# Eminent Domain..this is crazy



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2005)

Wow I can't believe they can do this...I guess you dont really "own" what you buy anymore..

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2

Unbeleivable...

M


----------



## hammer (Jun 23, 2005)

This is going to set a bad precedent...  :x


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> This is going to set a bad precedent...  :x



No kidding any rich developer with a little lobbying power with his high school drinking buddies that are now on the town planning board, can get his new MALL project passed and my house knocked down....

We should all stop paying property taxes, if they can just come take it...

You know what they'll never do? Invoke eminent domain on one of those supreme court justices houses, I know that...for sure.

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 23, 2005)

I'm kind of surprised that Ginsberg was on board with that.

The precedent is bad, but may be balanced by what ends up being determined "fair compensation". If it's a pro-rata share of the total value of the comleted development, then the families will do well. If it's market value for the property in lieu of the development, then they're going to get screwed.

Either way, it looks like a return to the Robber Barons of the 1800's when rail companies were granted ownership of something like 25 miles either side of their rail lines.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> No kidding any rich developer with a little lobbying power with his high school drinking buddies that are now on the town planning board, can get his new MALL project passed and my house knocked down....
> 
> We should all stop paying property taxes, if they can just come take it...



An interesting statement about property taxes; something I'd expect to hear about the time the moderate silent majority (95% of the population) decides it has had enough of being ruled by special interests.

And before anyone goes off on a liberal or conservative slant, remember that ALL of these politicians and their appointed judicial cronies are filthy rich and all are in the pockets of special interests.

Makes me sick :blink: !


----------



## Stephen (Jun 23, 2005)

I was coming over to post and SD beat me to it.

I'm in utter shock, though not surprised. The _only_ good thing about this is that it will add support for a less liberal judge to be added to the court.

-Stephen


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> The precedent is bad, but may be balanced by what ends up being determined "fair compensation". If it's a pro-rata share of the total value of the comleted development, then the families will do well. If it's market value for the property in lieu of the development, then they're going to get screwed.



Fair? HAH!! 

I'll place a bet on them getting screwed.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 23, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I'm kind of surprised that Ginsberg was on board with that.
> 
> The precedent is bad, but may be balanced by what ends up being determined "fair compensation". If it's a pro-rata share of the total value of the comleted development, then the families will do well. If it's market value for the property in lieu of the development, then they're going to get screwed.
> 
> Either way, it looks like a return to the Robber Barons of the 1800's when rail companies were granted ownership of something like 25 miles either side of their rail lines.



I am also surprised with the breakdown on this one. Bad precedent as well  :roll:


----------



## Paul (Jun 23, 2005)

This has me so pissed I can't talk rationally about it yet...


I'm thinking I can get a real nice piece of land that a chuch is sitting on by having the town claim Eminent Domain for me. After all, I'll pay taxes on it, which the church doesn't, so, doesn't that qualify as a "private economic development?"


----------



## pizza (Jun 23, 2005)

Here's what I wrote in my weblog about it.
http://tursi.com/steve

Today the Supreme Court ruled that municipalities could use eminent domain laws to seize property for private interests. In other words, you could be forced to leave to make room for WalMart.

It was a 5-4 decision, and the liberals justices voted FOR this - the conservatives dissented.

Majority was Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
Dissenting was O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

First off, I'd like to comment that, regardless of what you read on the internet, the illusion that liberals care only about "the people" and conservatives only care about "business" is simply untrue. That may be a perception that has grown during the Bush Admnistration, but hopefully when you look at pure ideology this decision will make clear that there is a fundamental difference in opinion between the two groups that influenced this decision - and that is, when you filter through all the tertiary and sometimes inconsequential details of the ideology you'll come to one gem that is continually harped on by this country's libertarians - the government does not have the right to do certain things.

Constraint of power is a powerful concept in the U.S. and was a crucial point to the Framers - just look at the Tenth Amendment. In recent decades, however, a scary trend has been taking place where the power of the Government is continually becoming less and less constrained. A decision like this would have been unthinkable prior to the New Deal, but because of the Government's lack of restraint lately, it's not surprising today. That doesn't make it any less wrong, however.

What is clear in today's decision is that the conservatives on the court value this restaint more than the liberals when coming to business - which is exactly the opposite of public perception. The problem is that the relatively pure ideologies of the members on the court don't influence public perception of conservative vs. liberal values. The reason is greasing that goes on with the regular rank-and-file politicians - and the sad fact is that while both sides get their share of grease, the Republicans (note I did not say conservatives) take more grease from corporate interests than the Democrats, particularly during the Bush Administration. This is not to say the Democrats aren't corrupt either - but it should be clear to everybody that the party in power is a more attractive target to mega-corporations and their lobbyists.

