NEWS: (Breaking) Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that local governments may seize homes and businesses for private economic development. Cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.







One giant step for Government, one giant wrong doing for home owners. This is wrong, just wrong plain and simple.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by elevatedone]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by elevatedone]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by elevatedone]

I'm pretty sure I'm not on drugs, but this is unreal!

How can this be happening? People can be kicked out
and a developer takes over the land?

Please help, this is nauseating.

Cant say that im surprised. I wonder if Mugabe gave them this idea

I wonder if there is a breaking point for us indoctrinated apathetic Westerners? If there is, when is it? They can lock us up with no trial, steal our homes, spy one us without proof of a crime...

This isn't surprising, the Constitution clearly allows it, provided the persons are compensated:

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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 offense 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.

Good story voted yes but do fix the story by inserting the story text into the news section where the link is. i.e. below the link to source within the news tags

Wrong. djohnsto77, read the article please.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This land is being usurped for private (corporate) use.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex

An office complex is public use?

[edit on 23/6/05 by subz]

Rezoning it from residential to commercial for the perceived good of the community could be considered taking it for public use.

That is a real stretch, and typically the american way of doing things is to give the benifit of the doubt to the citizen as a curb to the powers of the government. The public use here is a highly indirect argument of gaining additional tax revenue for a community. Who is the governmet serving here? Not the citizens, themselves only. This is what the Constitution was written to protect against. There is a large difference between needing the land for a fort or a bridge due to the natural properties of the land, and taking it so that an office building can have a nicer view.

This is the start of something awful, remember the date.

I'm closing on a house in July, so now you mean that if the someone wants to build a mini mall where my house is sitting they can just have it ?

No way... This can't be happening...

Technically speaking, regardless of how the complex benefits the community, it in itself is not for public use. It may allow the city to expand and get land for the public, but the complex isn't public in its own right.

But is it really of benefit to the community? I mean think about it, would you want to live in a city where they can take your home at any time because someone with enough money wants to put up a strip mall or something? I certainly wouldn't, and I can't think of anyone who would. I know if the city I live in decided to do something like that, I'd be on the first flight out, and I'd never knowingly move to such a city. I might be a little overimaginative here, but I can definitely see the population of a community implementing this start to decline, or at the very least not increase by much.

My suggestion to anyone who may live there is this: Figure out exactly what "just compensation" would be, and it shouldn't be too difficult for it to reach an unreasonable amount. Figure in the value of your home, the cost of a new home, the cost of relocating, the difference in the utilities at a new place, the amount of added gas needed to get to work from your new home, and a healthy moving-stress compensation (anyone who's ever moved should know it's not exactly pleasant.) If you have kids, even better--they not only have to go through the process of moving, but they also possibly have the traumatic experience of having to deal with a new school. This is one instance where I would personally like to see as many "frivolous" lawsuits with high dollar amounts being tacked on.

Deleted



[edit on 6/23/2005 by lightseeker]

What an amazing double standard we have here. When local big business wants to abuse property rights, how wonderful says the court! After all it is "local wisdom." Unfortunately that "local wisdom," consists of any big business lobby bribing or even threatening local officials. Then again using hemp to relieve your cancer chemo nausea, even when the people had an initiative legalizing it locally in a State is trumped by the federal law. It is well known that this kind of federal law began on bogus premises Q.E.D.

Face it when any elite anywhere wants to quash the people, this court says go to it, regardless of actual logic, reason, and cross impacting consequences.

It is time to reaffirm what the constitution says totally, to claim 10th amendment rights for example as well as fifth amendment rights to just compensation. Our constitution is going down the tubes, while all congress can do is pass an amendment protecting slave labor made in China flags from imminent ruin from one protester every 10 years while wreaking major destruction on the first amendment.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by SkipShipman]

How do you justly compensate 50 years of memory in a home?

I agree, the tax gained from this commerical expansion is probably less than those from the citizens living in those homes anyway. Also where does the line stop? And what regulations are there surrounding what land can be usurped?

Every house in America is vulnerable to this law. Djohnsto77 how would you feel if you were given a compulsory purchase order for your home so they could demolish it and put up a McDonalds? Elated at your service for your country? Give me a break

Ah and your rights to bring a class action against those doing just this kind of thing have been diminished. There goes your last chance to legally challenge such a manouver. You better have the cash to take on a corporation by yourself. Up here for thinking /me taps head

[edit on 23/6/05 by subz]

I'm not saying I agree with the outcome, but it seems reasonable.

The Court could find no Federal issue with the State's decision, and I agree that I really see none. The problem here lies with the State that is allowing this to happen, not with the Supreme Court.

Rezoning it from residential to commercial for the perceived good of the community could be considered taking it for public use.

Only under certain circumstances. The case in question that lead of to this ruling was not a slum all the homes in question were as I recall were in good to excellent condition.

This ruling is nothing more then allowing the government to steal any property whenever they want and it is down right wrong.

Now if the homes were in a slum that would change the picture completely and it would be called for since a commercial zoning would improve the neighborhood. In this case it did not since the area was already nice.

Actually, there is a federal issue here, the interpretation of the Constitution. The court has now decided that "public use" can be extended to anything the city feels might be beneficial whether the public gets to directly use it or not. Based on this interpretation, as subz put it, a McDonalds in the lot your house sits in may be considered "beneficial" to the city if they can justify it. And with enough money to back it up, they'll justify it.

The Court said local and State governments are best equipped to judge what consitutes public use, not Federal judges. This is a hallmark example of Federalism and State's rights. We can't be schizophrenic about Federalism depending on what the State decides. Most people here want the Feds to butt out of State medical marijuana laws yet butt in to the way States handle local property concerns, doesn't make sense.

Plus I find it surprising a lot of posts here seem to say it'd be fine if this was a slum and it was poor people being evicted, but since they're nice expensive houses, it's bad.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by djohnsto77]

I hate to bring in politics here but.......

the 5 judges that ruled in favor of this were the more liberal judges on the panel.

Isn't it up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Consitution though? Shouldn't they be the ones who decide what "public use" means? To me, at least, that's where the federal jurisdiction over this case comes in, and by their decision they've interpreted "public use" to mean anything the local government wants.

Unless I'm missing some posts on my copy of the thread, there's only been one poster talking about slums vs. "nice" houses. Regardless though, you're right--it should be covering every person and house. However, demolishing a slum would be of more benefit than demolishing a nice development because the poorly maintained properties destroy the value of everything surrounding them. By "weeding" those out (for lack of a better term), the property values of the city as a whole grow, and more people will be wanting to purchase land there before it gets too high. More homeowners therefore, and that directly increases the amount of property taxes the city receives, which they can then use to purchase land for office complexes or hotels.