Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes

charlotte.com - AP ^ | Jun. 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

[buckleyfan]

O'Reilly didn't even know what it is. Someone called in and O'Reilly just said, "what is this imminent domain thing about, anyway?"

And that was pretty much it.

Makes me sick. These guys don't even know when a huge issue like this hits us all in the face. They're still talking about the flag.

Doesn't matter much if you don't even have a house at which to fly your flag!!!

[jwalsh07]

My point is, and I won't belabor it, it is not stealing.

Well, then your point is wrong. It is theft at the point of a gun. In this particular case the State holds the gun to the head of certain property owners for self aggrandizement and the profit of wannabe property owners with more bucks.

It is theft, pure and simple but it is the worst kind of theft, namely fascism.

[RightWhale]

At least I can burn a flag when they take my property

For the time being. That right of free speech may be curtailed sometime soon.

[reflecting]

IT is indeed thievery. If I do not want to sell my land and you want it, just because you have to give me money does not mean it is not theft. I did not wish to leave my home. To say I am compensated is only a reflection of your value system not mine. Everything in this would is not about money. People who wish to remain living in the homes they have purchased do not have to explain why they wish to live there. They simply may remain. Or until now they could.

[An Old Man]

"twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" Sorry Bert, but that one is also history.

The game today is played on two levels. If a conviction cannot be obtained at the local level, one can always be sought in the federal courts.

Semper Fi

[soundandvision]

This ruling is, IMHO, absolutely unconstituional and anti-liberty. But then, tragically, that is not a rare event for the last 30 years either.

Very well put but I think it goes back further than that. I believe we can trace encroachments of this sort all the way back to the founding of the Tennessee Valley Authority. And many other 'New Deal' ideals.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

No doubt about it.

Get to know the members on your local Zoning Board. If you live in an area that you suspect may be a gleam in some developer's eye...they could be your best friends.

[pepperdog]

Unbelievable! We really are losing our rights at an exponential speed. I couldn't believe the decision on Campaign Finance Reform and now this has happened. It is chilling. However I fear most people will never hear nor care until it is their home that is endangered. Sad day for the USA.

[bobdsmith]

lol didnt you get that memo? Everything is to do with the chinese nowadays

[Steve_Seattle]

"Yep, I'd be surprised if the MSM sided against this USSC decision."

I agree. It's highly unlikely that the MSM will oppose this massive extension of governmental bullying power, even if private developers are incidental beneficiaries. It's the liberals' goal to get everybody crammed into apartments, and this facilitates that goal; they're never going to us eminent domain to create single-family housing.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Yep, I'd be surprised if the MSM sided against this USSC decision."

I agree. It's highly unlikely that the MSM will oppose this massive extension of governmental bullying power, even if private developers are incidental beneficiaries. It's the liberals' goal to get everybody crammed into apartments, and this facilitates that goal; they're never going to us eminent domain to create single-family housing.

[commonerX]

A real scary thing is that your posession of your house and property may come down to the good will or honorabilty of a few polititians.

What is next for this type of ruling?

How far can politicians push this ruling, is there any limits to it?

[billygoatgruff]

Well, I am sure if Homer Simpson's home was threatened, he would accidently come home with a little nuclear material and somehow place it hidden in the area for the next landlord's ingestion. Can you say, Love Canal?? Not that I am suggesting anything of course....

Sure makes me want to get a big ole mortgage on my little ole place, more than I need - bank the money and pay as little on that ole house as I could.

I think a big bank would not like it if their property was taken from them!

Not much like the American dream, is it!!!!

[Centurion2000]

My God, even the wacked out over at the DUmp are agreeing with us:

I'm sure some of them own houses too. They can see the writing on the wall. When DU and FR actually agree, something is COMPLETELY wrong.

[proud American in Canada]

Even the DUers don't like this. When Freepers and DUers can agree on something, you KNOW there's a problem

You're absolutely right.

[Freebird Forever]

Makes me sick. These guys don't even know when a huge issue like this hits us all in the face.

He knows. But he (and the rest of his ilk) are disinformationists who serve to deflect the public from inflammatory issues.

Tony Snow is even worse.

Their function is to help make sure the pot doesn't boil over.
They are simply quislings for the elite.

[Steve_Seattle]

I'm kind of vulnerable where I am; there's been a lot of infilling in my area, and I bet a lot of developers would like to grab my neighborhood and divvy up the lots to build townhouses and such. Before this ruling, they would have to buy out each owner individually. Now, they can go to the city and propose some scheme that has an ostensible "public purpose" and force us all out of our homes.

[commonerX]

This opens up the flood gates for developers.

If you don't think that there are a bunch of developers licking there chops, thinking, now we can get to develop in areas we didn't think we could before by simply providing an economic benefit excuse.

This could be the beginning of something that the average guy would cringe at, every time he/she hears of new construction in their area.

Big developer types aren't of course.

[Travis McGee]

Welcome to the USSA bump.

[buckleyfan]

He knows. But he (and the rest of his ilk) are disinformationists who serve to deflect the public from inflammatory issues.

That thought has crossed my mind a few times. O'Reilly and all of those guys have several staff members each, all of them combing the internet, discussion sites, newspapers, etc. There is no way he doesn't realize what this ruling is about. I was shocked when the caller (at about 1:30 or later) mentioned this and O'Reilly said he knew nothing about it.. asked what it was.

These guys.. I think you might be right. In fact, my friend at work mentioned that this might be a 'testing ground' of sorts by SCOTUS a(and others) to see just exactly how people will react. How can you make a ruling that be so unpopular with just about EVERYBODY, repubs and dems alike (developers notwithstanding, I suppose.. nor city officials).

It's really sick. They are probably expecting people will just shut up and swallow it. Many probably will. It's for the 'greater good,' don't ya know? Sickening..