[P-Marlowe]

If I own prime waterfront property worth 100k undeveloped...why should a local government force me to sell it to a developer who will then turn around and resell my property for a handsome profit?

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.

[jude24]

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

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.

[Dat Mon]

"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."

Legal technicality. The government condemns your land...forces you to sell it to the government...then turns around and resells it to the developer.

It amounts to the same thing...just a legally more clever way of doing it.

Thats the whole issue here!

[faloi]

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.

This is from the CNN story... "New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted." The SCOTUS ruled in their favor. So it's now ok for land that's privately owned to be transferred to another private entity if the second private entity can make the case that the benefits they offer are greater than the benefits currently being reaped.

[xzins]

Then you would vote with the liberals on the SCOTUS.

There is no reason to give my property to another private individual or corporation.

It is theft.

Bridge, roadway, military base, and the like, and I will entertain that being a public use. But a mall, highrises, and an amusement park is not a public USE.

[Dead Corpse]

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.

I hate to break this to you, but that is EXACTLY the case at issue here.