Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 701-728 next last
To: Stew Padasso
Your home used to be your castle.

Because they've debased the currency, your money is no longer good enough.

Now the guvmint wants your real assets.

Looks like a shooting war is on the way.

The guvmint buildings in DC would make great condos.


BUMP

151 posted on 06/23/2005 8:56:23 AM PDT by tm22721
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Proud

Because it doesnt have to be for the public good (ala a highway etc.), it could now just be a shopping center which will provide better tax revenue for the socialists in government.


152 posted on 06/23/2005 8:56:56 AM PDT by LongsforReagan (Not a Hannity Republican who just spouts talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12

"Does that mean that my county may seize my proerty if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house? "


Yes.


153 posted on 06/23/2005 8:57:02 AM PDT by Blzbba (Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Proud
A highway is a legitimate reason for the government to use eminent domain. Siezure of your property to sell to a developer is not a legitimate reason.

Siezure of property by the governent simply to increase tax revenue is not a legitimate reason.

154 posted on 06/23/2005 8:57:17 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

Well, I bet there are some pretty nice waterfront locations on Long Island and Marth's Vineyard that would make lovely resort hotels that would bring in lots of tax dollars.


155 posted on 06/23/2005 8:57:28 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

""Did we ever really own our property. I mean, stop paying your property taxes and watch what happens.""


I've said that same thing before, but this is just blantant disregard for the avarage citizens rights.

Big time developers now have the ability to take you house.


156 posted on 06/23/2005 8:57:42 AM PDT by commonerX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

"but what a bunch of liberal scumbags that voted for this."



Actually, 3 of the 5 who voted for it were appointed by Republicans. Only Breyer and Ginsburg were Clinton appointees. Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens were all Republican nominees.


157 posted on 06/23/2005 8:58:19 AM PDT by Blzbba (Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Although I'm a Canuck, it's time we admit that the beautiful idea of the land of the free, absent of tyranny and coersion has been totally consumed by the culture of socialism. This is the result of a gradual slippery slope. We're just a little further down the slope up here in Canada.

Cold War victory my butt. All of us in "the west" are just inches from communism, which is, essentially, the distribution of wealth and the elimination of private property (smoking bans, property seizures, etc.). The only difference is that we don't yet have armed patrols throughout our cities, secret police and widespread corruption... oh, wait a minute...
158 posted on 06/23/2005 8:58:19 AM PDT by Stevieboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Proud
Think of it this way... If they seize your land and give you some money for a road, everybody gets to use the road. Now it's ok for them to seize your land, hand it over to a developer to...oh...build a health club. A completely private health club.

So if a private individual or company can make a case for the city getting more benefit (through tax revenue) for the latest in health spa design, they can snag your land to do it.
159 posted on 06/23/2005 8:58:22 AM PDT by faloi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

How do I form my own city? hummmmm.


160 posted on 06/23/2005 8:58:32 AM PDT by phalynx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Do you live in MONTGOMERGY Co. cuz it describes what's going on here to the "T" LOL


161 posted on 06/23/2005 8:58:59 AM PDT by RedMonqey (Keep RIGHT or get LEFT behind!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
Revolution, anyone?

Where do I sign up?

162 posted on 06/23/2005 8:59:20 AM PDT by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
You have taken a very pragmatic approach to safeguard your property. But I take issue that one should have to make sure local officials are of a particular mind in order to enjoy the rights and protections clearly intended by the constitution. Should one take similar views to free speech protection? Should one make sure local elected official are in support of free speech? The problem here is there is now no appeal - no recourse --- in fact no legal violation.
163 posted on 06/23/2005 8:59:50 AM PDT by reflecting (I'm reading what all of you are saying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

Time for peasants with pitchforks.

Impeach the Supreme Court.

Term limit the Men in Black (and that goes for you, RBG!!!)


164 posted on 06/23/2005 9:00:00 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Ya THINK?

165 posted on 06/23/2005 9:00:09 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
The DUmmies heads are exploding. They can't understand why the idiots (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens) are in favor of expanding gov't power.
Hey DUmmies, these are the people you are in favor of. These are the people YOU want on the court.
166 posted on 06/23/2005 9:00:17 AM PDT by sharkhawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: faloi

"So if a private individual or company can make a case for the city getting more benefit (through tax revenue) for the latest in health spa design, they can snag your land to do it."

Yep, and the highest court in the land just gave this shady practice a stamp of approval.


167 posted on 06/23/2005 9:00:24 AM PDT by Stew Padasso ("That boy is nuttier than a squirrel turd.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

But please don't mess with a snail darter's (whatever that is)habitat.


168 posted on 06/23/2005 9:00:37 AM PDT by jincarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

Where do we start dumping the tea?


169 posted on 06/23/2005 9:00:42 AM PDT by rattrap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

Welcome to Canada lite. This has already been in place in Canada for decades. My grandfather was a self made real estate developer. He was doing great in the '60s (political and social situations aside) and had planned to build a new town, a new supersuburb, with a few other developers, just north of Toronto (where Vaughn and Markham are now, for those of you familiar with Toronto). They lost a bundle when the government seized the land, paid them a fraction (I think it was about 15%) of what it was worth, to build an airport, which they never actually even finished.

