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 know. I had some things going on here today so I was late getting on this. It is just unbelievable.
Yes, any use of real property that is not netting maximal tax revenues for a government body is now in danger of being taken and given to new "owners" who will make the funds flow faster.
In fact, if you look at my posting #592, you can see two governmental bodies in South Carolina arguing as to who will reap the direct benefits from condemning a piece of real property in South Carolina that belongs to another state, Georgia.
Now extend that same situation to a city/county situation, where a county decides it wants to raze a neighborhood for a baseball stadium, and the city wants to raze it for a Super China-Mart. At least we won't have to worry about clogging the courts up with the "owners" complaining, since after this ruling, it appears that only the governments involved have any stake in the condemnation of real property.
In fact, today's decision is so far-reaching that it's hard to imagine any "abuse" of such a sweeping eminent domain power, since unless a condemnation approaches the "bright line" of taking from one individual A to give another individual B, the Supreme Court has declared that it is clearly allowable under the Fifth Amendment. Thus, by definition, it's not an "abuse" to use condemention as it is clearly now allowed.
This is an appalling decision. In the over 200 years of our history, it's hard to think of a materially worse one.
"Well you are right about Roe, but I dont think you realize how big brussels review is.
1) Common Currency
2) Bogus budget, with the UK getting hosed for Ag subsidies
3) Poland pressured to let certain groups march deemed a menace by the local gov.
4) France pressured to have polish plumbers when she does not want them
The elites in euroland are far, far more advanced than they are here and you have more brussels review."
Brussels did not impose any of these things.
It can't.
France voted to join the Euro.
The EU budget is negotiated between the parties, but funded by the TVA. France sets its TVA based on the vote of Parliament. The British have in the past chosen to accept the EU budget, most of which goes to the PAC (the common agricultural policy), because they think they get more out of the EU than they lose.
Poland may be pressured, but if Poland said "No", there is no enforcement mechanism of the EU.
Ah, the famous "plombier polonais".
France voted to accept Maastrict and the Treaty of Rome. France negotiated these treaties, with the free flow of labor contained them. Clearly the policy was not thought out well, especially with expansion. Still, there was no IMPOSITION on France, or any other country, of any of these things. Britain voted not to join the Euro. France disregarded Brussels on the import of British beef. No country had to join the EU. Their people and elected Parliaments voted to do so.
Now, I understand that you do not like some of these policies, but these policies were accepted democratically by the people of France and their elected governments.
Yes, the elites of France and Europe mostly do support these things, but the democracy allowed them to have their way. With the referendum, the democracy rejected the next step as going to far.
Certainly the American people will reject and oppose this decision about taking houses by the Supreme Court, and yet despite the huge opposition, it will be the law of the United States, because the elite US Supreme Court is the most powerful institution in the United States, and there is no check on it that has been exercised in America since the 1860s.
The bureaucrats in Brussels do not have the power to command. The US Supreme Court does.
We complained about Clinton, with no idea what was coming next. This is not America anymore, its very core is being sold to the highest bidder in every way possible.
No, I think the land given to the railroads was land that was already owned by the Feds, from the Louisiana Purchase.
"Even though a seizure may now be "legal", there are still civil court action ramifications."
I don't see how. One may argue "fair price", but they no longer can argue the action.
I think we have created those loopholes.
What do people think when the phrases - reduce government, or in this case even "shackle the government once again?"
In the past related efforts towards reducing government have been directed at the Joe-six packs working on the administrative implementation of Congresses failures. How many times on this board alone have "guv'mnt" workers been less than enthusiastically discussed or described?
Us conservatives often attack those who work for the government - then have the balls to complain that this same group is 90% plus card carrying union democrats. Is there any real question as to why that is?
In most cases they have been empowered, and in many areas compelled, by Congress to do exactly what they are doing. Yet Congress continually gets a free pass on this. Sure there are symbolic complaints, but when are these nitwits (Congress) going to get held to task for passing the buck down the line and washing their hands of what happens when their bright ideas get implemented in the real world?
When was the last time Congress sued a federal agency over mis-implementation of their intent? Rarely - that's left up to the private sector, and the courts give deference to the federal agencies so it's got to be pretty blatent before they lose in court.
Not surprisingly this same thing is happening on the courts. Property rights getting in the way - get rid of them. Want to grow your own rutabega's - sorry - your screwing up the interstate commerce of rutabegas.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but just opposing "government" hasn't worked. Time must be spent to focus the effort on returning government actions to compliance with the Constitution and that starts with Congress and the Courts in my humble opinion. Way too much time has been wasted focusing on the messenger instead of the nitwits dictating the messege.
Sorry for the rant - this SCOTUS opinion is really pissing me off.
I'm so angry...I don't think it's healthy.
If we had the money, and said to the county "Hey, let me get all of those houses and I will build a nice condo that will generate $x more taxes", yes we could.
"And if you don't like the reasons why your local government is taking your land or your neighbor's land you are not without recourse. You can vote the bums out."
Ineffective measure since your property is still removed from your possession and passed on for another to possess.
If this were to happen to me, I certainly wouldn't feel any better just "voting the bums out!"
Thank you. I had to skip over many postings after I heard Cavuto. I will definitely go back and read yours.
From the rest of what you said, it certainly looks as though I had it pretty well right.
A catholic in france? Really? You must kidding since all churches are now discoteks!
I thought the Michelins were the last Catholics in france.
Goodness, I would not advocate the government forcing you to sell your property to a developer. That is not a constitutional taking. If the government has developed an economic plan and your property stands in the way of developing that plan, then I believe the government can TAKE your land subject to payment of just compensation. If the government then sells that land to someone willing to implement that development plan, then I do not see how the constitution is violated. On the other hand, if the government never takes actual possession of the land, then that is not a taking under eminent domain, but I think that would be a deprivation of property and hence unconstitutional.
I have not read the supreme court ruling. If in fact the Supreme Court ruled that the government can force you to sell your land directly to a private entity or to take it from you and transfer it directly to a private entity, then we need to start impeachment proceedings against the Supreme Court tomorrow.
Amazing......................................
I have read the case, and that's exactly what is happening. The rule is that it may be transferred to a private entity only so long as it is actually for the general benefit of the people, and not just for the benefit of the developer.
No, anger is not healthy. However, these days, lack of anger only renders one apathetic. Which is worse?
All it would take is for a few hundred determined, armed folk to show up and stop the bulldozers. Failing that, there is no answer so we might as well give up.
What will stop it faster is when people who are forclosed on go postal on developers and city councils. A few dozen developers and city council members planted in dirt ought to do it.
Since our judicial tyrannical rulers said so. Where ya been?
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.