High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

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

[RightWhale]

Stealing from the poor to line the pockets of politicians and robber barons?

Great slogan! From the fav speeches of the unionists, the anarchists, or the godless commies?

[cmsgop]

WOW, DU is just as Pissed about this, Finally We agree on something. Maybe we could do a joint thing on this??

[pleasedontzotme]

I recently took a course on Land Use Law in law school. Having taken that course (and not had time to digest the entire decision yet), I will suggest this:

In twenty-five years, maybe much less, this decision will be history.

The Supreme Court (courts in general) specializes in creating gobbledygook jurisprudence on takings/eminent domain. "Teeth" given to government regulation/taking one year can be taken out the next.

Nollan and Dolan, anyone?

[rwfromkansas]

Amen

[JTHomes]

Uh...Er... I mean.., is moving really so bad? Gooooo Government! Gooooo big Corporations.

[unseen]

There are many types of rebellion. I feel the best is the bloodless kind that happens in the ballot booth. I thought we did that in 1994 but it appears that we only changed the faces of our masters not their practices. We need to educate our children so they understand what it means to be free. That government is a necessary evil and that it needs to be controlled thus we have the Constitution. A document that LIMITS the power of the government. It appears the beast of government has found over the last several decades loopholes in its prison. We need to shackle the government once again. We still have the power now if we weren't all so lazy and uneducated....we could use it.

[jwalsh07]

Right from my conservative heart. What do you think the SCOTUS just authorized? You support theft? Do you support the guy with the bigger gun taking the smaller guys gun away from him? Nothing communist, unionist or anarchist about it, simple truth, a description of what is happening in New London, Ct in direct contravention of the 5th Amendment. You support this garbage?

[blueriver]

It said that it is not unconstitutional for a muni to use immenent domain. It does not say that a city has a constitutional right to use immenent domain in this way.

Can you clarify your statement? Is what you are saying that if something is "not unconstituional", then it is not constitional?

[redgolum]

Uh...Er... I mean.., is moving really so bad? Gooooo Government! Gooooo big Corporations.

LOL!

I am angered to, but in this day and age, talking about the "tree of liberty needs to be watered" is a good way to get into hot water.

[BlackbirdSST]

Plenty of people will say this is fine, just as plenty of people (Freepers, no less) say this (Woman stopped at Logan with $46,950 sues DEA) is fine. Anybody standing against it will be in the fringe, and treated accordingly.

I'm still shaking my head over that thread and the comments. Blackbird.

[mbraynard]

Please read the 5th amendment. What is wrong with you?

Yes, let us read it.

[no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Imminent domain does pay compensation and there is due process associated with it.

Finding that people have a 'constitutional right' here is akin to finding that they also have a constitutional right to 'gay marraige,' abortion, sodomy, etc.

[jennyp]

I have a great idea. Why don't the local cities and towns where the 4 justices who voted for this attrocity live declare the justices' personal residences "Museums". These personal residences have a greater value to the public as museums rather than as personal homes. All personal property would have to remain in the residences to maintain the historical integrity of the properties.

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

Propose to change the judges' homes into condos.

[Eagle Eye]

What I would say I can't say.

I'm afraid we've turned a terrible corner and I always thought it would be the 2A that would fall hardest first.

[oblomov]

Finally the DUmmies are waking up to the idea that property rights might matter. The arrival of tyranny in the US (with this ruling, it's here, believe me) might be the thing that breaks the red-blue deadlock. Despite our differences, many of them share with us a belief in individual liberty that is worth dying for. Let's hope they see the light.

[jennyp]

The only ways that I know of to overturn this decision is another Supreme reversal or a Constitutional Amendment.

Exactly. If the Congress can fall all over themselves to vote for a totally feel-good amendment against flag burning, they can take a little time to come up with an amendment that actually protects some fundamental rights.

[unseen]

Yes but we do live in the Land of the free.....right..

[Robert_Paulson2]

the sith started murdering their opposition, real or perceived... vader murdered a school full of children under the age of 10...

they were standing in his way...

order 66

one number short of 666

[boofus]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not prevent local governments from seizing property for this reason.

Yes so according to the court it is constitutionally OK to seize property in this manner. So what would prevent a developer from challenging the constitutionality of a law that prohibits such seizure.

The 5th and 4th amendment should trump any local laws that greedy council members can cook up. Otherwise your town could pass an ordinance that strikes down every person's right to a trial by a jury of peers. Or what about summary execution via dismemberment without trial, because the town elders say so.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be the last defense of the individual against the tyranny of the state, and it has failed.

[redgolum]

Considering how we have lost most of the first ten amendments, I wonder about that some times.

CFR proved that there is no thing as free speech.