Governments May Seize Homes And Businesses

[Dan #2]

S-O-U-R-C-E

 

 

 

High court OKs personal property seizures

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.

[Dan #3]

And yet another step towards the fascism becoming public.

[Dan #2]

sigh. literally every time i come on the internet, i hate/pity america more.

[HoboFactory]

First the flag-burning thing, then that internet censorship law, now this... dammit.

[no yu begin wher i end]

For some reason, I'm a bit surprised at the dissenting judges on this case. I would've thought that Scalia and Rehnquist would've taken the more neo-con stance and ruled in favour.

[Bizud]

I'm not surprised. They're conservative judges, and this ruling is anything but conservative. Just ask any conservative you know how they feel about this, they'll be appalled. This isn't conservative or even capitalist, this is just kowtowing to power.

[ecnarf]

I'm not surprised. They're conservative judges, and this ruling is anything but conservative. Just ask any conservative you know how they feel about this, they'll be appalled. This isn't conservative or even capitalist, this is just kowtowing to power.

And for that reason, conservative politicians are going to be up in arms about this ruling, using it as "proof" that the supreme court has been taken over by a bunch of liberals and appoint another version of scalia or thomas to the court once there's an opening.

 

hey, maybe it's a conspiracy.

[Dan #2]

then that internet censorship law,

elaborate?

[no yu begin wher i end]

then that internet censorship law,

elaborate?

There's a law being talked about in the States that would essentially regulate the content of, among other things, blogs.

[cavalier_eternal]

yeah. it has to do with that... oh, what's that case that there's a publication ban on? and people are discussing it or leaking information on blogs. i think. the Gomery inquiry? i think that's it.

 

of course, it boils down to a whole lot of bullshit.

[ecnarf]

yeah. it has to do with that... oh, what's that case that there's a publication ban on? and people are discussing it or leaking information on blogs. i think. the Gomery inquiry? i think that's it.

 

of course, it boils down to a whole lot of bullshit.

that publication ban was lifted after a few self-righteous americans thought they were doing us a favour and posted that information anyways.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Did you know that the Canadian government has the power to seize anyone's property without any compensation? The Canadian Bill of Rights does not protect Canadians' property rights from the gov't.

 

So basically the government can swoop in at any time and take your property without giving you any money & there's no legal action you can take.

 

i did a quick google and this is the best thing i found on it. Some MP talking about it: http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzg...s/property5.htm

[ecnarf]

Did you know that the Canadian government has the power to seize anyone's property without any compensation? The Canadian Bill of Rights does not protect Canadians' property rights from the gov't.

 

So basically the government can swoop in at any time and take your property without giving you any money & there's no legal action you can take.

 

i did a quick google and this is the best thing i found on it. Some MP talking about it: http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzg...s/property5.htm

Creepy.

 

*looks outside the window*

 

There's a black van that's been parked out there for several hours, do you think it's CSIS out to seize my property?

[Crusader]

So... if they wanted to build a new highway straight through your living... They could.

[Moonlight_Graham]

so it is i guess. That happened to a friend of mine, but he got compensated and just moved a few miles away. I believe its was because of a new highway. Maybe it was a developer, not sure.

[ecnarf]

So... if they wanted to build a new highway straight through your living... They could.

Sometimes, building highways through people's living rooms are necessary.

 

If, however, the government chose to build a highway through my living room, I would start up a drive-through coffee enterprise.