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

Originally posted by Spiderj
Elevatedones point though extreme certainly expresses the slippery slope concern.

Imagine, you have a local diner in a low-middle class part of town, it's been in your family for a couple of generations and though you're not a millionaire you've got a steady flow of loyal customers from the neighborhood whose families have also been coming there for a couple generations. Next door to you is a dry cleaner, on the other side of your little cafe is a liquor store. The whole block filled with small mom and pop businesses.

Now the local government decides that even though you and the other family/business owners own the block through a collective your city block would be much more advantageous to the community if there was a dog track or WalMart there.

Which is great because you live right around the corner and they've just decided to turn your block into a parking structure for the dog track or walmart.

Am I missing something? Am I wrong in thinking this could happen, I mean it happens now but at least it's down sneakily without government sanction.

Spiderj

if you look at the New London case (which the decision is based upon, that is exactly what is happening. Some local arbiter has decided that better use of a neighborhood, which included Victorian homes, clean businesses, and multi-generational owned homes, in now better served as a health club, a hotel, and office buildings.

[edit on 6/24/2005 by soulforge]

Originally posted by ben91069
It could just be that the SC is setting up the legal groundwork to allow the Nation to develop an interstate mass transit system like bullet trains or the like. Once they have the legal framework to take land, even in municipalities, they will have an easier road to possibly developing the infrastructure for the next insterstate highway of the future. Could this be the underlying agenda for the Supreme Court?

They always had this ability, with just compensation. The difference in this case is that the property is being taken for the use of a private venture, claiming the benefits to the community make it a public benefit. It's a major stretch and it's frightening.

[edit on 6/24/2005 by Relentless]

Actually to be really pedantic (which is the main task of the SC) the term "public use" does not correlate to "public benefit". The land that is taken under this law should no be able to charge a fee for admitance so if its a cinema that is getting built - hoorah - the constitution will back you up to go see the movies for free

If they try to impose a dress code you can claim its unconstitutional as its land for "public use". If its a health spa you can all relax for free and there is not a god damn thing they can legally do against it.

Making lemonade from lemons, I know, but accepting a decision like this is not really acceptable. Being in Britain I can see the Crown taking land like this alot easier than they are in the USA. We dont even have the same protections you guys do, its all at the Queens discretion.

A picture of the lead plaintiff's House. It's a sorta gentrified dwelling. Not at all blighted.

Originally posted by Relentless
They always had this ability, with just compensation. The difference in this case is that the property is being taken for the use of a private venture, claiming the benefits to the community make it a public benefit. It's a major stretch and it's frightening.[edit on 6/24/2005 by Relentless]

yeah... lets see, take some decent homes away... in thier place lets put say a nice little mini mall or theatre or something, where ummm yeah.. kids, teens etc will be hanging out making noise, possibly causing a disturbance, then the drug dealers come along, cause thats where the kids are hanging out...

CRAP its all CRAP

This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. Isn't this a form of Communism?

The sad thing is in my city this was already going on all the time, now it's just legal for our mayor to get away with it. He's the big Real Estate guy out here and the people in my city elected him mayor. So he's doing as he pleases with the town using "under the table" methods. Well now he can perform his crimes out in the open without getting in trouble.

I believe it was people like him that lobbyed for this to happen.

Originally posted by mpeake
This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. Isn't this a form of Communism?

Given that the land is going towards direct private use and indirectly public use, its fascism.

I thought about this quite a bit last night. I think there ARE some things we can do. First, a message MUST be sent to the government that continued support of monied interests at the expense of the American public must stop. To do this:

1. Vote EVERY incumbent in EVERY local, state, and federal office OUT. No matter what party, no matter how much you might like them because they've represented you for 9 billion years - vote them out and send a message that we won't tolerate pigs at the trough in elected office.

2. Any non-incumbent candidate who spouts extremist pro-corporation rhetoric should receive the same treatment at the ballot box as incumbents - no votes!

3. Bury elected officials in warning emails, snail mails, telephone calls and in person protests to demonstrate that WE WILL NOT TOLERATE any more 'pig at the trough' politics.

4. Economic armageddon on any city that exercises it's option under the new court decision. Boycot any development, avoid the ENTIRE CITY like the plague, bury city officials with oppositional mail and other communications, protest any corporations involved by extending the boycot to their ENTIRE business, etc.