Its a scary place. Might be too late for us, but you guys have got to reverse that decision. That is tyranny. It overrides your right to your own property. And if you lose that, then soon you lose your rights to complain about (1st amendment), fight for it, (2nd amendment), etc. etc.


170 posted on 06/23/2005 9:00:44 AM PDT by Alexander Rubin (You make my heart glad by building thus, as if Rome is to be eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

The flies in the face of the DUmmieland belief that it is the conservatives who are the Fascists. It was clearly the Fascists (read liberal lefties) who did this.


171 posted on 06/23/2005 9:01:57 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Most people will never be affected by an eminent domain proceeding

Now what does that matter? Most northerners weren't affected by slavery either.

172 posted on 06/23/2005 9:01:59 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: jincarolina

LOL! Now those critters have property rights.


173 posted on 06/23/2005 9:02:03 AM PDT by Stew Padasso ("That boy is nuttier than a squirrel turd.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
Revolution, anyone?

I'm sick of this bullshit government. It just never stops being tyrannical.

174 posted on 06/23/2005 9:02:07 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

This is basically a declaration of war against private property. Any and all property may be taken to give the property to a corporation, person of influence, or for any other reason so long as the government can say it is for economic reasons.

"Eminient domain" is now defined as economic or tax purposes, not rights of way.


175 posted on 06/23/2005 9:02:32 AM PDT by shellshocked (They're undocumented Border Patrol agents, not vigilantes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Excellent summary!

It's been happening here in my little town in NJ. Local council sends a newsletter around, and a few years ago there was one paragraph that caught my attention: "A developer has agreed to put a shopping center at the corner of such-and-such. The property owner is being uncooperative, so we will be using public domain..." They just came right out and put it in writing.


176 posted on 06/23/2005 9:02:43 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes (News junkie here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher

As if the property restrictions and costs aren't enough.


177 posted on 06/23/2005 9:02:44 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: commonerX

The difference with non-payment of property taxes, is the city/county places the property up for auction, people bid on the property and the winner gets the property. You get back the difference between taxes owed and the winning bid. Here one entity gets to decided the price, and you have to take it.


178 posted on 06/23/2005 9:02:57 AM PDT by sharkhawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Excuse me?


179 posted on 06/23/2005 9:03:18 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: LongsforReagan

OK...now I get it.

NOW I'm upset.


180 posted on 06/23/2005 9:03:43 AM PDT by GOP_Proud (...stumbling across Bill Bennett on the radio is like bumping into Socrates at Starbucks.-K.Parker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk

"Hey DUmmies, these are the people you are in favor of. These are the people YOU want on the court."



Actually, I'm sure the DUmmies were originally against Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter's appointments, as all 3 were nominated by supposedly-conservative Republicans. I think both Kennedy and Souter were Reagan nominees.


181 posted on 06/23/2005 9:03:52 AM PDT by Blzbba (Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Quick1; ninenot; sittnick
This ultraelitist decision may be the straw that breaks SCOTUS camel's back. There is nothing liberal or conservative about not wanting to be forced from your property at all. Normal human lethargy militates against being disrupted as to your residence even in marginal neighborhoods, much less nice neighborhoods on rural lakes or coastal beaches.

How much less should we suffer such abuse when the purpose is not for an interstate highway or for some arguably necessary government purpose but for private development schemes which "benefit" the public interest (if any) at all only to the extent that the gummint critters will have more tax money to squander on their re-election schemes while (in many cases) being paid off by the bribes of feeding developers.

Lest I mislead, I have no problem with development but is must be achieved, if at all, the old-fashioned and more expensive way of paying as necessary in a free, arm's length transaction, with current owners. If your development project has greatly enhanced the value of their property, too bad.

There are an awful lot of trendy leftists (Phil Donahue, Marlo Thomas, Paul Newman, et al.) who own coastal and other verrrry desireable property in Connecticut and NEVER join with conservatives otherwise who are going to be VERRRRRY angry at this decision and the fact that it was delivered by the Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer group who are their normal heroes and Anthony Kennedy who made the difference for them on abortion.

Look for a wave of state legislation to restrain this result since Stevens ruled that locals know better than the feds. State governments are local by comparison with Feds.

Can we spell "wedge issue."

182 posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:13 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

183 posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:21 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12
"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.

It means that they can decide they don't like the color of your house and they believe it would be a "benefit to the community", they could condemn it, tear it down and sell it to a developer for $50.

184 posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:42 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

PING!!!


185 posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:47 AM PDT by shellshocked (They're undocumented Border Patrol agents, not vigilantes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12
Does that mean that my county may seize my proerty if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house?

Or a Wal-Mart or a Quick-Stop or anything else that has money/lobbying behind it.

The USSC dealt a great blow to private property rights - one of the great things that differentiated us from the rest of the world, and one of the things that made us such a free country.

