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

Welcome to the real world.

The simple fact is everything is up for grabs by whoever can hire enough lawyers. If someone with money wants what you have, there is really nothing you can do about it. They and those they have purchased will see to it.

WONDERFUL, I can't believe it, this is such an outrage and yet this is going to be one of those things that I bet the media will just glance over like nothing at all is wrong with this.

WELCOME to the GREAT COUNTRY OF CAPITALIST COMMUNISM where the all mighty dollar surpasses the common right of the US citizen to possess property. You only have the temporary use rights anyway according to the Constitution you are just a inhabitant of the land not really the real land owner.

But this is a shame and very sad day again for us citizen as our personal rights and security are slowly being stripped away from us.

To let any municipal body decide that a commercial construction outweighs that of the current property owner is forsaking our heritage for only the sole reason of collecting money.

This is a travesty and I truely hope some backward county decides to mess with the wrong group of people and maybe we will see the next civil war on US soil. The war of the people VS money hungry power brokers whos only goal in life is to screw over as many people as possible to make a quick buck.

Where have the morals of our country gone........ Our soilders in Iraq are fighting and lossing their lives only to return home to a country that has been taken over by a micro monopoly of powerful individuals and corporations who have taken away the very dream for some Americans

Where does it end....

This is SO WRONG. The government is taking private property to sell to someone else at a higher price for more money. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

Does anyone know of who we might be able to contact to voice an opinion on this? For once in my life I actually feel that this is something worth going off on someone.

Since when should the State government value the rights of private corporations as being being in the greater good when reconciled against the rights of the individual citizen?

I thought it was "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth". Should they append that with "unless corporate interests supercede the rights of the people".

I guess it boils down to whether you think a corporations money making is more benefical to the public than the public having somewhere to live.

We are slowly, but surely losing our individual rights. One step at a time, they are going. This upsets me even more than the patriot act. Though it is just probably one more step.

What rights do we really *still* have?? When will our rights to bear arms be taken away? Isn't that the last one we really still have?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
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.

The two most important words here are "Public Use" .

Taking land, then selling to developers is not Public Use, it is Public Theft. Next thing you know, they'll be telling what color door I can have.

Oh, wait, a lot of Housing Communities do that already....

Anyone got a nice Soveregin Island with an extra house?

Well, we still kinda have the right to free speech and free press (although it seems that the press is controlled, that's mainly by their own choice in my eyes). So technically, we can still voice an opinion. Isn't there anything that can be done about this? I mean, I know the Supreme Court is generally the last appeal, but isn't there still someway for people to take a stand against this?

Originally posted by MCory1
Does anyone know of who we might be able to contact to voice an opinion on this? For once in my life I actually feel that this is something worth going off on someone.

Talk to your representative and Senators. If there were Federal standards on what represented public use, perhaps the Supreme Court would have ruled differently.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by MCory1
Does anyone know of who we might be able to contact to voice an opinion on this? For once in my life I actually feel that this is something worth going off on someone.

Talk to your representative and Senators. If there were Federal standards on what represented public use, perhaps the Supreme Court would have ruled differently.

Aye, if there is a loophole that is being exploited its not for the Supreme Court to fix it. Shouldnt it be fixed by the government?

Considering the fact that politicians are increasingly taking bribes from big corporations in the form of 'campaign donations', and sometimes outright bribes in the form of prepaid trips, home purchases, and other such nonsense, I see this as just a further sign of how corrupt our government has become. They don't even bother to hide it anymore.

And thanks to Bush and Co., the Judiciary - which is SUPPOSED to be a separate power designed to protect the rights of the powerless - has become just another pack of pigs at the trough. Remember that ridiculous nonsense from Congress threatening the courts over the Terri Schiavo mess when they ruled opposite of the views of the crooks in Washington? How much of that do you think is going on behind the scenes that we never hear about?

We're seeing our future, and it doesn't look good for us, folks. Someone who knows told me that if you have money, you can get absolutely anything done in Washington now. Read into that ANYTHING including things that can and should be illegal. Including things that can cause your injury or death.

Our government doesn't care about us, and it's our own fault for either one, not voting at all (the one I'm guilty of since my own vote is so often cancelled by the party sheep), or two, voting in incumbents who have learned to trash our constitution AND our country while lining their own pockets by working the system. If you think any of them actually care about you or what you think, think again.