5. Stand side by side IN PERSON with any threatened home owners in large numbers for as long as it takes to convince city officials that exercise of eminent domain under the Supreme Court ruling is not possible without violence or death.

If we put some effort into fighting these 'pigs at the trough,' we can win. But we have to be willing to make an effort to make it clear that we've had enough.

We need to take back our government so the first three words of the Constitution - 'We the people' - isn't just a joke.

A-wing...

thats all a good thought and such, but how many people are really going to take the time to do that ?

I don't really have all that much time to do that....

anyone else ?

At least the American people can now see the Liberals for what they truelyare.....the masks are off and they can't hide anymore.

Their Liberal POVs are much closer to the Nazi party than any conservatives POV ever was. My wife and I own a home close to some car dealerships....so if Honda/Ford/Toyota wants to expand and tries to force us off our property....I guess theres gonna be a gunfight.


Maximu§

Originally posted by BlackJackal
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.

And isn't that interesting? The liberal justices were the ones who were in the majority and the Conservative justices were the defenders of civil liberties. I was much surprised by the ruling, myself.

This has already happened in NEW JERSEY.

Donald Trump did it to build his casino's. Read this story about a couple that had a legacy in the home over generations and the Govt. still took their land.

libertyunbound.com...


Here is one where 47 couples living on the shore had to surrender their homes because the Govt. said the homes where all built on government land. And that the govt. lost the deed, now that they found it again they are Taking back the land!

"The retired couple, who bought a waterfront condominium here in 1988 and are about to sell it for nearly $900,000, were notified recently that the land on which it was built actually belongs to the state of New Jersey.

Like the owners of eight other properties on 47th Place, they have been told that the sliver of land their house sits on was city-owned land before it was deeded to the state for a dredging project in 1942."

1010wins.com...


This is not suprising, New Jersey has been the most corrupt state in the Union for as long as i can remember.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Where2Hide2006]

Great article today on CNN about this...

The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.

money.cnn.com... nentdomain/index.htm?cnn=yes

from CNN

Retailers such as Target (Research), Home Depot (Research) and Bed, Bath & Beyond (Research) have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.

A-wing...

thats all a good thought and such, but how many people are really going to take the time to do that ?

I don't really have all that much time to do that....

anyone else ?

Well, what's the alternative, then? Just learn to accept increasing government power? At what point does it become time to take some kind of action?

Pick and choose what you want to do, but do SOMETHING. It doesn't take all that much time to register and VOTE. It takes 5 minutes to write an email to a member of Congress - in fact, I wrote 3 last night in about that time. Pick some action that doesn't take a lot of time. Otherwise, you're giving them permission to do whatever they want.

They get away with this crap BECAUSE we do nothing.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
At least the American people can now see the Liberals for what they truelyare.....the masks are off and they can't hide anymore.

Their Liberal POVs are much closer to the Nazi party than any conservatives POV ever was. My wife and I own a home close to some car dealerships....so if Honda/Ford/Toyota wants to expand and tries to force us off our property....I guess theres gonna be a gunfight.


Maximu§

How you can drag partisan politics out of this is beyond me. If the Republican Bush administration had any qualms with the SC's decision then where is the out cry? Where is congress demanding that this law be changed? Where is the amendment to the constitution clearly defining what "public use" entails?

I've seen very little proof that voting works.

The same goes for petitions, contacting congress, and demonstrations.

And a million gun march? They would probably get charged with conspiracy to commit treason before the plans were finished.

Does anyone actually think the police would back up a civilian unrest?

Even if America wasn't so perfectly divided leaving it so perfectly confused. Even if America unplugged itself from corporate sponsored media. Even if every American realized what was going on and stood up in one voice against those that are taking over the country. Even if a civil unrest was successful.

America is owned by the banks. Your homes and your lands were already collateral for the national debt. This ruling is simple provocation. It's to see how asleep Americans really are. It's a test but at the same time it's a show of force. It's a slap to the face. And even more, it's a sign of the future.

Personally, I think Britian is behind it all. They had their hand in the first American Civil War. What better way to bring a country down than to have it take itself down. It's those bloody brits. They are still pissed about their tea.

[edit on 6-24-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]

When I first heard about this on the news I was outraged. This is a government not looking out for the American people. This is a government looking out for themselves. It is truly sad what this country has become. The U.S. Constitution has changed to "We the Government" not "We the People."

