Posted on 06/26/2005 4:43:14 PM PDT by rhema
The Supreme Court went nuts the other day. The heat got to them. There is no other way to look at it. Forget about gay marriage and prayer in the schools and God's mention in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those are minor affairs compared to the results of the complete breakdown of the land's highest court.
They made a ruling that says cities can take your property and turn it over to private developers. This is the so-called issue of eminent domain. In the old days, when we were getting goods to market with an ox cart or poling a barge along a canal, the "taking clause'' meant that a community had to come together once in a while and decide to sacrifice the south 40 acres of Old Man Jesperson's farm so that a road could be built for all to use, while also fairly compensating Jesperson.
That's the word the Fifth Amendment features: use.
So what did the Supreme Court justices rule by a 5-4 margin? Well, they decided that a city or government entity's ability to increase revenue is a public use. In other words, if a developer can sweet talk the City Council or county commissioners into the belief that the Acme Resort Corporation can generate more taxes than that row of Craftsman bungalows on Fifth Street, then by all means, have at it. Knock those people out of their homes. Bulldoze those houses and put up the new development.
Oh, and pay them just compensation? You can't come up with a figure. There is no amount of money to accommodate the new belief that the sanctity of the government is now elevated above the sanctity of your home.
I defy anybody reading this to tell me I have misinterpreted the Supreme Court's most progressive thinkers, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. I mean progressive in the most ominous way.
The state's ability to generate revenue is now considered a public use under the court's newest interpretation of the Fifth Amendment.
Dissenting were Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
I don't know about you, but I took a walk around my property after I read this ruling and I felt a pit in my stomach. Nothing is safe.
Nothing.
And if your attitude on this one is, "Oh, well, it will never affect me,'' or, "Oh, well, life will go on,'' then you could be the next Wilhemina Dery.
Dery was among a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who were faced with losing property after the Pfizer pharmaceutical company began discussing with the city plans for a $300 million waterfront research facility. The plans also include a hotel and a health club. Dery and her neighbors do not live in a blighted neighborhood, but rather an antiquated one of Victorian-style homes and shops.
The neighbors sued and the case landed at the Supreme Court, where the majority essentially erased the concept of private property, which is a bedrock of this republic.
O'Connor, writing for the minority, argued that the decision will disproportionately benefit people with influence and power in the political process. She is absolutely correct.
Here is the important thing to understand, especially if you are of a "progressive'' mind and have counted on the government to pave over life's bumps and ruts. You are going to get paved over in the new process.
O'Connor warned that rich people would buy up the property of poor people and create developments that only rich people could possibly use.
And what makes this horrible prospect possible is the unbelievably flawed ruling that a city's ability to make money is more important than your right to your home.
If you are out in your back yard today and you hear a chattering over your rooftop, look up. It might be the arrival of the black helicopter — the black helicopter of myth and conspiracy.
Or, worse, it might be a developer with big plans.
This will become most unpopular as I feel quite a few developers and city boards may suffer high velocity lobotomies when attempting to steal people's land.
It's inevitable, people WILL die over this ruling.
The sad thing is, is that there is a media black-out on this important issue. Sure, Sean and Rush and Savage et all have been denouncing it. But other than a few columnists, this issue is dead. Even Jorge Bush isn't talking about it.
good rant.
heh.
how few know that "republic" comes from "res publicae" - and know what that means?
It wasn't ignored, it was, uh, "clarified."
Oh...right.
A riverfront site would make it prettier to visitors, nstead of being surrounded by old houses that if not kept up, would make it look unattractive in the next 20 years
The riverfront site would also make it possible to float boats up and down the river with clients, and they can own their own docks, have waterfront barts that are private, company picnics...
simple to see if you think abut it...
I keep telling my friends in Church, we are wrong to wait for the rapture to get us out of this mess, God is going to judge us first. One way is to let us have what we ask for.
We are getting what we ask for it seems.
This is a email reply I got back from a person who works in this field when I forward him this post
In his email the person had the means and the abilty to fight back. And get whats due.
Santa Cruz considers eminent domain on long-empty downtown lot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292948/posts
It's sure better then the case I had awhile back in LA. The city took this guys property, which had a liquor store, deli, check cashing service & was Grossing $300K to $350K PER MONTH.
He had a big corner where all the trucks come off the docks unto Alameda St. & the semis could pull in & pick up a sandwich & a drink. The next closest liquor store was 3 mi. away, & this was the closest to the docks & a big marina for pleasure boats.
The city of L.A gave him a generous $79,000 Yes, that was it, they said since the land was zoned industrial that was all the land was worth.
The building would still be standing, but the new R/W line was 3 ft. from the front of the building & there was to be no access. They said he could do something with the building. It was a complex case since the Koreans who owned it just said give us our $500,000 relocation & loss of business amount & we go back to Korea.
