said it in politics and I'll say it here: Any government official who for any reason short of averting a disaster orders a siezure of property through eminent domain should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit armed robbery with a sentence proportional to the value of the property siezed and the number of people affected. Any government official who supports eminent domain use to hand private property over to another private entity has violated the oath of office in which he or she promised to uphold the law of the land, and should be removed immediately for this failure. The fifth amendment explicitly forbids this injustice.

An unfortunate fact is that property tax allows this. As long as you are required to pay the government for the right to own private property, it isn't yours, you are renting it from them and they can sieze it at any time if they think that they can make more money from giving it to someone else.

Ditto, this is unforgivable.

AVoiceOfReason · 06-27-2005, 08:46 PM

I'll rise to the defense of eminent domain laws for a moment. I sort of like that I can drive on roads condemned and put to use by eminent domain. The prisoners in the county jail are in a building constructed on land acquired by e.d. The water lines that carry water in and sewer out of my house were constructed via e.d. So let's not start trying to prosecute goverment officials for doing what goverment is intended to do; however, I'll help load the gun for those that try to condemn neighborhoods just to raise more money for the coffers they control.

And Doodlebird raises a good point, although I think the dissent in the case explains how a different result, still under the law, could be reached without doing violence to the Constitution and the principles of individual ownership of property.

Ustwo · 06-27-2005, 09:04 PM

My problem with eminent domain for public works is that they almost never give fair market value.

For the last case it wasn't even for public works but for a private enterprise. Thats fascism.

rat · 06-27-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Thats fascism.

They're not nationalising the private entity that is being implanted in the stead of the displaced citizens. Your point is moot, offtopic and a gutshot reaction based purely in a misplaced notion of the fascist principles and what occurred.

AVoiceOfReason · 06-28-2005, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My problem with eminent domain for public works is that they almost never give fair market value.

FMV is moving target, and there is a range of fair for almost all properties.
Landowners almost always give a high evaluation to their property than it will bring on the open market, because factors such as sentimental value and convenience to another site (work, church, school, whatever) is in their equation. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's not a part of FMV, which is supposed to be what a willing buyer and a willing seller would settle upon if bargaining at arms length and with full knowledge of all the facts.

Any landowner that feels aggreived by the amount offered can always appeal the decision. My problem is that the landowner has to get an attorney to file the action in court if the tender by the government entity is unsatisfactory, and hiring one over a small parcel is a real gamble if the landowner is going to come out ahead after the legal expenses. And I say that even though I'm the guy that gets the legal expenses!

I tried one of these cases earlier this year over 5 acres condemned when a road was widened, and we beat the offer by almost $15,000.00, but the client was going to have to pay me regardless of the outcome. He netted about $13,000.00 profit for going to court; his neighbor (I also represented) settled a year earlier for much less per acre, but was satisfied and got out cheaper on legal fees.

Ustwo · 06-28-2005, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat

They're not nationalising the private entity that is being implanted in the stead of the displaced citizens. Your point is moot, offtopic and a gutshot reaction based purely in a misplaced notion of the fascist principles and what occurred.

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Psycho Dad · 06-29-2005, 05:02 PM

How 'bout them Cowboys?

Quote:

Stadium eminent domain imminent for homeowners

Arlington: They say offers are too low; city says plan won't change

11:07 PM CDT on Friday, June 24, 2005

By JEFF MOSIER / The Dallas Morning News

ARLINGTON – The Arlington City Council is expected to authorize on Tuesday eminent domain proceedings against as many as 19 properties needed for a new Dallas Cowboys stadium and approve resolutions paving the way for 33 more condemnations in the coming weeks.

Mayor Robert Cluck said the properties are owned by individuals who are either unwilling to sell or are demanding an unreasonable price for their homes or lots. Some have not responded to the city's offers, he said, and a few would not allow city negotiators on their property.

"If they can't make reasonable counteroffers," Dr. Cluck said, "we have to use this tool."

City officials said they would continue to negotiate with property owners through Tuesday to try to avoid the need for condemnation. However, Dr. Cluck said, some homeowners are unlikely to settle without legal action.

The city's announcement came a day after the U.S. Supreme Court released a decision confirming that cities have wide latitude in condemning property for economic development purposes. That decision, which Dr. Cluck said didn't affect the timing of next week's votes, means that federal appeals of condemnations for the stadium in Arlington are unlikely.

