Land war goes before Supreme Court (Eminent Domain)

CNN.com ^ | 21 Feb 2005 | Bill Mears

[af_vet_rr]

A fight by homeowners to save their New London, Connecticut, neighborhood from city officials and private developers -- an important property rights case with an unusual twist -- will reach the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

At issue is whether governments can forcibly seize homes and businesses, for private economic development....

......Legal analysts said they see the case as having major implications nationwide in property rights and redevelopment issues.

[af_vet_rr]

Didn't see the article posted (and it's excerpted since it's from CNN), to sum it up, the government wants to take individual A's property and give it company B. No mention of why the government didn't tell Pfizer "if you want to build, then you need to talk to the individuals who own the land and reach an agreement with them".

[af_vet_rr]

A article from a different news organization, about this issue, was posted this weekend, here - I didn't catch it, apologies.

[eluminate]

bump

[atruelady]

Really. Eminent domain is so abused.

[DustyMoment]

This is a critical case of homeowner rights. If the SCOTUS rules to allow local governments to seize private property and turn it over to private developers in favor of the higher tax mentality, it will signal that the days of one of our most fundamental freedoms are over. Without the ability to buy and own property that is free from governments seizing it on a whim, the republic is dead.

This is an issue that affects every American home owner or potential homeowner. We can't sit back and specculate that it will never happen to us - it's happening all across the country. If the SCOTUS rules against home ownership, the bottom will drop out of the homw onwership market and could, potentially, plunge this country into another depression.

[petro45acp]

"...the government wants to take individual A's property and give it company B. No mention of why the government didn't tell Pfizer "if you want to build, then you need to talk to the individuals who own the land and reach an agreement with them"."

ED as it is being applied these days is one of the vilest of government evils. As described above, it shows governments unconcerned with the individual. A point often missed by govenments is their charter to protect the individual's ability to exercise volition.

Their is money to be made in the sprawl, and no shortage of folks using the evil of ED to make it.

Let's hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the individual.

Top sends

[FierceDraka]

I agree.

Without private property rights, the Republic is doomed to become just another corrupt kleptocracy like in the Third World.

If SCOTUS rules in favor of New London over the homeowner, then our own local governments will become de facto enemies of the people.

[petro45acp]

Oops,

There is money to be made...

Had a different line in mind.......mind?

[petro45acp]

Oops,

There is money to be made...

Had a different line in mind.......mind?

[Liam]

"...the government wants to take individual A's property and give it company B. ..."

Why only company B? Why couldn't Bill Gates show up here, tell the county that he'd build a gazillion dollar house (with bazillion dollar property taxes) on my property, if only they condemn it for him?

I fail to see a conceptual difference.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

"....it will signal that the days of one of our most fundamental freedoms are over..."

You are correct.

If the Supreme Court allows these properties to be taken, there really will be no private property in America.

Welcome to the Soviet Union II.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[fuente]

You Sir, are correct!

[newsgatherer]

bump for tuesday

[af_vet_rr]

Why only company B? Why couldn't Bill Gates show up here, tell the county that he'd build a gazillion dollar house (with bazillion dollar property taxes) on my property, if only they condemn it for him?

That's just it - property ownership would become a shadow of its former self if these kinds of things are allowed. What a government entity (city, county, state) thinks is best for its interests would trump whatever rights you have.

If these kinds of things are allowed, then who's to say that companies/individuals won't be wining and dining various government officials, and somehow bribing, errr convincing them that it's in the "public's best interest" to condemn this or that property so they can build whatever they want.

It becomes more about the almighty tax dollar and less about private property rights. Without those rights, we are no better than some second or third world nation. Hell, you might as well fire up some kind of central planning committee to tell everybody where they are going to be living.

[Servant of the 9]

About time a case like this made it to the court. The use of Imminent Domain for private deevelopment is an abuse of power.

SO9

[Ukiapah Heep]

It's worse that that. Faced with a choice of government enforced takeover of property vs. socialism, more of the country could turn red. We'd turn into nothing more than Latin America.

[BobL]

Let's hope for the best - taking land from private owners for the purpose of handing it over to others is very dangerous.

Here in Texas, hundreds of thousands of acres of private land is about to seized in a psycho-plan called the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) plan. The idea is to give private companies monopoly-type power to build toll roads and charge as much as they can get out of us Taxpayers. Technically, the state would retain ownership of the land and the roads - in reality the private companies would reap all of the profit - and it will be huge.

There is opposition, but the governor managed to sneak in authorization to pull this off without any debate in the state. Now we're about the become the laughing stock of the country, as we finance the construction of new condos on the French Riviera.

[SALChamps03]

Senate Bill 5 in Georgia, a bill that would have made this type of thing much easier for governments to do, was defeated, largely because of the efforts of Neal Boortz, who discussed this issue daily.

[Tench_Coxe]

"This is a critical case of homeowner rights. If the SCOTUS rules to allow local governments to seize private property and turn it over to private developers in favor of the higher tax mentality, it will signal that the days of one of our most fundamental freedoms are over. Without the ability to buy and own property that is free from governments seizing it on a whim, the republic is dead."

That would be akin to legally sanctioned piracy. That would start a shooting war at some point.