There are two things I abhor about the U.S. government: political parties, and lobbies (both for profit and non-profit.) Changes in the way these two factors relate to each other are the reason the restraint that our government was so good at for 150 years has completely broken down in the 20th century, and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to break down in the 21st century.

Perhaps today's decision will cause folks to realize what's going on about their rights slowly being squelched from them, but with a majority of U.S. citizens not being able to name even one supreme court justice, I doubt it. Partisan politics keeps things simplified and the people satisfied.


----------



## Paul (Jun 23, 2005)

Well said, Pizza.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> ctenidae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah great they pay you more than you'd get if you sold yourself privately, but IMO they should have to. Still though what if that "higher" amount still isn't enough to get you into a "like" house in a different community, not to mention the house they are taking could've been your "dream home". How can you EVER put a $ amount on that?

Along with everyone else, it seems, I am utterly sickened by this...so much for land of the free, home of the brave..

M


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2005)

Paul said:
			
		

> Well said, Pizza.



Word...Pizza rules.


----------



## dmc (Jun 23, 2005)

Oh I don't know..  There's a few trashy properties in my town I'd love to see go away...

It's a scarey thing to be sure...  
Let's hope it's only used for the needs of the many - rather then the needs of the (rich)few...


----------



## pizza (Jun 23, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Oh I don't know..  There's a few trashy properties in my town I'd love to see go away...
> 
> It's a scarey thing to be sure...
> Let's hope it's only used for the needs of the many - rather then the needs of the (rich)few...



...wishful thinking. I admire your optimism though!!

Walmart gets to pick the locations. The locations they are most likely to pick are low-income neighborhoods (not individual properties, btw) - they are cheaper to aquire, the residents are least likely to resist, and the legal removal of them makes the entire neighborhood look better! It's a win-win situation, unless, of course, you're the poor person who lives in that neighborhood, who now has to go elsewhere to find affordable housing.

Here's an interesting thought. Can you imagine a single realistic situation where this rule is applied that does *not* allow for some sort of political payoffs to the powers that be?
Neither can I - this ruling is good for nothing except to encourage MORE corruption in government - definitely a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Oh I don't know..  There's a few trashy properties in my town I'd love to see go away...



Those properties are lightening protection...you need those :lol:  :wink: .


----------



## dmc (Jun 23, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know somebody thats trying to take over a piece of property in Hunter right now..  The property hasn't been occupied in over a decade


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 23, 2005)

Interstingly, looking into it a bit more. It's not so surprising that the liberal judges voted for it. Actually, when you think about it, it's to be expected. Liberals aren't concerned with teh individual- they're concerned with the Public. That means everyone. COnservatives tend to be more concerned with individual rights and actions. That's why conservatives were so up in arms about Terry Schiavo, and willing to use the federal government on an individual level. It's also why the liberal judges were in favor of the eminent domain. The development is "for the greater good" since it will generate jobs, tax revenue, and clean up an area, regardless of what it does to a few individuals. Society is what matters, not individuals. Using the social focus of conservatives vs liberals kind of puts a lot of things into a different light.

Really, it just reinforces my pro-libertarian viewpoint, as espoused by pizza. Too bad most of the Libertarians are whackjobs with no real government experience.


----------



## Paul (Jun 23, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Interstingly, looking into it a bit more. It's not so surprising that the liberal judges voted for it. Actually, when you think about it, it's to be expected. Liberals aren't concerned with teh individual- they're concerned with the Public. That means everyone. COnservatives tend to be more concerned with individual rights and actions. That's why conservatives were so up in arms about Terry Schiavo, and willing to use the federal government on an individual level. It's also why the liberal judges were in favor of the eminent domain. The development is "for the greater good" since it will generate jobs, tax revenue, and clean up an area, regardless of what it does to a few individuals. Society is what matters, not individuals. Using the social focus of conservatives vs liberals kind of puts a lot of things into a different light.
> 
> Really, it just reinforces my pro-libertarian viewpoint, as espoused by pizza. Too bad most of the Libertarians are whackjobs with no real government experience.



True Dat...


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> The development is "for the greater good" since it will generate jobs, tax revenue, and clean up an area, regardless of what it does to a few individuals. Society is what matters, not individuals.