Robert Magnus, whose house is on the condemnation list, said he was unaware of the City Council's vote next week, but he's not surprised. He had hoped that the Supreme Court would help him with its Kelo v. New London case.

Mr. Magnus would not say how much the city has offered him for the house he's owned for two years, but he said it wasn't enough to pay off his mortgage.

"They are just giving me pennies and telling me to get out," he said.

City officials said they are required to pay fair market value for the properties, and in addition, they are offering incentives ranging from $5,250 for renters to $22,500 for homeowners who agree to accept an offer and move quickly. Also, some moving expenses would be paid by the city.

Glenn Sodd, a Corsicana attorney specializing in eminent domain cases, could not be reached for comment Friday. He has said that he represents the owners of 15 homes and lots and four apartment complexes that are on the stadium site and that he would take the cases to the state Supreme Court if necessary.

The City Council approved resolutions last week stating that 19 properties are needed for the stadium. Dr. Cluck said those resolutions were the first steps toward the filing of eminent domain proceedings. At next week's meeting, 33 more of those resolutions are on the agenda.

The council also is expected to vote on the voluntary purchase of nine other properties. The city has already agreed to purchase prices for a dozen other homes.

A majority of the 33 homes on the resolution list are rental properties owned by Charlie Scott, a major landlord in that neighborhood. Mr. Scott could not be reached Friday.

Walter Herrington, who owns 10 homes in the neighborhood that will be cleared for the stadium, said he wants to be avoid going to court, but he wants the city to pay enough to allow him to purchase more rental houses elsewhere.

"I would love to keep it out of the courts, but they're going to have to pay me what I need," he said.

And the abuse begins.

As someone pointed out on another forum where this is being discussed... What exactly is fair market value? The government (or now some private entity) makes an offer of what they want to pay. From there, there is no other value because it has been determined that the property is worth X amount of dollars and no one is is willing to make a fair market value because the government has already determined that the land is only to be used for what it was to be purchased for via eminent domain.

And I'll agree with those who want to say that eminent domain has a purpose and that it needs to be used from time to time, but forcing someone to sell to build a playground for a bunch of spoiled millionaire atheletes is not the same as expanding a school campus.

AVoiceOfReason · 06-29-2005, 07:57 PM

This section of the story caught my attention:

"Robert Magnus, whose house is on the condemnation list, said he was unaware of the City Council's vote next week, but he's not surprised. He had hoped that the Supreme Court would help him with its Kelo v. New London case.

Mr. Magnus would not say how much the city has offered him for the house he's owned for two years, but he said it wasn't enough to pay off his mortgage."

I don't know it for a fact, but I think there is a distinct possibility he's lying on one of two points (and maybe both).

If he bought the house within the past two years, fair market value was established--a willing buyer and a willing seller set the price, and that figure would have been used by the appraiser as a sale. Now, if he bought knowing the land was in the area that is being considered for the new stadium and thought he could squeeze the city in the condemnation, he may have paid more than it was worth. If that's the case, he's not lying, but a bad businessman.

Also, his mortgage would not have been more than the worth of the house UNLESS he went with an owner financing deal. Again, I'm of the mind that what he paid for the house two years ago is the starting point for FMV--and unless the neighborhood has gone downhill in a hurry, it shouldn't be less than that. But if he went with a mortgage company, he didn't borrow more than the house is worth, and having made two years of payments on the mortgage, he's not going to be upside down in the house.

I say all this not to try to justify the actions of the city--I see the benefits to a city of having a stadium for the citizens to enjoy, not as the playground for millionaires (what the salaries of the athletes have to do with this is beyond me), but at the same time, I don't like the idea of cities bribing teams with cushy stadium deals--and I don't rule out the possibility that the appraiser that did the work for the city was either sloppy or giving his employer what they asked for, but on the surface, it looks a bit fishy to me.

