[dead]

For Sharpe James, Bob Torricelli, the entire mobbed up developer/construction industry, NJ Democrats, unions, etc., yesterday's ruling was better than winning a megamillions lottery. It was like a mega-billions lottery.

Congratulations to all!

[cripplecreek]

Ive been away for a few days, how have the liberals reacted to this ruling?

[konaice]

This is the End of Private Property in America.

And since Private Property is what enables our economy, one could say this is the beginning of the END period.

[adam_az]

Next comes finding the 2nd amendment unconstitutional so that there will be no armed rebellion.

Dems have turned into 18th century Tories.

Whodathunkit.

[Williams]

Exactly. This decision has to be the best illustration ever of how disconnected the lib justices are from reality. I can speak from personal experience to tell you that in NJ this will be used to make the democrats' cronies richer and more powerful. "Redevelopment" is just the latest gimmick they use, right up there with paying millions to preserve "open space" owned by their buddies which couldn't have been developed anyway.

We have a Constitutional right to teenagers getting abortions and murderers constantly getting new trials, but this Court saw no need to protect the rights of people to protect their property from government seizure. Oy.

[wildbill]

The way I read the decision, the Supremes said it was a local decision and if they legislature wants to rein in the developers, they can.

[dead]

The ruling does not preclude the state Legislature in Trenton from passing a law restricting the use of eminent domain.

This ruling is going to ensure each and every one of these legislators in Trenton much much nicer vacation homes down the Jersey shore, a new Lexus for the wife, and a few post-Ivy-league education years bumming around Europe for their kids.

[floriduh voter]

So, the new rule is: if you have a view or maybe there is oil under your land, you may be moving.

The Beverly Hillbillies of 2005 would lose their bubbling crude.

[Tired of Taxes]

Notice how other states (PA, TX, CA, etc.) have introduced bills right away to limit eminent domain, while still other states (FL, UT, etc.) already have laws limiting it.

And where is NJ? Where is Forrester? (Is that the sound of silence I hear?)

[Lyford]

What the Constitution says…What the Constitution means…

[Hank Rearden]

Politicians need to understand very clearly that they'll be hanging from lampposts if they don't get their minds right pretty damn quick.

[retrokitten]

"It gives local governments too much power," said Thomas Bonanno III, whose family-owned real estate group rents commercial space to 27 companies, employing more than 150 people in the area.

I don't think I would mess with a guy named Bonanno who runs a family owned business in NJ. But maybe that is just me.

[Question_Assumptions]

I can only hope that Piscataway doesn't turn the last remaining local farm into high-density housing or a mall. Yeah, they say they want to condemn it to preserve open spaces. Yeah, with the recent giant Wal-Mart and Lowes shopping center built next door to it, I really believe that.

I'm afraid that government is probably going to have to run wild for a few years and step on a lot of people before Americans realize why the founders put the "public use" clause in that Amendment. On the other hand, they still haven't grasped how abused the Commerce Clause has become so maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. But if they start treating poor minority neighborhoods the way they treated them in New Brunswick, things should be very interesting for New Jersey and for the Democrats.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

"But Scott Mollen, an attorney for Herrick Feinstein, which has offices in Newark and Princeton, said that the court properly recognized that New London is an economically depressed town that needs to change with the times."

Lying scum. It was clearly stated and acknowledged by both sides in the case that the New London area confiscated under eminent domain was NOT economically depressed. It is a working-class neighborhood.

The issue is still open as to whether "economically depressed" (what does that mean, it isn't filled with million-dollar homes, two-million-dollar homes?) is reason enough to confiscate privately-owned property for economic reasons (as opposed to reasons of public use).

[wideawake]

Yup. This is a license for every crook in NJ to print money without having to give McGreevey a reacharound first.

[sandbar]

This will perpetuate the 'no middle class' situation for sure. IMO anyway.

[TheForceOfOne]

Ah, what up Doc?

I'm here for your pwaperty wabbit, so don't twy any funny stuff or I'll bwast you!

[spunkets]

"Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that it was up to local officials, not federal judges, to determine what uses of eminent domain are beneficial."

Abortion and corn holin' are too important a right to leave up to them though.

[debg]

...economic redevelopment power is used in areas where the main objection is that there are too many poor people there or too many renters..

On the other hand, a town (on an island) near me is under attack because the property is a developer's dream. Existing single-family homes are small but going for over $600,000 these days because of location and ocean/bay views. Developer's want to raze the homes and build high-end communities. So far, they've met resistance because the town officials and town people want to maintain their status quo.

However, the developers have been breaking up neighborhood blocks. They have bought at least one home on each street and then let the property sit unused. The plan is to establish presence for when they apply to the courts. I'd say that with this SC ruling, the town is gonna change whether the people want it or not.

[hellinahandcart]

Baltimore is thrilled too!

[You Dirty Rats]

The ruling was hailed by Newark Mayor Sharpe James, whose city is planning a $550 million, 2,000-condominium project on a 13-acre parcel that was declared blighted for eminent domain purposes in November. "Our Mulberry Street project is a clear example of the Supreme Court ruling where the future of the city is more important than private profit motivations," James said in a statement.

So a poor homeowner whose property is taken by force is guilty of private profit motivations (even if he/she didn't want to sell), but a condo developer is a selfless champion of the city who won't make any money???

I nominate the above quote as the absolute worst we've seen so far coming out of this decision. What crass nerve!