Exactly what was said when they agreed to put casinos in Atlantic City. After the boardwalk was developed, it was said that urban renewal would be next and that Atlantic City would flourish. As of today, other than the boardwalk area, Atlantic City is a ghetto, even worse than what was there before. Step too far off the boardwalk and you're taking your life in your hands.

Nothing but empty promises.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 23, 2005)

I agree, *JimG*- kind of highlight's governments (or anyone's) inability to guage the "public good" and/or forecast the future. I think politicians forget (or overlook) that businesses are in business to make money. That's it. It doesn't really do teh casino operators any good to develop the rest of Atlantic City. If it was nice, then their low-wage labor would have to live farther away, which would necessitate improved public transport, requiring higher taxes to keep up, which cuts into the casino's profits.

And that's just not acceptable..


----------



## madman (Jun 24, 2005)

Anybody who owns there home or hopes to someday should be outraged!It does not matter if you lose a dream house or your first fixer upper. IT is  blood sweat and tears that goes into most peoples homes. And for the government to take that and give it to another private party is just wrong! I heard one of the homeowners say the government will have to drag him from his house !! I will be there finger raised cheering him on and if I can slow them down or stop them I will!!! :uzi:


----------



## skijay (Jun 24, 2005)

I am a jt. owner of a residential building lot that is not for sale and have been approached twice by two developers wanting to buy the property to build a subdivision.  The only way to build the division is to use this lot as the access or the other end of a "through street" as a cul de sac was not approved.

Each house in this subdivision has to have a lot size a minimum size of 45,000 SF which means 5 houses can be built in accordance to zoning.  

Now I am wondering what will happen....


----------



## JimG. (Jun 24, 2005)

skijay said:
			
		

> I am a jt. owner of a residential building lot that is not for sale and have been approached twice by two developers wanting to buy the property to build a subdivision.  The only way to build the division is to use this lot as the access or the other end of a "through street" as a cul de sac was not approved.
> 
> Each house in this subdivision has to have a lot size a minimum size of 45,000 SF which means 5 houses can be built in accordance to zoning.
> 
> Now I am wondering what will happen....



Don't think you have to worry too much about developers of subdivisions, although the new law is vague about what would be viewed as "economic development"...but if Wal-mart or someone like that approaches you, I'd hire a lawyer before even speaking to them.


----------



## skijay (Jun 24, 2005)

I am slightly worried, my mil rate is .36.  5 houses say with a price (conservative) of about $400,000 = more tax dollars than the taxes that are paid on my lot and the lot that will be used for a subdivision.

If my memory is correct, the lot where the sub would go is $360,000.


----------



## Paul (Jun 24, 2005)

Yuk...where are you, Jay?


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 25, 2005)

wow, this is a scary ruling.  i am shocked and appauled by the breakdown.  i double checked the dessent after reading Stephen's comment and wasn't suprised to see o'conner.  but rehnquist, scalia, and thomas?  this is completely opposite what i would have guessed the ruling would have been.  you can't simply chaulk that up to so called "liberal judging" though, everyone on this community is shocked regardless of political stance.  has big business and the government finally teamed up to have state sponsored socialism?  i lean towards socialistic programs and ideals with a capitolistic economy, but this is fundamentally wrong in every possible way and completely out of line with every american value except that of making money.  there has to be a greater good.


----------



## tree_skier (Jun 27, 2005)

I am surprised at the outrage coming from the people who support the democratic party both on this board and elsewhere.  This is exactly the position of the democratic nominated judge's party.

It is disheartening to see the supreme court disregard the constitution and the bill of rights.  But again it has recently been the position of the democratic party to do just that, so where is the surprise.


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

tree_skier said:
			
		

> I am surprised at the outrage coming from the people who support the democratic party both on this board and elsewhere.  This is exactly the position of the democratic nominated judge's party.



Democrat checking in here -
I'm still unsure about it...
I think there MAY be times when this kind of thing could help a community.. But I don't know enough about it to make up my mind...  I just think that there MAY be some instances where it could benefit an entire community..  But it would have to be the LAST possible thing to turn the community around..

I seriosuly doubt there's going to be a lot of this stuff going on for private businesses....  It's preety much political suicide for any politician that proposes such a thing..
Eminant Domain has been around for years..  The property I'm buying was sliced up by my town 40 years ago to put in a drainage...