A very sad day indeed.
186 posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:58 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

Sorry, posted to wrong Freeper.


187 posted on 06/23/2005 9:07:38 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: phalynx

I want a new country.

How do I form a new country?


188 posted on 06/23/2005 9:07:43 AM PDT by blueberry12 (LOL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

Actually Souter was nominated by GHWB. Sununu talked Poppy into it because he had no paper trail and could not be slammed like Bork for actually being an intellectual conservative. Bush I was assured that Souter was a conservative, but there was no nagging proof of that in the records.


189 posted on 06/23/2005 9:07:57 AM PDT by sharkhawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

"Most people will never be affected by an eminent domain proceeding
Now what does that matter? Most northerners weren't affected by slavery either."




What does it matter? Try having a revolution that's unpopular with the folks around you. It won't work. My point is that talking about revolution over this issue is stupid. It's not going to happen. How about talking about specific ways to stop eminent domain in your city or state?

Talk to local, regional, state, and national lawmakers and insist that they pass laws prohibiting such actions. Duh. The Supreme Court did not say that laws could not be passed prohibiting such eminent domain actions.

You want to actually do something, instead of talking nonsense? Then start moving toward laws prohibiting such eminent domain seizures. Then you can actually do something instead of flapping your gums or pounding on your keyboard.

That's what I'm working on. But blather away, if you choose.


190 posted on 06/23/2005 9:07:58 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: jess35

"the SCOTUS has now made it "legal" for government to seize your home and sell it to a private individual who promises to pay more TAXES on the land.
"


EXACTLY!!! A BIDDING WAR!!!

If the government wants to increase tax revenue, all they have to do is put your property up for bidding.

This is war against the people, against private property!


191 posted on 06/23/2005 9:08:18 AM PDT by shellshocked (They're undocumented Border Patrol agents, not vigilantes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: WestSylvanian
Bush is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. Maybe he should be spending more time trying to restore it here.

A very wise statement. It makes a great tagline. This essentially formulates a new law. The supremes have really overstepped their powers here. Eminent domain should prevail in few and far between cases, not expanded to corporations "for the public's good." I guess the pigs know what's best for the rest of us farm animals. Unlawful seizure of property has just become lawful. Watch out for the slippery slope. This is exactly what our forefathers bled to prevent. And it's always the same libs chipping away at our freedoms and building a NWO.
192 posted on 06/23/2005 9:08:23 AM PDT by Blowtorch (Bush should be spending more time trying to restore democracy here at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

The "Gang of Five" strikes again!


193 posted on 06/23/2005 9:08:49 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LongsforReagan
My thoughts exactly!

Socialist politicians & judges = drug addicted whores & pimps.

Which means: the thought processes of money addicted egomaniacs willing to prostitute their souls as well as destroy the private citizen to satisfy their insatiable hunger for more money and power.

194 posted on 06/23/2005 9:08:56 AM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12

The supreme court does not exploit a hole in the constitution, they have created their own laws. The first instance of judicial activism occured when the supreme court gave themselves the right of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. Ever since then we have had a rogue court that does whatever it wants. In the past we have just been lucky enough for the justices to have a soul. There decisions and actions have rarely had anything to do with the constitution.


195 posted on 06/23/2005 9:09:12 AM PDT by bone52 (Fight Terrorists.... Blow up the Eiffel Tower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Everyone here needs to read The Law by Frederick Bastiat.

Bastait talks about "legal plunder" by government. Go HERE for a good copy of The Law.

196 posted on 06/23/2005 9:09:23 AM PDT by A. Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commonerX

"It is official citizens no long own property, you can only rent it, with the possibility of eviction at anytime."

Another perfect point. At least with land rents, known as property taxes, a person was safe in ownership of their property if they paid their land rents. Now, the Supreme Court jhas added a clause that says a person can be evicted at any time as well.


197 posted on 06/23/2005 9:10:16 AM PDT by shellshocked (They're undocumented Border Patrol agents, not vigilantes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
This decision has opened the door for unbridled graft and corruption as developers will be looking to grease as many politicians as necessary to get the land that they desire.

Belly up to the bar boys...Happy Hour has just started! Pick your parcel and place your donations to the Selectmen in the glass at the end of the bar!

This decision will be noted in the history books as the first shot of the 2nd Revolution.

198 posted on 06/23/2005 9:11:21 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Time for a new tagline. Michigan's Supreme Court overturned the old Poletown decision where a bunch of homes in a good area of Detroit were razed for an autoplant(that's no longer there).

SCOTUS needs some intelligence there, and Markman, Taylor, Young, or Corrigan will help.

199 posted on 06/23/2005 9:11:26 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan (Stop the Land Grabs - Markman, Taylor, Young, or Corrigan for SCOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

Following the plan, step by step!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428558/posts?page=15#15


200 posted on 06/23/2005 9:12:45 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( Report every illegal alien that you meet. Call 866-347-2423, Employers use 888-464-4218)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 701-728 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson