Posted on 06/24/2005 6:56:18 AM PDT by kpp_kpp
I am not the vanity posting type, nor am I usually an alarmist but this latest USSC ruling taking away our private property rights for increasted tax revenue... it is impossible to put into words the impact this is going to have on our country.
One area I'm interested in getting feedback on is that of Religious organizations and property tax. Obvouisly states can choose on their own to tax religious organizations if that is what they really wanted -- but that would probably not go over well as a state wide issue.
But now, with eminent domain expanded, local communities are free to take over non-revenue producing churches and transfer the to developers -- for the greater good of the community.
This may sound unfeasible to some in conservative-leaning areas (where it is "unthinkable"), but there are plenty of areas of the country where churches have a hard enough time getting and zoning property for their use.
It will start slowly, and at first it will just happen to religious organizations that aren't "mainstream" but the long term consequences of this decision are truly incomprehensible.
Not socialism, fascism.
Socialism is when they steal for themselves, fascism is when they steal it for someone else.
Socialism = government ownership.
Fascism = government control while allowing private ownership.
Our prime fiscal asset
The bigger concern is the potential loss of real property tax exemptions for churches.
bring it on - IMO were slaves to the IRS code right now - as our speech is limited.
If we pay taxes, I personally think you'd see a huge alignment to the right (excepting of course rev jackson and Al Sharpton), and the dems arent about to let that happen
Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool...
How long would this "establishment of religion" law last a SCOTUS review?
Aways remember, with an activist court the Constitution is a "living document" and means what it says at the time they render their decision. Don't count on politicians to write anything to protect your interest.
It may never get to the Supreme Court. It is my recollection that all of the Circuit courts, and all but one of the District courts have upheld its constitutionality.
There are limits on the protection that it would give a church in a condemnation proceeding. If, for example, the city was planning to bulldoze 30 blocks, and someone in the area was holding a church service in their living room, that property could be condemned as well.
So in order to get rid of a church on a residential street, the government could not merely pick on the church, they would need to take a larger area, including the houses surrounding it. In the Berman case (quoted in the current case), a store owner had his business taken because it was in the middle of a blighted area, even though his business was not per se blighted. The taking of his store was part of a larger plan of remediation for the area as a whole.
Furthermore, "“A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void.”" Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245. The singling out of a specific entity would no doubt be construed as a "purely private taking."
It seems the land they already seized to build hotels is just a little too far from Disneyland to keep the city sponsored hotels full...
Rev., It's not the IRS you have to worry about, it is your local and state real property taxes that are the greatest danger because of tight budgets, along with the zoning and building laws. Just think what would happen to the small to middle size churches with their strained budgets if the state fire/building code is changed to require smoke/fire detectors to be installed and wired into the fire department and all places of assembly, no matter the seating capacity, to be sprinklered? The cost would force most small churches to close their doors. The Supreme court decision is less a threat than the other potential problems.
Uh huh. Didn't our beloved president sign an unconstitutional law here a while back, because the courts would eliminate the portion that was unconstitutional, and keep the parts he agreed with?
Suuuuuu Prize! Suuuuuuu Prize! Suuuuuu Prize! The Suuuuuuu Premes upheld it all!
No, don't be ridiculous. This happens all the time where a church in a neighborhood wants to build a giant facility, and it's unfair to the people who live around it to have to deal with the traffic and noise. I would vote against it in my neighborhood, too. Churches, especially growing churches, need to find land that is similar to corporate land. It's common sense.
You are wrong. It is one thing to prevent a church from being built because of the perceived "nuisance" of having the church in a neighborhood (BTW, the church is nearly empty 90% of the time so you traffic and noise problems are strawman arguments). But it is completely different to try to seize the lands that the church wants to build on for a hotel and shopping space and arena for a private hockey team. It IS happening.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/11880284.htm
http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1117179959213180.xml&coll=1
one can hope you're right on your interpretation but the dissent itself disagrees with you.
even under your interpretation this is a immeasurable loss for private property rights upon which most of our other rights are derived.
The second one seems to be irrelevant to the church insofar as you have TWO groups trying to take the land, and, as I read it, one of those groups wants to put up an apartment complex that the other group doesn't want there. Where does the church fit in? It owns the land, but it's not clear from the article why it isn't involved in this. We need more info on this.
I'm not a fan of condemnation even when it is for a colorably legitimate purpose. The Supreme Court got this decision wrong, but I wasn't really surprised. And I can't seen a Bush Supreme Court justice turning back the tide.
Most of your facts are correct, but you left out 'the rest of the story'.
In Cottonwood Creek Christian Center v. City of Cypress, the City wanted to take the land that the church had assembled so that Costco could build a warehouse store on the site. After a federal court had enjoined the condemnation (in August 2002), the parties settled (February 2003), with the city agreeing to let the church build on another site in the area and with the Church selling the tract that Costco wanted.
So the RLUIPA did serve to protect the church from the abusive seizure by the city.
Check out this petition site:
http://www.petitiononline.com/5amend/petition-sign.html
An email correspondent's comment:
"FOLKS: This past week, SCOTUS (Supreme Court OF The United States) once again, has attempted to rewrite OUR Constitution to totally change the original intent as written by the Founders.
Eminent Domain was NEVER intended to be used by government EXCEPT to obtain property for roads, public buildings, schools, military bases and other necessary government usage.
This past week, the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution, stating that it was legal for cities to condemn private property under Eminent Domain, to purchase and then resell to developers and other special interests, supposedly to benefit the community and the city by increasing tax revenues.
THIS IS TOTALLY BOGUS!
Please click on the link below and add your signature to the petition for a Constitutional Amendment to put a stop to this invitation to even more corruption within government and the theft of private homes and property for the financial benefit of a few.
http://www.petitiononline.com/5amend/petition-sign.html"
while it sounds nice in concept i disagree with altering th constitution to "get it back" to its original intent.
the supreme court justices are not upholding their duties and should be removed from office. if not directly removed then at the very least made to feel an intense amount of heat through congression hearings, redistricting, and cutting off of funds, etc.
adding an amendment to the constitution is not an easy process - the founders made it difficult intentionally... the original intent is still intact as read by most sane people and anyone who bothers to study the founding of this country. judges should not be permitted to alter the constitution through their rulings either.
impeachment, regardless of how unlikely, is the more correct path to take on this issue... and it would probably be easier (and much more effective) than amending the constitution.
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.