 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:07 pm Post subject: Supreme Court Oks Personal Property Seizure |
 |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
| Quote: | High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities
Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
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.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Basically this means that a local government can, whenever it sees an opportunity to make money, seize your property, pay you whatever the hell they want, then sell it to a developer for a profit.
Article 5 of the US Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Did I wake up this morning only to suddenly find out that the USA had become a banana republic ?????
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thank you! I was trying to look that up. This is disturbing. I can think of a couple of these situations already - A popular, profitable restaurant on the water in Baltimore was fighting this, because the hotel next to them had lobbied their case to close them down to expand their hotel! And also the matter of all the people in the SE DC neighborhood where the plans for the new ballpark is scheduled to be built. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manelly
PO3
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 294
Location: AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kinda like this?
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/smallbusiness/articles/0,15114,645900,00.html
Randy Bailey wasn't initially alarmed when he found out that the city of Mesa, Ariz., was taking his property by eminent domain. Bailey's Brake Service, founded by Randy's father and uncle, had stood on the same quarter-acre lot since 1970. Bailey simply figured the city would pay his expenses to relocate. But in 2001 when the city offered $165,000, about one-fourth of what he estimated it would cost him to move, Bailey was in shock.
_________________
Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have a guy near Coatesville, PA where the Municipality wants his farm for a golf course. Doesn't matter that are are several within 10 miles. One of them is the Coatesville CC. HUH!!!
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only way to fight this is with lots of publicity. [It's the only thing liberals understand.]
A term ought to be coined that sounds offensive like "A Banana Grab".
[Liberals also hate anything that sounds sleezy.]
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Armybrat/Armymom
Commander
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 335
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BuffaloJack wrote: | The only way to fight this is with lots of publicity. [It's the only thing liberals understand.]
A term ought to be coined that sounds offensive like "A Banana Grab".
[Liberals also hate anything that sounds sleezy.] |
They do? I thought they were kings and queens of sleaze!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought it was supposed to be us Conservatives who were in the pockets of the wealthy? Seems to me Liberals, especially Liberal Judges, will do anything the wealthy ask for.
One step closer to Socialism, no personal property rights any more.
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreeFall
LCDR
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yet another example of the justice system gutting the constitution. With this ruling, this is going to effect more and more people too. Anything to get more tax money, including taking away personal property. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blue9t3
Admiral
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I saw that stuff today, one of the owners said he was offered 60k, then they offered 150k, he says its worth 425k. If it was me my home would become a "pill box" and you could disarm me when you pry my rifle from my dead,cold,hands! (I stole that line) 
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
This has been going on for some time now. Today's "ruling" just legalizes it.
| Quote: | Home Wreckers
Greedy developers can seize your property—legally
BY TUCKER CARLSON (As appeared in the August 2003 Readers Digest, pg 37 to 39, not available online)
William Minnich's father founded his furniture-making business, Minic Custom Woodwork, in 1927. For nearly a quarter-century, the company operated out of a building he owned on 117th Street in New York City. Until 1998, Minnich imagined the family business would remain there indefinitely.
Then, one Sunday morning that year, Minnich read a story in The New York Times about new construction in his East Harlem neighborhood. A developer was planning to convert an old wire factory into a shopping center, complete with a Home Depot and other large retail outlets. The project was going to be massive, three city blocks long, and would require more land than the developer presently owned. In the 15th paragraph, the story explained how the developer was going to get that land. "State officials," it said, "plan to use the state's power to condemn property to acquire adjacent lots for the project."
William Minnich read the line again. He realized that one of the "adjacent lots" was his family's company. It was the first he'd heard of the state's intention to seize his land and uproot his business.
Minnich fought to keep his property, but his chances were never good. The Constitution gives the government the right to seize private property for "public use" as long as just compensation is paid the owner. The concept is known as eminent domain, and traditionally it has been used by government to take land for schools, highways, military bases, and other projects with obvious and universal public benefit. In 1984, however, a Supreme Court decision radically expanded the understanding of eminent domain. According to the Court, states were then allowed to define "public use" as anything "rationally related to a conceivable public purpose."
States soon did just that. The city of Merriam, Kansas, seized land owned for three decades by 74-year-old William Gross, in order to allow a BMW retailer to expand his dealership. In New York, the city of New Rochelle proposed taking land away from some 200 residents and dozens of businesses to bring in a furniture superstore. Around the country, privately owned homes and businesses were condemned by local governments to make way for shopping centers, high-end housing and ballparks. (The Texas Rangers baseball team, once partly owned by George W. Bush, was one such beneficiary of eminent domain.) In each case, public officials were able to justify the land grabs by arguing that higher tax revenues qualified as a "public purpose."
