That is very silly. If you buy a house in the middle of a field, sure there is some risk of that. But stay politically connected and you will hear of any plans well in advance. Buying homes in established residential areas carry zero risk. This decision sucks, but please don't scare people into thinking the government is about to seize everyone's homes.
Look at the case of the gun range, established for 50 years in a once rural area. Homes came in, then new schools and the neighbors are trying to shut it down since it is now too close to a school. Never mind the fact that the range predated the school by decades. Never mind the fact that it was no secret that the range existed when the site for the school was chosen. Neighbors take shots at gun range
This is a basic, fundamental shift in the concept of property rights. It is a watershed event (in more ways than one if your property happens to be part of a watershed). I don't think you are seeing mass fear that the gubermint is hiring bulldozers and is coming tomorrow. Instead, most FReepers recognize the major significance of this decision and what it could mean if the mayor's brother-in-law covets your land. Or your new neighbors think your house is too shabby and is lowering their property values.
Go read about the IKEA store in New Jersey a few years ago. If I remember correctly, that was a well established residential area. Like I said, I do not believe I am blowing this out of proportion. Not one bit.
1000 homes in detroit were seized. it could happen.
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.
I respectfully disagree that those of us in established neighborhoods are off the hook. I live 3 homes off of a large lake. The homes on the lake are multi-million dollars. Homes just off the lake are selling for $1.5 million if they have a second story view of the lake and and about $350,000 if they are the original 1950s ranch style home. At any moment in time the govt. could come in and take my home so some developer could put up a 7000 square food monstrosity so the city could make thousands more in property taxes than my 2700 square foot home that houses my family in what we consider our dream home. It's sick. Really sick and none of us are immune.
Not true. The "land use commmittee" in my city just designated my low density, well established residential area as "mixed use". That means a property can be purchased, bulldozed and replaced with a commercial business. The "committee" and city council are owned by the local property developers. My next door neighbor purchased the house over his back fence, bulldozed it and put up a 4 story commercial building to house 4 businesses. My view of the mountains is now mostly obliterated. The occupants of the building have an unobstructed view of my whole backyard. The dark skies I have enjoyed for a few years to observe meteor showers will be overcome by the parking lot lighting for 24 parking spaces in this new commercial building. My property value has been diminished for the enrichment of my neighbor and the city tax coffers.
This ruling would permit my idiot neighbor to petition the city council to seize my home and hand it over to my idiot neighbor for expansion of his business interests. The precedent has been made in my city and the Supreme Court ruling removes all the restraints. Piss off a real estate developer who owns the city council and your home is getting the bulldozer.
"Buying homes in established residential areas carry zero risk"
Tell that to the homeowners that used to live in Poletown. The entire neighborhood was leveled.
Excuse me? What exactly do you think this case was about? New London, Connecticut wanted to tear down an established working class neighborhood to build a hotel and offices. The home owners sued, and took the case all the way to the US Supreme Court. The homeowners have now lost their case.
Are you telling those homeowmers, who bought homes in established residential areas, they they face zero risk of losing their homes? If so, then you are very, very wrong.