Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development
Bloomberg News

Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz

U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: barratry; bastards; biggovernment; blackrobedthieves; breyer; commies; communism; communismherewecome; confiscators; corrupt; doescharactercount; duersagreewithus; eminentdomain; fascism; feastofbelshazzar; foreignanddomestic; frommycolddeadhands; ginsburg; grabbers; henchmen; hillarysgoons; isittimeyet; johnpaulstevens; jurisbullshit; kelo; liberalssuck; livingdocument; moneytalks; mutabletruth; nabothsvineyard; nabothvsjezebel; nuts; oligarchy; plusgoodduckspeakers; plutocracy; positivism; prolefeed; propertyrights; revolutionwontbeontv; robedtryants; rubberethics; ruling; scotus; showmethemoney; socialism; socialistbastards; souter; stooges; supremecourt; thieves; turbulentpriests; tyranny; tyrrany; usscsucks; votefromtherooftops; wearescrewed; weneededbork; whoboughtthisone; youdontownjack
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 1,521-1,527 next last
To: RightWhale
That is personal property, not real estate.

No, what it is is "private property" exactly as the Constitution reads.

261 posted on 06/23/2005 8:48:56 AM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

Gawd, this pisses me off to the point where I can't even work. I want to see the mealy-mouthed response from our so-called "representatives" in DC and see if they plan to do anything.


262 posted on 06/23/2005 8:48:59 AM PDT by TheBigB (Why yes, I -do- rock! Thanks for noticing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" - Hillary Clinton

An appropriate quote and reminder.

263 posted on 06/23/2005 8:49:30 AM PDT by BureaucratusMaximus (Socialists are blessed with the desire to serve others. That's why most of them work @ McDonalds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: KillBill

Let's just sugarcoat the problem. If we start digging into chain of title all the way back we run into where God signed the original deed and guess whose name wasn't mentioned--the King of England, or the King of Spain, or the Duke of Aragon, or Pocohontas.


264 posted on 06/23/2005 8:49:35 AM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
I want to see the Preseident come out fast and hard against this decision

ROFLMAO! Prepare to be disappointed!

265 posted on 06/23/2005 8:49:48 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Tancredo and I wanna know what you believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

They better rewrite Woody Guthrie's old classic

This land is your land.

This land ain't yur land.
This land aint't my land.

It belongs to local gubamints
For tax revenue purposes.

This land don't belong to you or me.
This land don;t belong to you or meeeeee.

AmeriKa .. SKOTUS'd again.. (wipe tear here..)


266 posted on 06/23/2005 8:50:10 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

1000 homes in detroit were seized. it could happen.


267 posted on 06/23/2005 8:50:14 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

its not a expansion of city hall. it is a commercial development by private owners next to the city hall. We are the hold outs. The city can take our land sell it to the developer (FOR A PROFIT) and then they get to build thier shopping cernter.


268 posted on 06/23/2005 8:50:45 AM PDT by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz
Bye bye property rights. First they take our money, now they take our property.

That's right. If they see that a 7-11 and crusty taco will help the area, they'll tell you to leave and mow down your home.

269 posted on 06/23/2005 8:51:07 AM PDT by Black Tooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
I want to see the mealy-mouthed response from our so-called "representatives" in DC and see if they plan to do anything.

Ha!
They'll just sit on their fricking hands.

270 posted on 06/23/2005 8:51:22 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Emphatically eschew exclamatory excess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Great job, SCOTUS!!! Now deep-pocketed developers in collusion with corrupt local officials can literally bulldoze individual property owners to put up even more strip malls. The American dream is now over and the small property owners' nightmare is just beginning!


271 posted on 06/23/2005 8:51:54 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz
So SCOTUS ruled against the clear language of the Constitution yet again. You expected anything less?

Follow the lead of the Saha family outside Coatesville, Pennsylvania. The tyrannical bloodsucking City Council tried to seize their farm, which is not even in Coatesville, for a golf course. The Sahas worked to get a change in the city charter by the voters to prohibit City Council from doing this. The changes were voted in. The Council ignored them.

So the Sahas worked to unseat the bastards, and two of them are gone with more in danger of being voted out.

At the end of the day, that's the best recourse. SCOTUS has shown time and time again it will not adhere to the clear language of the Constitution. But eminent domain is mostly a local issue, and the tinpot despots on many city councils would have ignored the ruling even if it came down in our favor.

So the real answer is to work to get the despots voted OUT OF OFFICE. That is the ONLY thing they understand.

272 posted on 06/23/2005 8:52:40 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Probably.

Damn.

273 posted on 06/23/2005 8:53:07 AM PDT by TheBigB (Why yes, I -do- rock! Thanks for noticing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: mrs9x

That may work.

However, it depends on how the federal courts will interpret the supremacy clause.

If the fed courts rule the fed standard overrules the state, that would end the state's higher standard.


274 posted on 06/23/2005 8:53:34 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: montag813
This decision sucks, but please don't scare people into thinking the government is about to seize everyone's homes.

While the government may not be poised to take everyones home, they now can take anyones home for any reason, in whole or in part. This further opens the door for zoning that may not completely take property but diminish its value substantially. Such rulings always expand in their interpretation, they never contract.

If I was a wacko green city counsel member, I would feel comfortable today in suggesting that all garages and private driveways be torn out and trees planted in their place. This would encourage use of mass transit and reverse greenhouse effects. Add parking meters along the street for good measure.

You might find this example ridiculous but just wait, some liberal WILL come up with something even more out there and it will now be upheld by the courts. The Ninth Circus must be salivating over this decision. This slippery slope WILL effect everyone in time.

275 posted on 06/23/2005 8:53:47 AM PDT by Colorado Doug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: houeto
Can you imagine how many developers will be taking council members out to dinner tonight?

...and tomorrow night, and every night next week, next month...

276 posted on 06/23/2005 8:54:21 AM PDT by NautiNurse ("I'd rather see someone go to work for a Republican campaign than sit on their butt."--Howard Dean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Sorry, a "museum" would be a public project and would have been covered under the old idea of E.D.

You are probably right. How about the local governments selling the residences to individuals who will turn them into "Historic Bed and Breakfast". The locals can realize various room tax revenues from this. Sounds like a better use to me.

277 posted on 06/23/2005 8:54:22 AM PDT by A. Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Disgraceful.


278 posted on 06/23/2005 8:54:28 AM PDT by veronica (Mimes and clowns are weird...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Very sad. Time to retire these enlightened dullards, starting with that underachieving combo of Kennedy and Souter.

Coming soon to a town near you: Attack of the Killer Costco's! I'm think Souter's house would make a nice place for a nice, profitable liquor store or a dog kennel.


279 posted on 06/23/2005 8:54:29 AM PDT by Puddleglum (Thank God the Boston blowhard lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrs9x
I expect a lot of states to either enact legislation reigning in localities or state supreme courts (mostly in red states) holding a high standard for takings in the future

LOL! Prepare to be disappointed. It's not in the interest of the states to have a higher standard for imminent domain. Government is in the business of increasing tax revenue. Taking private property from individuals to build walmarts or parking garages or whatever increases tax revenue.

I think you have too much faith in your elected officials.

280 posted on 06/23/2005 8:54:31 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Tancredo and I wanna know what you believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 1,521-1,527 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson