Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
Hell has frozen over.
The DU thread on this ruling reads exactly like this one.
I listen to Savage on the internet every night.
Here are 2 good stations:
http://www.ksky.com
Or his home station
http://www.910knew.com/listenlive.html
He starts at 6 pm ET.
Don't bet the ranch on it. Not that I'm saying this decision was right, but there are two sides to every coin. If a city has a major business developer coming in, say, Dow Chemical, and wanting to build a factory and and office building or whatnot in a certain area, but some of the property owners in the area get wind of the project and try to extract a ridiculous sum of money from Dow, how many cities or states are just going to sit by and watch Dow Chemical pull out of the deal just because five or six property owners are demanding $10 million dollars for their homes?
In situations like that, there are a lot of jobs at stake and a lot of money at stake for the city and the state. Like it or not, the city and the state have an interest in seeing that plant get built.
All I'm saying is that don't be so sure that states will step up to the plate with super narrow eminent domain laws. Why would it?
True, but to them liberty was synonymous with property.
While no one has a RIGHT to OWN, they DO have a right to EARN, and to keep what is lawfully acquired.
Oh man...you like to kick a guy when he's down, don't ya?
Heh...that's irony. My dad lost his business for the US 29 bypass around Amherst around 1970. Are they planning to finally put a bypass in on the north side of town around that little patch of hell around Albemarle Square?
}:-)4
Ownership magically appears and was not affected by the Constitution. The Constitution and the Fed Gov came in 1787, eleven years after the Confederacy, which also did not establish private property rights. Land ownership already existed except in the new territories by various rights of kings. I am in the west. The Fed Gov owns 99% of the land. All private land ownership is subject to Right of Way assertion by the Fed Gov and its agents. The Constitution is no help at all in the new territories. This is the problem, and if they now feel some of the problem biting their own butts in the east, it is about time.
So it was purely a 5th Amendment/public use case.
I read the decision, and skimmed Justice Thomas's dissent, and he has the right of it in my opinion. The plain reading of the 5th Amendment and Thomas's research on the history are far more convincing than the majority opinion's reliance on stare decisis.
There is now virtually no limit on the power of eminent domain. It appears from the majority opinion that those five justices would even be willing to entertain the notion of crossing the "bright line" of taking directly from person A to person B might even be acceptable.
The more crappy decisions by SCOTUS, the more support the Pres. will get for Conservative judges when the time comes.
Well one can at least hope.
yep
what you said
This land was your land, but now it's my land...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1351299/posts
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What is so difficult to understand here? I am not secure in my house and the land on which it is built if the government seizes it so they can build a "for-profit" development against my will...it is not reasonable at all. Taking the whole means to an end...resisting eminant domain ultimately results in an unreasonable seizure. Just ask the folks Bensenville, IL (a Northwest suburb of Chicago) regarding the King Daley's O'Hare airport expansion.
So, what happens the first time that a city decides to swoop down and condemn of the liberals' oh-so-beloved "affordable housing" to build a Super Wal-Mart? Or knocks a couple of blocks of minority flats out of the way to build a glitzy hotel and convention center?
}:-)4
If I buy a home, and pay my taxes, it is mine. If my home is where I was first married, my children grew up, and where I plan on retiring, it is my business as long as I own it, and pay taxes.
If Dow chemical wants it so bad they will pay $10,000,000 then it's on them. It's my property, not Dow's, not city halls.
That's fine. It was nothing but an analogy. It will not go away anyway.
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.