AWingAndASigh
What I don't understand is why people keep voting the corporate kapos into office that create a political environment that makes Washington folk think this kind of thing is OK.

People do vote but understand that their votes don't count anymore.

Zerotime
About a decade ago a family that my parent were friends with had their house marked for Eminent Domain because of a freeway project. Because of how fair market value is calulated they received almost twice as must as they paid for the home. The family was going to fight the project until they found out how much they were going to get for the house. I know that some people are really attached to their homes but from another view this can also be a financial boost for many families.

You make a good point but I think this is not about money for home owners. This is about "their" home. A place where they live, eat, sleep and raise a family. They "choose" their home. They weren't forced to live there.

jsobecky
Cavuto had a guy on today that was a victim of this in Connecticut. For a 10 room house on a half-acre of waterfront, he was initialy offered sixty thousand dollars. The offer ultimately ended up at $150,000. The property is probably worth half a million.

Yes, he was on the Alex Jones's show as well. Here's the audio segment of the interview. www.prisonplanet.tv...

LA_Maximus
At least the American people can now see the Liberals for what they truelyare.....the masks are off and they can't hide anymore.

Their Liberal POVs are much closer to the Nazi party than any conservatives POV ever was. My wife and I own a home close to some car dealerships....so if Honda/Ford/Toyota wants to expand and tries to force us off our property....I guess theres gonna be a gunfight.

Uh, excuse me!? I don't think so. Yes, the conservatives are against this publicly but the only reason they are against this is to gain support from the American people and to maintain their power. I guarantee you that secretly they are glad that this horror is happening. They just won't admit it.

Speaking of which, where is President Bush in all of this? If the conservatives are against this then why doesn't the President do something as he claims "He cares for every American in this country?"


[edit on 24-6-2005 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by ben91069
It could just be that the SC is setting up the legal groundwork to allow the Nation to develop an interstate mass transit system like bullet trains or the like. Once they have the legal framework to take land, even in municipalities, they will have an easier road to possibly developing the infrastructure for the next insterstate highway of the future. Could this be the underlying agenda for the Supreme Court?

They always had this ability, with just compensation. The difference in this case is that the property is being taken for the use of a private venture, claiming the benefits to the community make it a public benefit. It's a major stretch and it's frightening.

[edit on 6/24/2005 by Relentless]

Forgive me that I did not research the difference in what is being done now and what we did to build the Interstates back 5 decades ago. I did not bother to read this entire thread, but I still stand that it could be to set up a ground work for a future plan.

You say that it is with compensation and I know that was always the case before, but the difference is that it is for private ventures, which I have seen happen in my city in certain dealings with some commercial developments that have come to pass around my woods lately. I think the SC is making a judgment not based on their own ideals, or interpretation of law or constitution, but rather what their masters say is the right thing to push forward the country's next step. Since SC justices are not elected, but appointed, this means they can be placed in their position by those who can sway their opinions as long as they show loyalty and gratitude for what they have. Maybe a conspiracy here too.

Just because eminent domain can now be used for private development means that it opens the doors for not only commercial shopping malls, but maybe that the future of government/civil projects can be more easily done by corporations. In other words, maybe the government sees a future where the DOT does not develop and build highways or transit systems, but corporate entities can build publicly beneficial services better and at a lower cost than government and use eminent domain to lay claim to whatever properties they intend to take. In this effect, I see it as a two way street. I really believe corporations could do the same things as government, with less red tape at a lower cost. However, corporations ultimately serve themselves more than a government by trying to realize the highest profit margin possible. So, corporations could probably build better functioning services that government could otherwise not do efficiently, but at the cost of us losing some form of stability in losing our property at their whim.

Imagine a corporation being able to build a highway or rail infrastructure for the future. If Disney can build amazing stuff on their own property, them I am sure they could build one heck of a monorail at a decent cost for travel across the country. This isn't like the old days of rail travel where cities were built around existing rail depots or the government building a highway through city. I think this is going to conclude in a hybrid of the two where it sets out the ground work for the ability of private companies to be able to have some of the powers of government in providing services for the community.

I am not saying this is good. It is probably too early to tell, but perhaps if we are alive in another 30 or 50 years we will be able to either tell our grandkids how good it used to be or how terrible it has become because of this.