Posted on 06/24/2005 10:38:12 AM PDT by jeffers
Last night's local Fox News ran a story that our local government is looking at using this precedent to force downtown landowners out to make room for a new sports stadium.
This was followed by a story announcing a new plan for a rapid transit system which will require the displacement of tens of thousands of homes and businesses.
it's as if the government here has been planning and waiting for this decision to be handed down, and can't wait to start seizing property under this travesty of justice.
No one is safe, not anywhere in the country.
Any state can pass a law saying we won't do it today, and later, when the furor dies down, quietly change the law back to business as usual.
The Constitution is supoposed to be our final line of protection, but the Supreme Court abdicated their authority.
Or worse.
And an amendment to the federal Constitution even better. It would serve as a well-deserved SCOTUS slap-down as well as affording a renewed protection of private property rights.
And link to sign petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html
"Not relevant. Stadia, like the railroads, were already considered OK for eminent domain well before this
ruling."
With this ruling in pocket, the leverage to force property owners to sell for a lower price, without recourse to the Supreme Court, is magnified tenfold.
Do you have an...interest...in this ruling?
I thought about that. But there's a problem. How do you write into a federal amendment that building municipal buildings is OK, but "development" is not. Stadia are OK (they were well before this ruling) but "increasing the tax base" is not. Railroads are OK, etc, etc. I can't see how it isn't interminably long.
The other point is what about real estate tax difference. Many retired people stay where they are because they can afford the real estate tax of their current house. That will most likely not be the case if they have move to another community.
An for the public good, what about all the friendships that the kids in the area will no longer have from their neighborhood they where growing up with. This doesn't build a community but rather tares it apart.
| Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue... |
||||||
|
Of course, CFR was the warning shot... no, make that "Death Knell" on the Constitution. |
||||||
So, fine, we need new SC justices. But they just said the law isn't unconstitutional. Stupid, but whatever. How can we get these laws repealed? Are they federal or state laws?
Not precisely a taxreform thread, but this one touches every property owner and every person who aspires to such status.
A Taxreform bump for you all.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
"How can we get these laws repealed?"
I am willing to allow the powers that be to clean up their mess, on a federal level, and restore the property rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
How they do that is their problem. They broke it, they fix it.
If they take too long, or refuse to act, we issue a call to arms and fight for our freedom.
The equation is as simple as that.
Lekker is correct. These examples are "public use" and would have been permissible before yesterday's ruling.
It was my idea that the 5th Amendment to the Federal Constitution was a law against illegal seizure of property.
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "
I don't think this effects the price at all. The purpose was the only thing under question here. If the purpose was valid, it won't effect the price.
Do you have an...interest...in this ruling?
Well, I wouldn't mind a nice fat check for my house from a greedy developer (and the city makes sure everybody knows how much it's worth thanks to the property tax) but, no I'm not the CEO of an evil corporation out to buy up lots of low-cost land for development. I just have an interest in the truth and cutting down the unnecessary hyperbole.
There was no law. They said the seizure wasn't unconstitutional. There was no CT law to prevent it.
The Court is simply sharpening the contradictions of the Socialist States of America.
I was about to sign the petition to impeach the 5 blackrobed Nazgul, but at the top of the website there are links to click with anti-Bush things. Like "he's still not my president". What organization is this petition connected with? I don't want to lend any credence to any leftist wacko organization.
I would also add a line about "just compensation" to mean that, should the land become more valuable as a result of the taking, compensation isn't just if the former property owner is excluded from the increased valuation. That is, if land with fair market value of $100,000 is taken, and turned to land with FMV $1 million as a result of rezoning or whatever, then just compensation is certainly more than $100,000, and might be nothing less than $1 million.
"I don't think this effects the price at all."
Sure. The government that has implemented their intention to tax you twice for the forseeable future, once for a football stadium scheduled to be torn down, even though the bond was paid off years ago, and the second time for the new stadium to replace it, would never leverage this Supreme Court decision to acquire the land for their projects at a lower price....would they?
I clicked the link to sign the petition but at the top there are links to anti-Bush items. What org is running this petition? Is it connected up in any way, shape or form with any leftist outfit? Why are the anti-Bush links on the page?
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.