06-23-2005, 09:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	This has been front page news here in NJ for the last few years as towns, running out of space, resort to 'eminent domain' rights to take over farms, neighborhood areas and individual homes in the interest of developers. The Supreme Court ruling goes beyond capitalism at its worst-it is akin to the communist eastern bloc of old. Why do we 'purchase' and exactly what are we purchasing and then paying taxes on? It is not the homeowner's fault the town let development run so rampant that now it caters to builders by taking privately owned land. In today's paper, the town of Lodi, NJ will be using eminent domain to evict 500 people from a trailer park so that developers can use the land for shops and senior housing. Young families, hardpressed to afford larger homes, people who have lived there for almost 30 years, seasonal construction workers and all other residents-out. The part that gets me? Won't see this happen in areas of $1/2 million homes. My grandfather escaped the Bolshevik Revolution, then the Turkish Holocaust to come to the US and live in peace. Poor guy would be turning in his grave to hear of these things. Trailer Park Comdemnation __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em. Last edited by ngdawg; 06-23-2005 at 10:04 AM..

06-23-2005, 11:57 AM	#4 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	sigh This just makes us pro-business, pro-capitalism people look bad. Unacceptable, there should be no excuse for this. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

06-23-2005, 03:02 PM	#7 (permalink)
Drider_it Junkie Location: Louisiana	which comes back to yet agian.. we dont live in a democracy we live in a republic. or another way of looking at it.. the good of the whole out weights the rights of the few. __________________ It means only one thing, and everything: Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut. The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resoultely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush him. Cut him without mercy to the depth of his spirit. It is the balance to life: death. It is the dance with death. It is the law a war wizard lives by, or he dies.

06-23-2005, 03:17 PM	#8 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	But this has nothing to do with the good of the whole out weighing the rights of a few. This opens the door for abuse and corruption on many levels. This is for allowing for private economic development and it will be used by those who have the resources to have their say where those who are removed from their homes will have no voice. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

06-23-2005, 03:26 PM	#9 (permalink)
The_wall Psycho Location: Rhode Island biatches!	I too think this is a bad descision, it's a slippery slope as they say. The house my parents bought and I have lived in my whole life was almost a victim of eminent domain. We live right on an s curve on a busy road, and the state wanted to straighten the road out. Luckily for us it never happend, which is especially good considering our house is at least 200 years old and is a small part of the towns history. __________________ "We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

06-23-2005, 10:52 AM	#3 (permalink)
streak_56 who ever said streaking was a bad thing? Location: Calgary	Personally, this is really f*king stupid. It basically gives local governments more power to just uproot people. Just think if you were not liked by many people in your local town, and a new office complex was slated to be put in.... and someone brings up your name. It's exactly like what was said above.... communism. The only thing that might* be considered different is that they hopefully will get compensation. I think that at face value for your property wouldn't be enough for me. It would have to include many more times the proprty is worth.

06-23-2005, 12:11 PM	#5 (permalink)
canuckguy I read your emails. Location: earth	I grew up on a farm, our area had something similar happen when the local indian tribe attempted to get the land back from the government. I was young when that happened so i am not sure on the details, but say in a situation were the government would want to take my house down to build a 7-11 might make me a bit pissed. not sure that it is right to do that. Now on the other hand, in a town i use to live in there is one section of area were it is all businesses, everything from car dealerships, fast food, retail..etc stuck in the middle is one house. looks odd to be that one house. I'm guessing the owner stuck it out and resisted to sell to the township. Not sure that was a good idea as the house has to be worth nothing now. Not sure I would want to hang out in my backyard to the sounds of air guns going off next door to a gas station.

06-23-2005, 12:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	I thought they could already do that. But its pretty much BS, government should protect its people not invade them.

06-24-2005, 01:30 AM	#11 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	This is what happens when you appoint justices for life. I hope a movement starts for a contitutional amendment against this kind of thing.

06-24-2005, 06:00 PM	#13 (permalink)
chickentribs Addict Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night	I haven't read through this yet to understand it fully, but eminant domain has been around since manifes destiny. The ruling, if I understand it, is pushing authority that Federal and State Government has had a long time. The point being if it is invoked, I want to at least debate the value of the land with an elected official close to me instead of sitting across the country in Washington. Ideally this removes some power from the Federal Government and pushes towards more of a self rule model. I hate the idea of eminant domain. It was invoked not long ago in Detroit as the city was negotiating with Ford about whether or not Ford was going to build a new factory in Detroit on adjacent land to the current facility, or do what GM has been doing and move overseas.The land needed had about 50 houses. of the 50, 45 came to a fair market value deal with Ford. 5 waited for those houses to sell and refused to sell $50,000 homes for less than $450,000, and held 5,000 new employees for Ford hostage so they could get something for nothing. I have no opinion about it. There are several links where this was discussed in depth if you would like read about it. We like that the government can jail, muder, seize funds in your bank account etc., for citizens who behave in ways detrimental to society. Some would argue a check for the value of your house and asking you to move is much less intrusive. Not me. __________________ Oft expectation fails... and most oft there Where most it promises - Shakespeare, W.

