so much for owning a house
 

When I side with Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas against the maj. - that is a scary thing!!!!!!

How could those Justices allow a govt. to uproot an entire neighborhood. I get that the people being uprooted receive "just compensation" - but I just do not think the framers intended for a city to give a neighborhood to Wal Mart (emphasis supplied).
___________________________________________________

High court OKs personal property seizures

Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

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.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/s...y.ap/index.html
__________________
"We had named everybody . . . I became Steflea Flicks, & Waddy Wachtel was Wadflea Flocktel."

"I'm like Ethel Merman -- I can cry out of one eye and work the stage with the other, so get ready" Leslie Jordan

I am in shock at this decision. It's vomit-inducing. :mad:

"She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers."

That says it. This is very sickening. Very.

The implications are vast and scary. I mean what if a certain political party wants to stay in power but knows a certain section never votes for them in a district. Well, they just have to get a developer interested (like that is hard to do if you are politician) and declare it is in the best interest of the community and then see ya to those people who do not vote for them. Or, a mostly white community could determine that the "black neighborhood" has gotta go and use this as an exucse.

What in the HELL were they thinking - I mean I could see the Big Business R's wanting this, but these are the LIBERAL Justices supporting this craziness.

Aw, but ain't that America...
Gov't is OUT of control. I added 12' to the end of my house last year(on two stories, 650 sq ft total), and I was informed last month that they're raising my property taxes an extra $800/yr as a result. I did about half of the work myself, saving a bunch of money, but they get to charge me $800 a year for the improvement. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
I'm thinking renting is the way to go. Let the gov't f*ck with the landlord.

Happens all the time here....
 

in Oklahoma, ask those who live in Edmond where yet another Wel-Fare Mart 24 Hour Stupor-Center (aka Wal-Mart-"Sure, We'll hire ya if yer on welfare, Cause we get yet another big tax break in doin' so..."), those who lived near Tinker Air Force base in Midwest City (An OKC suburb) with the base's expansion or those Hispanic neighborhoods directly South of I-40 who will lose their neighborhood/homes with the relocation/expansion of the I-40 Crosstown in downtown OKC.

I see you live in Indiana too---I live in Lake County and my property taxes doubled :shocked: this year. Had to dip into my "goin' to see Stevie" fund--so needless to say-did not get to go to the Tweeter last Sunday and I will not :mad: be going to Houston either--my girlfriend called and said she would buy the concert tickets but I had to fly down there. :distress: as much as I love Stevie...

Property taxes doubled in large part due to the Fed. Govt. income tax decrease and the increased Fed. Govt. spending on the war on terrorism, which left less money for the Fed. Govt. to allocate to the states. That is it in a nutshell, though it is, of course, much more complicated than that as it is the govt. :laugh:

We have this problem over here in the Uk too - "compulsory purchase" is often exercised for roads and big municipal projects. There is currently a huge struggle going on to save two entire villages which the government would like to see rubbed out because the airport isn't big enough - including a 10th Century church... I mean, can you imagine going in with a bulldozer and tearing down a 10th Century church? :mad:

They are also trying to compulsorily purchase a lot of small businesses in East London so they can build facilities for the Olympics in 2012, assuming we win the chance to hold them. Those businesses cannot realistically be moved elsewhere, especially given the small amount of compensation paid to the owners, so people are being forced out of work...

Hmmmm..reeks of gerrymandering (ahhh...a term I remembered from my Poli-Sci class back in the '70's! See, mom? I WAS awake during class!)

The Governator out here in Kally-fohnya is trying to do that very thing...re-structure the precincts (in his favor, obviously)

I'm in Bloomington. I think it's crazy how much I'm paying. I have NO kids going to school, riding the buses, etc, yet I have to pay for the white trash families with 5 kids to use all this stuff. I think it should be "pay for what you use".
But then the people with 5 kids can't afford to pay for anything......

Don't get me started..... :wavey:
Socialists, attack away. :xoxo:

This decision is mind blowing to me. :distress:

This is unreal. God help the MF who tried to do this to me. I would get my hands on an automatic weapon, and it would be International News when the bulldozers came. No joke.

I know. WTF? :confused:

You can't write rent off on your taxes, though. :shrug: