Skip to comments.
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
charlotte.com - AP ^
| Jun. 23, 2005
| HOPE YEN
Posted on 06/23/2005 8:07:27 AM PDT by Stew Padasso
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 721-728 next last
To: HKMk23
Or will the supremes rule that the party making the claim of "public use" also makes the claim "just compensation".
IMO, this is where the amendment process is necessary. The Constitution needs to clearly protect private property rights.
To: Dems_R_Losers
With any luck, the greedy developers that get these people's properties will lose their shirts.What are the chances of taking some kind of economic action against companies that avail themselves of this ruling?
442
posted on
06/23/2005 12:35:58 PM PDT
by
SlowBoat407
(A living affront to Islam since 1959)
To: proud American in Canada
Hopefully a few of the DU'er will realize that a gov't big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you got.
I read the whole DU thread, and didn't see anyone mention of that (I'm banned till the year 6908 so I couldn't post it)
443
posted on
06/23/2005 12:37:17 PM PDT
by
investigateworld
( God bless Poland for giving the world JP II & a Protestant bump for his Sainthood!)
To: Tribune7
Does that mean that my county may seize my proerty if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house? Yup If we're lucky, the county will soon be able to seize our cars for use as "official vehicles". Come to think of it, perhaps the government will be able to argue that they can make better use of our bank accounts than we do. After all, these things are just other forms of property and the government knows what's best for the "common good".
To: Stew Padasso
This is so wrong. It is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong!
Locke's discussion on the right not to have property taken away being a corollary to and necessary to liberty rather than slavery has been thrown out of the law in the United States of America.
Of course, local law can be changed - easier than Federal law. But, I can't believe the audacity - the highhandedness of this Supreme Court.
445
posted on
06/23/2005 12:41:33 PM PDT
by
hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
To: mict42
Does this surprise you?
Our nation sleeps!
To: springing interest
The organization doing this is the California Coastal Commission - Do a search on "California Coastal Commission" and "land grab"
Plenty of good reading......
California Coastal Commission Still Calling Shots
The California Coastal Commission is up to its old tricks again now that it is back in business after the state legislature provided a fix to the court declaring it unconstitutional. [snip]
The Coastal Commission has long been criticized for its political leanings; in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court described its demands for land in exchange for permits as an out-and-out plan of extortion.
And a few years ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Gov. Davis re-election campaign received $8.3 million from donors with business before the Coastal Commission. Most of the donors got their permits.
Coastal improvement projects conducted by private entities have proven quite successful in other states, but the record of the CCC indicates there is little reason to believe private industries in California will get the chance to prove their abilities.
ALSO:
Pacific Legal Foundations Coastal Land Rights Project
The California Coastal Commission repeatedly exceeds its authority and represents a dangerous threat to property owners within the states coastal zone. This state agency:
* is notorious for its regulatory high handedness and arbitrary treatment of property owners;
* forces cities and counties to put all sorts of objectionable items into their local coastal plans;
* is infamous for micromanaging landownerseven dictating the type of plants they may put in their gardens and the number of parking spaces they may have;
* disregards constitutionally protected private property rights.
447
posted on
06/23/2005 12:43:27 PM PDT
by
Dashing Dasher
( What was the best thing before sliced bread?)
To: mict42
448
posted on
06/23/2005 12:44:41 PM PDT
by
jb6
( Free Haghai Sophia! Crusade!)
To: investigateworld
Well now, first the Supreme Court restricts our political speech with the campaign reform act, and now they say that public use is anything Donald Trump says it is. *Wow* I'm not liking this at all.
This *STUPID* flag amendment just got dropped. If the GOP controlled House and Senate do not do something, then SOMEBODY else will. I will not vote for a single damn one of them. This is outrageous!
449
posted on
06/23/2005 12:45:11 PM PDT
by
SSR1
To: ncpatriot
I am concerned about this.
I wonder what "we, the people" can do? I wonder if it would be appropriate to pass an Amendment to the Constitution?
Why do we have to pass Amendments to un-do what the Supreme Court rules???
To: Dead Dog
"IMO, this is where the amendment process is necessary. The Constitution needs to clearly protect private property rights."
The Constitution already makes it clear (to anyone with any sense, which these justices simply do not have).
There are many other things that are very clear in that great document too. This has never stopped them before!
The final piece of the Constitution has been put in the shredder!
To: jpsb
"You will make a very fine serf."
How nice. So working to enact laws that clarify this eminent domain thing makes me a potential serf? Never mind. You go polish your firearms. I'll work on a real solution.
452
posted on
06/23/2005 12:48:15 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: Steve_Seattle
You could even start to see insurance companies offering development insurance. Pay a small annual fee and if your house is ever up for eminent domain seizure you will get full market value.
To: skimbell
>>>>I simply was responding to someone who said that the government can now simply steal your property. They cannot. The use of eminent domain has been corrupted and I think that this is a moronic ruling but the fact remains that even though the government has been given a big + is seizing your property, they still cannot simply steal it.
They do here in NJ. If you turn down the FMV price offer, then the State or County officials will condemn your property and take it.
454
posted on
06/23/2005 12:51:59 PM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Pessimist
You got that right. I've maintained for a while that our "land ownership here" is just a ruse. Try missing a few tax payments and you'll find out who really owns it.
That's something that many people don't think about - You could have a $100,000 house, paid off years ago, and the city keeps raising taxes, and you miss a payment or two or underpay by a few thousand and you lose it.
This ruling today, this is being noticed by many in Texas - There has been discussion of confiscating property from private landowners (farmers, ranchers, etc.) along this future Trans-Texas Corridor, and giving it to private companies that want to put in businesses that "compliment" the TTC.
To: Bear_Slayer
I don't know if the person mentioning the railroads was being sarcastic, but there are a lot of problems in the way that was done, even if the railroads succeeded in "opening up the West" blah blah. To this day, mile after mile of the coastline (of Puget Sound) is dominated by the railroad tracks that follow the shoreline and cut the beach off from the general public. It's hard to find a beach on the east shore of Puget Sound that isn't marred by an intrusive railroad line.
To: commonerX
You could even start to see insurance companies offering development insurance. Pay a small annual fee and if your house is ever up for eminent domain seizure you will get full market value. How does one compute the "fair market value" of a home in a condemned neighborhood?
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
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.
Actually, they'll only be your friends until somebody with deeper pockets than yours comes along.
Instead, if your worried, buddy upto the enviro's - if you can find some rare or endangered bug, animal, plant, whatever, on your land, you could potentially keep the thieves at bay - I've heard about landowners doing that (there are federal laws about destruction of habitats of certain animals).
It may leave a bad taste in your mouth, but at least you could live with that bad taste on your own land (of course don't plan on adding to your house or doing any work on it).
To: Stew Padasso
If this doesn't expose the hypocrisy of liberalsim, I don't know what will. It is interesting that the supposed liberals on this court...and those who pretend to look out for the little people vs Big Business, have essentially taken the side of Big Business over the little people.
459
posted on
06/23/2005 12:59:20 PM PDT
by
cwb
To: commonerX
I'm at the closed end of a five-house cul-de-sac that I'm sure developers would love to buy up and turn into a dozen townhouses (a lot of that going on around here in recent years). Now all they need to do is add a little gimmick to justify it as a "public purpose" and we're outta here.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 721-728 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson