Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
I'm right there with you Mr. Corpse. Claire Wolfe was wrong.
O'Conner was among the dissenters on this opinion.
This issue is much more deserving of a constitutional amendment than flag burning.
Be careful, Stopislamnow. Rememebr, they have laws now that could label you as a "terrorist" for thinking like that.
How long before a private citizen can even own private property. Slippery slope.
He also reminds us that the expansion of Takings has primarily hurt low-income homeowners, especially minorities. He actually mentioned that "urban removal" has been derisively (and correctly) renamed "Negro Removal" by some commentators.
Politically, it's fascinating to me that the Conservatives on the Court are in effect siding with the poorer people against the government and rich private interests, while the Liberals are more interested in expanding government power and enriching developers than protecting the downtrodden. This is yet another example of the tremendous opportunity Republicans have to reach out to constituencies that the 'Rats have effectively deserted.
I haven't read the decision, but it sounds perfectly constitutional to me. Governments have always had the authority to condemn land and to take it from a private individual provided that the land owner is paid just compensation.
The government is not stealing the land, but it is taking it in order to promote the General Welfare (which is a perfectly constitutional purpose). Land which can be better used for commercial purposes than for agricultural or for residential purposes can be taken in order to promote the best use of the land for public purpose. In most cases I suspect that the public purpose is to create a higher tax base and to promote jobs and economic development.
As long as the party from whom the property has been taken has been justly and adequately compensated, the consitution does not appear to be violated.
In most cases the disputes do not concern whether the govenment has a right to take the land, but whether the payment is just and adequate for the taking. But I see no violation of the Constitution here.
Can anyone explain how the US Constitution is violated if a City condemns land so that it can later resell it to a developer in order to promote the General Welfare of the community or promote economic development? If it does, then I musta missed that lesson in law school.
"I'm sure this kind of ruling was not what the Founding Fathers had in mind"
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any current politicians in the same vein of the founding fathers. Today's republican party would appear to be socialist-lite compared to these great men if they re-emerged. We need to take our party back.
"The will of the people CAN remove ANYONE from power in ANY position of ANY branch of government.
It just takes controlled breathing and a steady index finger."
If there are a few million out there doing that, then it is the will of the People.
If it's just one guy - and that is what it will be on an issue like this - it's a matter of criminal law and law enforcement.
The problem in the US is not the lack of violent solutions.
It is the lack of will to rebalance the US Constitution by assigning the final authority to make decisions to a different, elected branch of government. Right now, final authority rests in the Supreme Court. As long as that is so, you will get one decision after another of a Roe v. Wade, guns-are-commerce and regulable (to zero), Walmart- can-have-your-house variety.
If you don't like that, then you have to change your Constitution, not shoot up some petty officeholders. The latter will only make the government more oppressive, as people in authority use violence against authority as justification to more severely crack down.
Perhaps the time will come when Americans realize that their Constitution of 1787 is a great document that has run its course, and the balance of powers in it places final authority in the wrong, unelected branch of government. To rebalance that will require substantially altering the US Constitution.
I don't think there is any appetite to do that in America.
And without that change, this sort of decision will keep happening.
They are more at risk. Especially African-American and Latino communities (for liberals, who care about such things) in middle-income neighborhoods where the sales pitch to local officials is much more enticing because of the differential in valuation between current property values and the proposed property values. What everyone has failed to see is that without state level protections in place that prohibit this federal level ruling, a devastating trade will take place.
Now nothing stands in the way of a developer promising tax riches that reach to the sky, whatever amount it will take to sway local officials to approve the seizure. Bribes are completely unnecessary.
Here is the trade that is so devastating. Neither the developer nor the city officials are accountable for the promised tax benefits. The seizure can take place, the developer can take the land at below market rates, clear a profit on that, build the development, clear a profit on that, then skate by selling off to an investor group before any tax benefits can be realized, locking in their profits. The entire development can fall apart and tax receipts can go negative, and the people who promised good things will flow from the seizure will be long gone with their money.
This is a gift that keeps on giving, too. What, you thought that was where the damage ended? Silly, silly peons. City officials will project city revenue based upon these falsified tax receipt promises, lock in fat salaries, pensions and benefits for the government workers, and then when the tax receipts don't materialize, guess who makes up the difference? Even if you are safely protected in some way from a direct seizure, the economic impact of these seizures will hit you like an eighteen-wheeler truck. You think property taxes are bad now? You ain't seen nothing yet after these debacles are through.
This ruling has such incredibly bad economic moral hazards that America deserves the economic evisceration that will follow if the ruling is allowed to stand.
Here's the money quote:
"The city has carefully formulated a development plan..."
Isn't this a matter of f*#!ng opinion!? Who decides if a plan has been CAREFULLY formulated? Why is degree-of-planning a factor?? As long as they have a really good consultant, they can take our homes at a pittance??
I really blame George HW Bush [who appointed Souter] and the RINOs who were behind appointing Kennedy and evenJp Stevens and O'Connor. Why do we blow so manyopportunities to structure the court while the left gets Ginsburg and Breyer types --even when we control the Senate? The answer is RINOs like Orrin Hatch and other weak kneed phonies.
Well, property tax notices are sent regular mail and I believe if push came to shove it's considered legal notice. You're also talking about contracts in the traditional sense....these administrative notices we get are sent to us under the presumption of an offer of contract and like I said before if it's ignored or thrown away a conflict is created by which they can take further action.......it's a little fuzzy but I think they use a 3-7-10 day procedure....3 days it's a contract, 7 days - default, 10th day - declaratory judgement or something like that.....it's been a while since I looked at this. Once there's a declaratory judgement occurs....it's done deal, you're toast
before you go into court....THAT'S WHY A LOT OF NOTICES SAY TO RESPOND IN 10, 20 OR 30 DAYS! THAT'S HOW THEY TRICK US!
I guarantee you this is how they're making everyone's life miserable....by extracting more $ from us or exerting more control over our affairs....(code enforcement, etc.)
It's worth noting that if Robert Bork was on the SCOTUS and not Kennedy, this likely would not have been the ruling today.
Learning that lesson, we should further insist on Bolton in the UN and push harder for Bush's judicial nominees (especially when a SCOTUS opening comes up). What decisions will be made that will have a devastating affect on our rights because Estrada didn't make it?
Yes. But meanwhile, Congress should also pass a law to end such eminent domain abuse. It has the power to do so under the commerce clause. If it can regulate what people grow in their backyard, it can certainly protect their backyards from the Donald Trumps of the world.
Well at least I'm in good company then. Since all those wig wearing slave owners that wrote the Constitution carried the same sentiment.
Thos judges citing euro law in previous rulings are the ones to target first, was what I was implying. Then we move on to Ginsburg.
I am thinking this is more of a way for atheists to bulldoze churches and church property. Think about it - all they have to say is that the church pays no taxes - so anything we put on that property will bring in revenue.
This decision MUST be overturned!!!
"Are there no nations in the world other than the U.S. and France?"
None that I much care about.
But a better answer is that all of Europe except Britain and Ireland uses the French Civil Law system (courtesy of Napoleon), and the basic rights in things like private homes under that system is very protected. There are national variations, but they are not all that different.
All of Europe has Parliamentary government of some sort, and in most cases, the final arbiter of the law is Parliament, not a court.
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.