Log in or Sign up

Newest Supreme Court ruling

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Contained Chaos, Jun 23, 2005.

Page 1 of 10

Contained Chaos Don't we all?

Joined:

Dec 5, 2004

Messages:

9,467

Likes Received:

2,124

Supreme Court ruling gives local government wide power to seize private property
The Supreme Court today issued a ruling that gives local government broad powers to seize property for private development, a decision that even lets governments take property for projects like malls, according to reports. The 5-4 ruling went against Connecticut residents who were fighting to keep their homes from being bulldozed for an office complex. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Click to expand...

What in the sam hell is going on here? Now the government is helping to bolster the cause of private developers??? The government just gets bigger and bigger everyday, and I am sick of it.

I work with a LOT of developers in my line of work. Those people do not need more help to be successful. This decision completely blows my mind.

:cuss: :cuss:

Contained Chaos, Jun 23, 2005

#1
G_MAN113 Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 10, 2003

Messages:

3,386

Likes Received:

19

What's the source for this? I'd like to read more about it before I pass any judgements.

G_MAN113, Jun 23, 2005

#2
Contained Chaos Don't we all?

Joined:

Dec 5, 2004

Messages:

9,467

Likes Received:

2,124

That piece was from the Daily Report. Here is a link to a more in-depth article. But there's really not much missing from the DR one.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

This is an outrage.

Contained Chaos, Jun 23, 2005

#3
NoLimitMD Founding Member

Joined:

Dec 15, 2004

Messages:

7,551

Likes Received:

366

I do not like this decision one bit. The court has overstepped its bounds in a major way, IMO.

NoLimitMD, Jun 23, 2005

#4
G_MAN113 Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 10, 2003

Messages:

3,386

Likes Received:

19

Contained Chaos said:

This is an outrage.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the link, CC. I agree, this is indeed an outrage.

G_MAN113, Jun 23, 2005

#5
burlesontiger Founding Member

Joined:

Oct 18, 2002

Messages:

907

Likes Received:

75

I first heard about this case a few months ago. This is really getting out of hand. If a developer can convince your city council that your property can better serve the community as some kind of tourist attraction, you can't stop them anymore.

burlesontiger, Jun 23, 2005

#6
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

The key is how the ruling will be interpreted. The court maintains that a government could always sieze private property if it is needed for civic improvements that are vital to the interests of the community. It now has ruled that a private developer working under government auspices can do the work on behalf of the community for civic improvements that are vital to the interests of the community.

But where will they draw this line? What if politicians allow an established residential community be seized and redeveloped just to gain additional tax revenue? Who gets to decide what is in the best interests of the communities?

There will be more court cases. State legislatures will get involved. Lawyers will get rich on this one for years.

red55, Jun 23, 2005

#7
Contained Chaos Don't we all?

Joined:

Dec 5, 2004

Messages:

9,467

Likes Received:

2,124

burlesontiger said:

If a developer can convince your city council that your property can better serve the community as some kind of tourist attraction, you can't stop them anymore.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's what Sandra Day was gettting at. The freaking aristocracy in this country is slowly becoming the dominant force.

Think about it. Had this ruling occured 20 or so years ago, 'Goonies' would have never existed. Or maybe they would have just had to come up with a new plot.:hihi:

Contained Chaos, Jun 23, 2005

#8
LsuCraig Founding Member

Joined:

Dec 17, 2004

Messages:

1,607

Likes Received:

55

Here's what we were all talking about.........as long as this fits in some kind of community economic development plan, they can seize any home or business as part of that plan.

There aren't many homes in the world that would bring in more revenue from property taxes than a hotel on the same land. Therefore, any home or business location can be seized to tear down and build a casino as long as that casino is part of the town's economic development plan........that is CRAZY!!!!!

They can now take any business or home's location for pretty much any reason as long as it fits into the town's economic development plan. There is NO limit to this...

LsuCraig, Jun 23, 2005

#9
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

I'd like to see the facts in this specific case. There's got to be more than meets the eye here. It's inconceivable that this ruling can mean what it seems to mean. I'm dumbfounded.

At least I still have my guns.

SabanFan, Jun 23, 2005

#10

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 1 of 10

Share This Page