The Koreans who had sold it, sold it for 2 million, $750K for the real estate, the rest for the business & inventory & the down payment had been $250,000, the rest only had the real estate as security. The buyers were just going to walk away with the relocation money & leave the sellers holding the bag. It took awhile to get the 2 Korean sellers into the case, but the atty did & they had to start a foreclosure against the buyers to be able to get to court..
We settled on the court house steps for $1,800,000 ,(Inc the business but no inventory) PLUS the $500,000 relocation fee, PLUS, the city had to buy two adjacent lots and pay for the construction of a new building on the two lots, AND provide access to the new property from Alameda St. The appraiser for the city was still saying., how can an industrially zoned property be worth that.
I asked the city Real Estate Dept. manager how they could justify using an appraiser like that. He said, "We love his work, we use him all the time" That is why cities using eminent domain get such a bad rap.
Now, here is the best part, 6 mo later I was at a legal seminar & had lunch with 4 attys, 3 from the City of L.A. I brought up that I had just been the appraiser on a big case against the city & they knew which one right away. One said she had been assigned the case but knew the case was really bad & got out of it. The city put a brand new atty on, (the city hired an outside law firm also), & the city attorneys office had a betting pool as to how big the city was going to take a hit when they found the case was going to court.
Also, think of all the other folks who's property was taken using this type of appraiser and who could not afford to go to court or who did not get a really good attorney (and of course that attorney hiring a really good appraiser on the case).
So that's what happens in many of these cases. Also, many cases in Redev. are not blighted at all, but they use that to cozy up to a particular developer.
This case does not seem like that however & in this case I agree with the city. I don't know what the lot is really worth, but $70/sq.ft. for an ugly looking hole in the ground does not seem out of line. PS The atty & the clients felt I did such a good job they gave me a $2000 bonus on top of the fee I billed-only the 2nd time in my career that has happened!)
Something that many of the Founding Fathers had, that is not particularly common these days, was a schooling in classical Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Their intent in the various terms was clear to their fellows. The best we can do now is to repeat in Latin American.
Government should not be in the business of handing out "benefits", much less deciding who gets benefits that have been earned by the efforts of an individual. Even assuming the continued existence of the unconstitutional abomination of Social Security, having government dictate who gets survivor benefits is hardly appropriate for a free society.
What about the elderly widower whose wife was frittered away his weekly paycheck buying trendy clothes and "collectibles", ultimately forcing the children to go into debt for college because mom spent all the money that dad would have liked to save? When he dies, why should his hard-earned benefits go to her, if he'd prefer to have them go to his adult children to help pay off their student loans or make downpayments on homes, or to his brother who's struggling to care for a wife with Alzheimer's? Why should the government dictate to him where his hard-earned money goes?
If all of your premises are accepted, you could be right that the government should be out of the marriage business. But I have to say that your ideas go beyond repeal of the New Deal and basically repudiate at least 1000 years of common law and equity. I wish you well on some of your beliefs. But I doubt even many conservatives want to return to time immemorial.
I was talking about a research site, not a tourism, market place, or other commercialization scheme.
Research does not need "atmosphere", "exclusive water front views", ad nauseam. For profit land development operators do.
My reason for the post was to open for discussion the question of whether the "research park" was for legitimate research or whether it was a land grab transparently disguised at a reseaerch center.
I'll bet it is a land grab masquerading as a research site.
As for repealing the New Deal, I say full speed ahead!
The very example you gave denies the concept of common property by reason of marriage who rights re theft by one party is not to be enforced by the government and deprives the "non-working" spouse of any rights whatsoever. That is medieval. Marriage is a contract and the government (and employers etc.) determine what kinds of contracts they will honor with enforcement and what kind they will not.
Sir, I painfully disagree - first, these leftists count on there being a certain inertia in the expression of the will of the people... both via the built-in process of the Constitution (amendments, ratification, etc.) and more importantly, because human nature is like that.
Second, they reason - nor can I fault them based on the evidence - that throwing many items at our attention span - mind you, an attention span generally limited to the info-mercial, the quick drive-through meal, etc., will further erode the potential for the kind of organization/staying power needed to push through any changes.
They count on the same cynicism from the people that has been steadily fed to us through socialized education, morale equivalency, media, post-mod psychology... they count on all these things to cull from amongst our numbers any who might participate in taking back our government - leaving only a scattered, disorganized few which - even if they flare brightly across the screen of our 5 second attention spans - can still be scoffed at/dismissed by the narcotic that is their leftist controlled media & academe.
Besides, what sort of amendment will we strive for? How about this... "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." This sounds about right, don't you think?
I fear more will be needed; Jefferson's admonition about 'periodic replenishment of the Tree of Liberty' comes to mind...
I'm not talking about an amendment... simply local laws restricting local governments from taking such actions.
As for your other comments about the "lazy" nature of people, remember, "people get the government they deserve" - I truly believe that.
I'm sorry to say your comments sounded rather defeatist! These fights never end!
you are right on the fights never ending, wrong on my attitude regarding the same.
interesting!
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.