Forums > Personal > Supreme Court Terrible Law Emminent Domain To Seize Your Home For ANY USE

forum rss feed
Author

doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 14:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Now, you can own your own home, it USED to be they could only seize your property for a highway or airport..sort of a statewide, government need, and even THAT sucked as I had a good friend in college whose family had a horse farm, (and their house) all paid off, in the family for 3 generations that the State of Maryland siezed it to develop Interstate Highway 95.

....BUT this NEW law says that the state can take your house and your land/property from you for any frivolous development. A shopping mall, a store, rezone your area.

And you have NO choice, you must surrender your home and land, even if it is paid off and you do NOT want to move.

What a dickhead law!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html


xyz
PieterMC user not visiting Queenzone.com
PieterMC
Deity: 3931 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 15:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I read that today - that is the dumbest law I have ever heard of.

Daburcor? user not visiting Queenzone.com
Daburcor?
Deity: 9478 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 16:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Another thing to hate about America...


"Elton John and I became really good friends. I don't mean 'good friends' in that sense. I just mean we slept together." -Billy Joel
Bob The Shrek user not visiting Queenzone.com
Bob The Shrek
Deity: 4014 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 16:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<bugger, wrong thread>


Cleveland May 24 to June 4th 2007 - I came, I saw, I fucked off home again.
doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 16:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

So now you can buy a home, and worry, that any develper with big bucks, at any time, can get your councilperson to rezone your area, and force you to leave your home and property.

Plus they only pay you the ''fair market'' value, not what you could fairly ask and get for it IF you even wanted to sell it.

No one is safe in their home in the USA anymore. Any rich developer that has local goverment in their pockets can force you to leave your home or land that you own.


xyz
Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 18:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That is so sad and pathetic. I still remember that film -batteries not included- film. The one about the families that wouldn't sell their homes for some big business buildings to be put in place of their building. It showed that you could hold your head high and hold your ground and the company couldn't do anything about it. The families didn't want to sell up like the rest of the neighbourhood had. And the only way the business company would ever get that block was to destroy the building with hired thugs.

Yeah, I know it was a kids sci-fi film, but I loved that film when I was a kid!

Man, what else can the USA do to alienate their own people?

Peace,
Adam.

Haystacks Calhoun user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1550 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 18:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 6:29 PM



WASHINGTON -- Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's LIBERAL wing _ David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member LIBERAL bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."



"Not a fan of the ladies, are you Trebek?"



Sean Connery
Maz user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5799 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 19:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This really isn't that new. What the Supreme Court did was broaden the definition of eminent domain.

On the surface, this won't just be used because some rich guy wants to put in a strip mall through your front bathroom. A city will have to prove that the new mall is vital to its tax revenue and, thus, vital to supplying emergency services, public works, etc.

Eminent Domain has always granted governments the right to do this to some extent. Roads and Highways, for example, were often the reasoning for taking a part or all of someone's property. This decision allows governments to take property for revenue purposes if necessary.

Whether you agree with this or not, I seriously doubt you will see a lot of cities using this justification anytime soon, much less them actually winning. Citizens will oppose it and cities will face great backlash, so municipal and state governments will probably err on the side of caution.


DJ's the man we love the most
doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 19:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Zeni wrote:

This really isn't that new. What the Supreme Court did was broaden the definition of eminent domain.

On the surface, this won't just be used because some rich guy wants to put in a strip mall through your front bathroom. A city will have to prove that the new mall is vital to its tax revenue and, thus, vital to supplying emergency services, public works, etc.

Eminent Domain has always granted governments the right to do this to some extent. Roads and Highways, for example, were often the reasoning for taking a part or all of someone's property. This decision allows governments to take property for revenue purposes if necessary.

Whether you agree with this or not, I seriously doubt you will see a lot of cities using this justification anytime soon, much less them actually winning. Citizens will oppose it and cities will face great backlash, so municipal and state governments will probably ere on the side of caution.


They actually already tried this in Middle River/Essex, Maryland about 2 years ago. There were a ton of lower income blue collar workers who OWNED their homes, bought and paid for, for generations, alongone I think Maryland's part of the Susquehanna River. Hundreds of homes sat right on the waterfront.

Then...Baltimore County Executive Dutch Ruperberger, (who was friends with a hot shot land developer), wanted to bulldoze HUNDREDS of homes, and put upscale yuppy condos and latte coffee bars and shops there.

Luckily...there was a MAJOR public outrage and backlash. All the local citizens called the local TV news stations and local newspapers to get their story out there. They then went on a door to door grassroots campaign to get enough sigantures on a petition to have a Special voting session at the polls...to vote this as....

...UNCONSTITUTIONAL....and...to find correspondence between the developer and Rupersberger...where how convenient...Rupersperger was gonna get a nice kickback.

Well..the citizens got their special voting session and WON by a landslide. But...that never should have had to happen.

I remember all of those citizens on the local news, terrified and crying. They had paid off homes, were hard working people. The fear they had that they would be forced from their homes, some with nowhere to go, and none of them wanted to go. Some had owned their homes for generations and had sentimental memories in their homes.

I think this law is a VERY bad sign of things to come. Our basic freedoms in the USA are going straight to HELL.


xyz
Panchgani user not visiting Queenzone.com
St Peter's Burnt Piano
Panchgani
Deity: 6374 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 20:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Can't blame Bush for this - The five liberal judges voted for this.


Roger: I like it. If you don't. Sod you!



Queen song poll: http://home.comcast.net/~vantricers/index.html



B-52's: I, I, I'm lookin for some fun - waitin for the REAL Queen Box Sets to come
doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 20:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Taken from additional article/link below.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

''According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, MARYLAND, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.''




xyz
Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 20:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yeah, I don't like the sound of these things. It's like the DNA profiles and ID cards for EVERYONE in the UK. I just don't think the good outweighs the bad. Which begs the question of, "Why?" Is it money?? What does it boil down to in the end.

Peace,
Adam.

wstüssyb user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 12371 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Jun 05, 20:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yuck..Michigan there...I'll go down fighting for my home.


MY GOD spell it write.
rc user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 65 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Jun 05, 07:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Isn't this a bunch of shit?

well, I can always move back to Canada I guess.