06-24-2005, 06:37 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	This is un-American, and congress must act. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-25-2005, 07:25 AM	#15 (permalink)
Manuel Hong Addict Location: Land of the puny, wimpy states	In Beijing, there are many small communities or neighborhoods called hou tong. They were built long ago in traditional stone and brick and housed many families. I thought they were beautiful, but they were being razed to make room for new high rises and to make the city more modern looking for the influx of tourism during the coming olympic games (among other reasons). I asked repeatedly where the government planned to relocate the many people who lived in all the hou tong throughout the city and never got a satisfactory answer... I thought that sort of thing could never happen here... What an eye-opener. __________________ Believe nothing, even if I tell it to you, unless it meets with your own good common sense and experience. - Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

06-25-2005, 07:56 AM	#16 (permalink)
absorbentishe Boy am I horny today Location: T O L E D O, Toledo!!	Part of this case hits Toledo rather hard. Jeep wanted to expand to a new site, and Toledo offered this huge plot of land, which had a large neighborhood on it. Before the deal could be signed, eminent domain was not inforced. They planned on buying out all of the homes and business. Well, the prices offered weren't what any of the people wanted, so eminent domain was enforced. This went to the state supreme court. And the city won. Now with this ruling, the next expansion won't have to go to the court. Pretty shitty if you ask me.

06-25-2005, 09:55 AM	#17 (permalink)
Blackthorn Beware the Mad Irish Location: Wish I was on the N17...	This is really a scary proposition and the fact that this decision came down 5-4 in either direction is dumbfounding let alone the fact that is was decided this way. Here's an idea to any potential developer in the North East: There's a tract of land I've heard is about 1600 acres on Martha's Vineyard with beach front access. I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that you could condemn that land under eminent domain and put up a couple of hundred condos at a price tag of at least a half a mil. Everyone should have access to that beach and in fact by allowing the local government to charge an entry fee it would generate even more revenue. I'm sure the Kennedy's won't mind moving. __________________ What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

06-25-2005, 10:42 AM	#19 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	Although I'm an attorney, I haven't read this case yet. It will be interesting to see if this is something that Congress and/or the various state legislators can fix. My understanding, based solely on what I've read and heard in the media, is the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court means that the law in Connecticut allows for the taking for private development if a public purpose (more tax revenues) are allowed, and such does not violate the US Constitution. That would not prevent the various legislative bodies in the states, and perhaps in Congress itself, from prohibiting such by law. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

06-25-2005, 01:53 PM	#20 (permalink)
Flinn Upright	This is rather frightening, does this mean any local govt has free reign of the area? They could just smash all the houses and businesses and build an amusement park if they wanted?

06-26-2005, 02:30 PM	#22 (permalink)
Brewmaniac Searching for the perfect brew!	This is absolute FUCKING BULLSHIT!!! Thanks to our past Republican presidents! __________________ "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son" Last edited by Brewmaniac; 06-26-2005 at 02:35 PM..

06-26-2005, 02:51 PM	#23 (permalink)
greytone Junkie	Emminant domain comes to us as part of English Common Law and the 5th ammendment properly limited it to projects for "public use." For more than 200 years we have understood that to mean the the project would indeed be public. In other words, it would be government property and therefore belong to the citizens. The US was created by a bunch of people who had the audacity to think that government exists to serve the needs of the people. Now John Paul Stevens comes along and says that government can take property and turn it over to a private interest that is likely to generate more tax revenue. In other words, we had better feed the hungry growing state coffers, or get out of the way. I have heard a number of people in favor of the ruling say that this kind of theft of property will be rare and the individual local governments can be trusted to police themselves. The justices in the majority as much as said the same. Does anyone pay attention to local politics anymore. There are examples of abusing the little guy with emminant domain from coast to coast. The potential for abuse and corruption in town councils and county commisions on this issue is endless. Wallmart and similar companies are going to start donating millions in local elections, hoping to get property at cut rate prices when the owners won't agree to their lowball offers. We really need a constititional ammendment on this, but I doubt we can count on the requisite number of state legistlatures to vote to limit their power. In a way we are getting a little like China. There you don't own property, but "lease" it from the government for 100 years. By the way, my understanding of those who were displaced by the hutong destruction were moved into new high rise apartments. There new homes are larger and more comfortable and nicer in every way. But they are not near the occupants old locations. By necessity, their way of life and sense of community have been greatly altered. The government did maintain a few hutongs in select areas for historical reasons. There was one below my hotel window which was only a block away from the northern part of the Forbidden City. I was given the impression that it was "safe." __________________ I was there to see beautiful naked women. So was everybody else. It's a common failing. Robert A Heinlein in "They Do It With Mirrors"

