Life liberty and teh persuit of...what was it again?

OK so we have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness as long as that persuit does not include owning a home............

 

 

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Thu Jun 23, 1:12 PM

 

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

 

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

 

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.

 

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

 

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

 

Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.

 

They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.

 

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.

 

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

 

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

 

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

 

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

 

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

 

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, Conn., 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.

 

Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."

 

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

 

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

 

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

 

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

 

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

 

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

 

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

 

---

 

On the Net:

 

The ruling in Kelo v. New London is available at:

 

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

 

 

 

OK, If they take homes for bullshit crap like malls and MORE office space, where are they going to find the people to GO to these places. I am appaled!!!! Be sure never to buy a home where there could ever possibly be a mall, a condo, an office or anykind of general "improvement" to a comunity. My god, can you imagine your town puling eminant domain so they can tear down your home a for a mini mal or an over priced condo? Wait, that is just the status quo in my state.

Wow...Whats next? No more elections for the Emperor of America????!!?!?

 

 

That really stinks...

 

Question tho. were these people PAID for their homes? I am going to assume yes..but if not..woa man the supreme court went way outta line.

Of course you get paid but it is usually less than what the market could bring and what if you baught as a place to retire? This does not only happen to falling down junk heaps but here in Jersey it is custumary to read once a month about a comunity fighting to keep their homes instead of see them turned into huge condo buildings that they would never be able to afford. Ya that's comunity improvement, tear down the smaller homes with nice yards and friendly neighborhoods to put up ugly buildings full of rich folks who will probably never even speak to the people next to them. It happens all the time here. It's ugly unfair and good for nothing but $$ in someone's pocket. I can't imagine what I would do if it happened to me. God help you if you own a small two bedroom because around here you can't even buy one anymore, all teh new homes are freaking HUGE!!!!!!!! Developer buy up anything they can tear down and put a monster up istead. They buy a two bedroom for $450k (ya that's right) and tear down and builda monster house with no yard and sell it for $850k. It boggles the mind

I figured they got paid..but wanted to double check.

 

If they want to put up a mall, thats expensive. They should pay a fair asking price. Not under and saying "you have no choice but to take this money and get out".

 

And if homes are that expensive they may never own their own home again. Sad, truely sad.

Bushitler strikes again

 

 

 

 

IMPEACH THE FUCKER

Bushitler strikes again

 

 

 

 

IMPEACH THE FUCKER

 

Gutentag Herr Vostok... Frick Dich... Bush/Hitler ist zer gut!

IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH !!

 

DO IT FOR THE REAL AMERICA !!

 

.

.

If Clinton was so bad, how the fuck do you even classify this one???? I am a strong believer in teh ideals of America, but I will tell ya now, picking up a new citizenship is looking better everyday!!!!!

THE SUPREME FUCKING COURT DID IT NOT BUSH!!!!!!!

 

 

And its totally fucked up!!!!!!!!!

NEIN.... Herr Bush ist gut! IST GUT! Frich Leberalen !

[Auf de waffen plays in the background]

 

Ein Volken.. Ein Reich... Ein Furor! Mine Leiter! HERR BUSHHHHHhhhhhh.......

 

heheheh.... seriously though.... he's not as bad as people make him out to be... Alot of the complaining people do about him should noteven be directed at him... it's more of the political coat-taillers that tend to introduce and support these fringe proposals....He's an Idiot, not a criminal... Think about it... THE CRIMINAL MIND! How the hell can you be a criminal without a mind?!?!?

Exactly!

And it

fullauto, I agree, kinda, snafu, I agree.

 

 

tizz, go smoke a bowl or something..

 

 

To me, Bush is NOT the IDIOT that he makes himself out to be.

 

Anything that happens in our economy/security/welfare passes through the halls of a building where people WE CHOSE to speak for us to the President make the decisions for us.

 

It all fucking trickles down to that home town guy you voted for.

 

If your not happy with the way your government is run, then make sure you VOTE for someone with the same convictions as you.

 

MAJORITY RULES.

 

Even though I hate the bastard, I will accept the fact that a MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO VOTED, wanted the man in office, as well as the senators, and congressmen that we have elected in our county's.

 

Don't take it up with Bush... Take it up with THEM next election day.

 

It is the American way.

.

.

The supreme court mey have done it but trace back who braught it up and supported it. I don't have the time or the mind to look it up now but I will get back to it laters

Hey I voted and it wasn't for Bush OR kerry so I can say anything I want to. I do what I can to educate people about the possibilities beyond far right or far left. I understand fully that it is not all bush but rather those that both surround and control him. I consider bush to be too weak minded and pansie assed to lead this country in the best interest of it's people. As for smoking a bowl? Not I said the fly. Actually if you pick my brain enough you will find that over all my political tendancies range more right than left (somewhere beteen green and liberatarian for those that need a lable to imagine it)

There is no one to truly blame but the complete IDIOTS who bitched about Bush and then vote for him.

Let's get this clear from the git go... The democrats have evicted more people from their homes than republicans. The dem's along with special interest groups take private property at the federal level and call it a national park. I remember as a young man driving down the eastern sloap of the apalachian mountains through winding mountain roads where log cabins lined either side of streams and the roadway. During the Clinto administration the people were evicted because a federal trail was put in and the homes were then considered an eye sore.

 

In a republic land may be condemned for the better of the nation but not in support of another private interest, for example a right of way for a RR or Interstate hwy. Our property rights are the basis of our system of rights and even trump the 1st ammendment. The Supreme Court was incorrect in the decision on this one in my estimation.

 

How could anyone assume Bush had anything to do with the SC's decision on the matter?

Why I blamed bush:

 

These moron judges are in HIS government, therefore it reflects on HIM.

I won't say the judges are a complete reflection of bush as he does not assign them all, but I will say it is his administration that pushes such issues into the supreme court. Next it will be wether or not Oregon has the right to allow for assisted suicide.

Why I blamed bush:

 

These moron judges are in HIS government, therefore it reflects on HIM.

Well dude the judges are in our government and Bush hasn't appointed one of them YET!

 

Tizz, your comment is a good thread starter: Next it will be wether or not Oregon has the right to allow for assisted suicide.

 

It is debateable! Next it will be wether gays will be able to serve in the military!

The bush admin is actively seeking to end the "death with dignity" laws established in Oregon, so I really mean it when I say that will be next in the supreme court!!

The news just reported a republican senator has sponsored a bill to prohibit the government from seizing private property for private use in opposition to the Supreme Courts decision. Imagine that vern?

Well I am glad someone in Washington was able to pry their head out of their ass!!

Activist Tries a Grab for Jurist's Property

A foe of the high court's eminent domain ruling wants to apply it to seize David H. Souter's home.

By Benjamin Weyl

Times Staff Writer

 

June 30, 2005

 

WASHINGTON

To good to be true. Would love to see that fucker get the table turned on him.

 

I always thought the right of emminant domain primarily for railroads, airports, and things of that like. Not for commercial developement. What if these new business' don't work out and they have to close the stripmall or whatever it was? Then they made this guy move his house for a failed investment. It just doesn't seem right to do that.

 

If they offered him way more money then the property is worth then it would be better but i'm sure all they offered was 'market value'.

It is not even the money that is at issue, it is the principal of teh thing. No one should be asked to sell their home and move out of their neighborhood to make way for a private venture. It is essentially unconstitutional and driven strictly be the almighty buck! And it sux donkey balls too