Welcome to America - the country that USED to be a nice place to live.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
And thanks to Bush and Co., the Judiciary - which is SUPPOSED to be a separate power designed to protect the rights of the powerless - has become just another pack of pigs at the trough.

SIGH, first none of the Justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by Bush. Secondly, most of the Justices who voted for this are liberals not conservatives.

It's fine to criticize, but don't twist facts.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by MCory1
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.

I agree that slums should be revitalized. BUT

In an increasingly litigious society this creates precident. This opens government interference in way too many things.

Environmental Use - (that wetland in your back yard, we need a lake for boating now)

Fossil fuels - (that coal beneath your feet, move so we can take it)

Retirement - (that beachfront property that you've been saving for retirement. It'd make a nice casino)

The wrong people could use this ruling as ammo for all sorts of unethical uses. Truth is that almost ALL residential uses create less taxes than Commerical uses.

The government should not force me to sell to Wal-Mart, Wal Mart should pay me what I am asking for to move. If I'm asking for a high amount, then, well, if they want it they'll pay it. NOW, with this ruling, they only need a friend in local government, and they need only pay fair market value.

This is a short-sighted ruling with bad consequences to anyone who owns property.

Ok, when the state needs to expand the highways, YES, they can make you an offer on your home and you BETTER take it! Because if you dont, theyll take your house anyways....Ive known that for years. Nothing new there.

What kills me, is that private business can now do that. WTF????? This SOOO can be used as politcal payback. Where I live now there is a fight brewing. A man has owned a tire shop here for years. Now the city wants to condem the building, and build a BIGGER and BETTER library!

City moves to condem Tire shop

Ive been to this place many many times. The building is old, but well kept up. Always fresh paint, clean yard. Not condemable, by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, apparently the city has a HUGE need for a new library, so screw this guy and his business of 30+ years. This is bull#.

So now, whats to stop this scenario? Say you run for office against an incumbant of 10 or so years. Its a vicious fight, but the incumabant wins. After the election, the winner decides to pay back the bastard who dared run against him, so he has the opponents house condemend and sold to Phizer for the "good of the community".


Heres what I propose. If this happens to any member here, we consider it an act of war. We all go to the victims newly condemed house and form a human chain. Call the news and let the chaos ensue. What has happened to an individuals rights? This is wrong wrong wrong.

We have had a few cases in the south dealing with land grabs by local governments. I said this last year, that the only thing that will stop the givernment from doing this is a group of homeowners taking up arms and refusing to be removed from the land they RIGHTLY OWN! I still cannot fathom this even though I have seen it happen. I would never have thought the surpreme court would have ruled this way. So if you own land near a commercial district, stock up on ammo.....I know I am!!!

Quote from Sandra Day O'Conner in the dissenting opinion.

"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power," she wrote. "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the process."

The effect of the decision, O'Connor said, "is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

From Clarence Thomas, also in Dissent

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "(T)hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."'



Anthony Kennedy was the conservative vote that joined the pro side.

It's an upside down world when the conservatives side with the people, and the liberals side with big business.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by soulforge]

Originally posted by spliff4020
wrong wrong wrong.

I used "wrong wrong wrong" today and have seen it used twice since in the last couple of hours. It should be the rallying cry for every single one of us who do not like what our countries are becoming.

SIGH, first none of the Justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by Bush. Secondly, most of the Justices who voted for this are liberals not conservatives.

Bush didn't elect everyone in Congress, but it doesn't stop him and his cohorts from getting what they want done with a near rubber stamp.

You underestimate the corrupting influence of the type of power that has been accumulated by this administration.

well i guess you guys now know how
the indians felt, perhaps you'll get a few
shiny beads for compensation before being
sent to a (trailer park)reservation

what goes around comes around

Originally posted by bortsamson
well i guess you guys now know how
the indians felt, perhaps you'll get a few
shiny beads for compensation before being
sent to a (trailer park)reservation

what goes around comes around

I think the quote "Jane, you ignorant slut..." comes to mind.

It has nothing to do with the sins of our fathers, it has to do with our own ignorance.

Deny Ignorance...

If you are an American that EVER plans on owning a house, you should be concerned about this issue.