Landowners Beware!

Reply

  #1  
Old 06-27-05, 01:13 PM
CountryGardener's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Garden ;)
Posts: 39
Angry Landowners Beware!

You City Dudes, you want a McDonalds under 100 feet away from your home? Oooppss! Happens to be 2 feet offset from your home, to the latter's destruction! You Country Greenies, tired of having to drive 20 miles to Joe's General Store? Wanna Walmart Supercenter in your backyard? Ooops, forgot to tell ya, literally in your backyard, and there is no "Not Wanted" option! You hermits, want some neighbors? Ooops, move out, to make room for the highrises! Thanks to the new supreme court ruling, such things are legal. What right do they have, to allow any deviloper come in and take your land for their developments and stores? Did those judges think about the impact? What of family farms? Corperate farms for that matter? What about the farms that the Amish depend on? Indians, "Homesteaders", Ranchers? They must not have thought about what it would do to the economy. Devilopers just don't seem to care what they do. In my area, they snap up every farm, and shave off hillsides, to build their apartments. It makes a feller want to move to another country! Imagine this: you've just spent 2.5 million dollars, and 18 months of planning on your custom-built dream home, with twelve acres, a pool, horse area, and gardens, and then suddenly a guy shows up at your door telling you to move, cause a deviloper wanted it! Now imagine this: you've rented apartments for 31 years, ever since you moved away from home, and you finally have a house of your very own, with a whole 1/4 acre that you can do what ever you please with, and then it's taken for a convenience store, and you're out on the streets,until you find an apartment! If you don't have your own land, you can't be yourself. You constantly have somebody else telling you what to do, what to think, what to be.... Where is freedom? All one can do is protest it, and hope they repeal it as quickly as possible!

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my long rant!


Country Gardener
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 06-27-05, 02:01 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,519
To say that I was appalled by the Supreme Court decision would be the understatement of the century. I'm afraid the eminent domainers would have to remove me from my property feet first. Having to take property for necessary public improvements is one thing; paving the way for fat-cat developers is quite another matter.
 
  #3  
Old 06-27-05, 05:44 PM
tae's Avatar
tae
tae is offline
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,469
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2...ling-us-sc.php
Kelo v. New London, Supreme Court of the United States, June 23, 2005 [ruling 5-4 that a local government authority can expropriate private property – land, homes and businesses – for private redevelopment that would confer economic benefits on the community such as more jobs and tax revenue so long as it is not just a private use of the property for private benefit]. Excerpt from the opinion, by Justice Stevens:

This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determinng whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a “public use” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

Excerpt from the dissent by Justice O'Connor:

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

full text of opinion here:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/04-108.pdf
 
  #4  
Old 06-27-05, 06:39 PM
CountryGardener's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Garden ;)
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by tae
a local government authority can expropriate private property – land, homes and businesses – for private redevelopment
Phew! I didn't know that it included business too.... Is America asleep? Thanks for the info, tae!

Originally Posted by the_tow_guy
I'm afraid the eminent domainers would have to remove me from my property feet first.
Same here!
 
  #5  
Old 06-27-05, 08:14 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,519
And I'm thinking we could annex Cuba as our 51st state; Fidel's politics would fit right in with what the Supremes seem to have in mind.
 
  #6  
Old 06-28-05, 03:54 AM
mattison's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cinti, OH
Posts: 5,549
They've done this same thing around here a couple times lately and I think it's a bunch of garbage. They claim it's for the betterment of the community. Yeah right, it's for the betterment of the builders pocket book and he uses that as an excuse to take other peoples property.

I feel it should be a very last resort before the government could use eniment domain. Not for a shopping center or condos or whatever some fat cat builder is wanting to do. If you work hard and buy property, it should be yours and no one should be able to take it from you.
 
  #7  
Old 06-29-05, 09:39 AM
Hirsch's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southeastern Connectitax
Posts: 167
If anyone tries to take my land for stuff like that and they come to me, they had better be wearing full body and head armor, since I will shoot those twits (self-edit) fatally as trespassers, or I would booby trap my house so much that it would take anyone trying to tear it down off the face of the planet. . How would these moronic judges like it if someone took their houses away from them for economic develop,ment purposes? I bet they would reverse that ruling in a big hurry if they were facing eminent domain for such a stupid reason.
 
  #8  
Old 06-29-05, 10:03 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,019
It's a double edge soward.

Instead of indignation, welcome sanctioned abuse.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturd...9/domain.shtml

His target is too symbolic from my perspective, (typical two dimensional logic), but it's a start.
 