The city of Lakewood, Ohio, for instance, recently proposed bulldozing 18 private homes and businesses and handing the land to private developers to build condominiums. The buildings slated to be destroyed are solidly middle class. Yet the city has designated them as "blighted" because expensive condos will bring more money to the local treasury. And this is not an aberration. A study by the Institute for Justice, a public interest legal foundation in Washington, found that over the past five years more than 10,000 homes have been seized or threatened with seizure, virtually all on similar grounds.
In such an environment, a small-business owner like William Minnich never had a chance. He decided to challenge the decision, but the law was weighted against him. Earlier this year, facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs, Minnich gave up his fight to save his business. He retired and left the city. As compensation, Minnich was offered a little more than half what he says the building would have fetched if he had sold it willingly on the open market.
Though necessary in rare cases, eminent domain has become the weapon of first resort for cash-hungry government, a tool of greedy bureaucrats serving the interests of greedy developers. Consider the case of Cotton-wood Christian Center, a nondenominational church outside Los Angeles. In less than 20 years, Cottonwood's congregation grew from 50 people to about 5,000. By last year, the church had reached maximum capacity; worshipers were being turned away on Sunday mornings. Cottonwood decided to expand, purchasing 18 acres of land in the city of Cypress near Disneyland. The church planned to build a new sanctuary on the property.
City officials had other ideas. New churches are fine in theory, but they generate no tax revenues. New shopping malls do. In May of 2002, the Cypress City Council voted unanimously to seize Cottonwood's land, amid negotiations to sell it to Costco, a bulk retailer.
That summer, the city's decision was put on hold by a judge who declared that the land grab amounted to a form of religious discrimination. In other words, Cottonwood Christian Center was protected because it was a church. Other landowners haven't been as fortunate in their battles against Costco. In 2001, a Costco official admitted that the company had used eminent domain ("or the threat of it") "probably dozens" of times to seize property from owners unwilling to sell voluntarily.
Keep in mind that Costco is not an arm of the federal government. It is not a charity. It is not a public utility. It is a private-sector warehouse store that sells everything from pickles to appliances. It has no greater moral right to a piece of property than any other American, and perhaps less than many. Yet, when in cahoots with cash-hungry public officials, companies like Costco have the power to take other people's homes and businesses.
Let's call it what it is: legal theft. |
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BuffaloJack wrote: | Basically this means that a local government can, whenever it sees an opportunity to make money, seize your property, pay you whatever the hell they want, then sell it to a developer for a profit.
Article 5 of the US Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Did I wake up this morning only to suddenly find out that the USA had become a banana republic ????? |
More legislating from the bench at the highest level.
Didn't the Patriot Act do away with Article V anyway? I think Congress skinned and gutted that one already and the SC just cooked it.
Each day we lose a little more freedom and protection of the Founders is a day closer to the demise of our Republic.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And keep in mind that this is also prime beach front property that they kick people out of to build huge homes hotels and restaurants...and this same property gets destroyed by hurricanes and tax payers continue to pay for the rebuilding. What a joy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is an outrage and you can bet my property will be on the chopping block soon because I have resisted the tempting offers from WalGreens and the like in favor if keeping my property which was in shambles when purchased in 1996. I spent over $100,000 upgrading the property and then I got the notice that my property was now in the new redevelopment area.
I went to the meeting and protested only to be told not to worry because we were added to the redevelopment plan so they can collect for money from the state for redevelopment.
| Quote: | | State law makes available to redevelopment agencies a method of obtaining funds called "tax increment financing." On the date the City Council approves a redevelopment plan, the property within the boundaries of the plan has a certain total property tax value. If this valuation increases, most of the taxes that are derived from the increase go to the redevelopment agency. These funds are called tax increment and can be used only in the same project area which generates them, except for residential projects which benefit low and moderate income households. |
So not only did I spend money to upgrade my property, that very act was why I was added to the plan because the property tax on my property was now more beneficial. Now with the Supreme Court idiots, they will be knocking on my door soon, if they even knock at all.
I hope it happens soon while the City has a financial crisis because I will go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep what is rightfully mine and will make dam sure the City pays a high price for stealing what is not theirs.
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