06-26-2005, 02:57 PM	#24 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	Some one made the comment that to solve this problem some town in Utah should demolish an abortion clinic to make room for a Wal-Mart. __________________ I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips

06-26-2005, 07:22 PM	#26 (permalink)
Manuel Hong Addict Location: Land of the puny, wimpy states	Greytone, Thanks for the input regarding the hou tong. I was told something similar, but didn't really believe it. I heard some local friends (Korean, not Chinese) say that many of the people were SOL. I hope you are right though. It does make me feel bad that their traditional way of life was being lost. Sorry for the thread jack. __________________ Believe nothing, even if I tell it to you, unless it meets with your own good common sense and experience. - Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

06-26-2005, 09:39 PM	#30 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I've said it in politics and I'll say it here: Any government official who for any reason short of averting a disaster orders a siezure of property through eminent domain should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit armed robbery with a sentence proportional to the value of the property siezed and the number of people affected. Any government official who supports eminent domain use to hand private property over to another private entity has violated the oath of office in which he or she promised to uphold the law of the land, and should be removed immediately for this failure. The fifth amendment explicitly forbids this injustice. An unfortunate fact is that property tax allows this. As long as you are required to pay the government for the right to own private property, it isn't yours, you are renting it from them and they can sieze it at any time if they think that they can make more money from giving it to someone else.

06-27-2005, 08:46 PM	#33 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	I'll rise to the defense of eminent domain laws for a moment. I sort of like that I can drive on roads condemned and put to use by eminent domain. The prisoners in the county jail are in a building constructed on land acquired by e.d. The water lines that carry water in and sewer out of my house were constructed via e.d. So let's not start trying to prosecute goverment officials for doing what goverment is intended to do; however, I'll help load the gun for those that try to condemn neighborhoods just to raise more money for the coffers they control. And Doodlebird raises a good point, although I think the dissent in the case explains how a different result, still under the law, could be reached without doing violence to the Constitution and the principles of individual ownership of property. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

06-27-2005, 09:04 PM	#34 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	My problem with eminent domain for public works is that they almost never give fair market value. For the last case it wasn't even for public works but for a private enterprise. Thats fascism. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-29-2005, 07:57 PM	#39 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	This section of the story caught my attention: "Robert Magnus, whose house is on the condemnation list, said he was unaware of the City Council's vote next week, but he's not surprised. He had hoped that the Supreme Court would help him with its Kelo v. New London case. Mr. Magnus would not say how much the city has offered him for the house he's owned for two years, but he said it wasn't enough to pay off his mortgage." I don't know it for a fact, but I think there is a distinct possibility he's lying on one of two points (and maybe both). If he bought the house within the past two years, fair market value was established--a willing buyer and a willing seller set the price, and that figure would have been used by the appraiser as a sale. Now, if he bought knowing the land was in the area that is being considered for the new stadium and thought he could squeeze the city in the condemnation, he may have paid more than it was worth. If that's the case, he's not lying, but a bad businessman. Also, his mortgage would not have been more than the worth of the house UNLESS he went with an owner financing deal. Again, I'm of the mind that what he paid for the house two years ago is the starting point for FMV--and unless the neighborhood has gone downhill in a hurry, it shouldn't be less than that. But if he went with a mortgage company, he didn't borrow more than the house is worth, and having made two years of payments on the mortgage, he's not going to be upside down in the house. I say all this not to try to justify the actions of the city--I see the benefits to a city of having a stadium for the citizens to enjoy, not as the playground for millionaires (what the salaries of the athletes have to do with this is beyond me), but at the same time, I don't like the idea of cities bribing teams with cushy stadium deals--and I don't rule out the possibility that the appraiser that did the work for the city was either sloppy or giving his employer what they asked for, but on the surface, it looks a bit fishy to me. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.