  #9  
Old 06-30-05, 05:31 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 4,320
Our little local story has made the big time
The ramifications are quite frightening

It's bad enough when your property can be taken (and paid for) by eminent domain
But at least that's supposed to be for a needed bridge or expanding the highway
Not because "your community needs a Wal*Mart"

Nothing againt the Pfizer Corp.
They have bought out depressed, run down, mostly abandoned neighborhoods around here before
They did a nice job of bulldozing the blight and making an attractive industrial park
Which is probably why they got away with this one on a local level
The local powers saw what a nice job they did eliminating an eyesore

But the way it was handled was dirty
Short version the homeowners who didn't want to sell had their land taken by the local gov't by eminent domain
It was then transfered to a not-for-profit organizition
Then to Pfizer Corp.
It held up locally because, well, it's not that great of a neighborhood

This would not have been considered if there was a few $500,000 homes in the neighborhood

I just can't believe it went to the Supreme Court and they voted that way
 
  #10  
Old 07-02-05, 08:26 PM
CountryGardener's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Garden ;)
Posts: 39
Yay for Lost Liberty Hotel! Good for Clement! Hope he manages to persuade the city!
 
  #11  
Old 07-03-05, 08:14 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,019
Two things I admire about the man: he understood the significance of the U.S. Supreme Courts anointing from the onset, and he chose the role of plaintiff-aggressor instead of defendant-victim. On the other hand he deserves admonishment for wasting this miscalculation on a symbolic target instead of becoming a focused abuser.

In the world of power mongers his target did little to strike fear, or to let Goliaths' blood. Creating a momentary spectacle, and drawing praise from victims and would be victims alike is a waste.

Our friends choice of targets has put the Davids to great disadvantage. It's far too late to raise consciousness. Now the sword will be prematurely dulled.

The House is considering legislation to block Federal funds to cities that use eminate domain to transfer condemned private property. How nice, of the House to titillate hope among victims while dulling the sword.

Congressmen faining protection of the poor and the like is incredulous. The high Courts decision reinforces decisions of various State Supreme Courts and lower Courts dating back twenty plus years. Were they asleep.

Were they unaware that these revitalization projects transferred substantial strategic and prime properties. (It's funny that liberals employ trickle-down economics to the poor in revitalization projects but object otherwise). Were they unaware that this shifted a significant tax burden to the middle, upper middle class, and the poor; created an unfair basis, and lowered the standard of living for everyone, including the poor. [How kind, to slap the face of those you claim to be charged with protecting]. Were they immune to contributions from various groups to promote legislation that enabled abuse of federal funds via eminate domain transfers.

The Houses objection, indignation, and impending action, over the Supreme Courts ruling was predicable.

Why not use this opportunity to gracefully withdraw from the role of overt enabler; draw cheers from the public; make more mollah available to squander in other directions, and to dull the sword.

If you think the mans two out of three wasn't bad... Three out of three would have let Goliaths' blood and harvested his organs. The third part is self-demise by your own design; knowing Goliath and his habits. Political enablers are pawns.

It's a shame that this miscalculation will be wasted. It's a bigger shame that the public will view the enablers as champions.
 
  #12  
Old 07-13-05, 11:17 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 341
One of my pet peeves has always been the supreme court. A group of privledged old conservative white guys. What would the country look like if it was populated with poor, young, people of color. It might be strange but it sure would be interesting. If the rulings were just then more lawsuits to bring justice would occur. A supreme court that rules corporations have the same rights as people? (1880's), that you can't limit money for political campaigns because that would be the same as limiting free speech?, and now this?, taking private property to reward other private groups. The slave state, police state, is here and now. All the wealth is being transfered from the poor and middle class to the wealthy class by Bush's agenda, look for it to get worse. They will take away your right to bear arms, have video surveilance everywhere, take the freedom to inform the public of injustices away (dissent), and manipulate elections. How much further off from a military dictatorship are we? When americans threw off king george the taxes were nothing (percentage wise) compared to now. When the french said "off with their heads" the difference between the rich and poor was far less than it is today. As a race we are stupid. We have reached an unmanagable overpopulation position, are running out of oil and the gas guzzling suv is the biggest selling vehicle. Why can't we be satisfied with a simple uncluttered, slow paced, existance. Why is greed king?
 
  #13  
Old 07-23-05, 04:18 PM
CountryGardener's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Garden ;)
Posts: 39
Thumbs up

JeffK, you hit it right on! Sorry I didn't answer earlier, I was off for a bit...
 
  #14  
Old 07-26-05, 08:22 PM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 43,045
A little off topic but.. when all the farms become shopping centers and housing devolopments - WHERE WILL OUR FOOD COME FROM? I read somewhere that in the 50's LA county was the most fertile land in the US now they say it is the most paved over. I live in the mountains and enjoy my elbow room and know it would be selfish to say everyone else needs to live in town... but where will urban sprawl stop?

just my 2 cents - ok I know it costs 5 and only worth 1 cent
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
'