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 27, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Democrat checking in here -
> I'm still unsure about it...
> I think there MAY be times when this kind of thing could help a community.. But I don't know enough about it to make up my mind...  I just think that there MAY be some instances where it could benefit an entire community..  But it would have to be the LAST possible thing to turn the community around..
> 
> ...



Been around for years, but only to benefit the "public" i.e. roads, schools, blithe areas, etc...not malls and/or office parks...

This sets a bad precedent, and you mention "political suicide", but what about the politician that could care less about his/her reputation, or that is in their last term, and not moving forward with a political career. What would they have to lose approving my house be knocked down to build a new Target...

I gues we don't "own" anything...the govt lets us use, and pay taxes, on, what is effectively, their land. 

This, IMO, will be used quite a bit contrary to others beliefs..

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 27, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Democrat checking in here -
> I'm still unsure about it...



Doubt you'll be too "unsure" about it when they come knocking on your door "asking" (more like telling) you to leave..."we need to build a new base lodge. It will benefit the community, create jobs, bring tax dollars but YOU have to leave..." Sorry...

M


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Been around for years, but only to benefit the "public" i.e. roads, schools, blithe areas, etc...not malls and/or office parks...



I really think it's not going to be used that much...  I can't be...  We as a country just wouldnt put up with it..
Like I said... an area has to be REALLY bad for me to accept something like this...  I mean really bad...  Camden NJ bad or South Bronx in the late 80's bad.....


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wont happen...  There no economic blight here...  I wouldnt buy a house in the middle of economic blight area..

I'm just not going to overreact on this issue until I can understand it more.


----------



## hammer (Jun 27, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> tree_skier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How bad is the situation in New London?  I didn't think that it was a matter of eliminating urban blight in that case.

The problem that I have is that this decision just gives businesses free reign to take land if they can sufficiently "influence" a local government that it's "the right thing to do."

dmc, I hope that you are right and, in reality, there will be no more New London situations.  I just wished that the Supreme Court didn't open the door on this one...


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> How bad is the situation in New London?  I didn't think that it was a matter of eliminating urban blight in that case.
> 
> The problem that I have is that this decision just gives businesses free reign to take land if they can sufficiently "influence" a local government that it's "the right thing to do."
> 
> dmc, I hope that you are right and, in reality, there will be no more New London situations.  I just wished that the Supreme Court didn't open the door on this one...



Thats the thing.. I really don't know how bad the New London area is...  So I can't comment. 

It is a scarey path....  Remember - "The road to hell is paved with good intention"


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 27, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Wont happen...  There no economic blight here...  I wouldnt buy a house in the middle of economic blight area..
> 
> I'm just not going to overreact on this issue until I can understand it more.



Problem is this new ruling changes the rules...it doesnt have to be blithe....they can make the decision based on how it effects the community...

Basically if it brings jobs, and increases local taxes, it has the chance to be approved even if its in a "high end" neighborhood. 

So the "won't happen" it totally untrue..it COULD very well happen. 

the "blithe" community rule was for the original "eminent domain" laws..NOT the new ones..

I think they more you go read about this the more angry and "scared" you'll be about the govt taking whats supposed to be yours.

M


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Could?  A comet could fall on my house too...

Get out and vote for candidates that won't let that kind of thing happen...  
I attend town meetings so you can fend these things off - or at least fight from the start...


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 27, 2005)

Try "fending" off Walmart when they wanna build in your area....see how far it gets you...

Any way you cut it..this ruling STINKS...

IMO eminent Domain is horrible no matter what its for...I bought my property becuase I wanted it...so its MINE..

M


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Try "fending" off Walmart when they wanna build in your area....see how far it gets you...
> 
> Any way you cut it..this ruling STINKS...
> 
> ...



It does suck - no doubt...
I just feel confident it won't happen to me..  
For many reasons..


----------



## JimG. (Jun 27, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> I just feel confident it won't happen to me..
> For many reasons..



Me too, for one reason alone...the Howitzer that'll be parked in my driveway :lol:  :lol:  :lol: !


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

In Hunter we have a power that controls all and stops development in it's tracks...

It's called the DEP...  We sold our soul to the devil that is NYC...  They put new sewers in to protect their water and now if you live near the creek or are starting construction... You gotta go through them...  And they are really strict!


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 27, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> In Hunter we have a power that controls all and stops development in it's tracks...
> 
> It's called the DEP...  We sold our soul to the devil that is NYC...  They put new sewers in to protect their water and now if you live near the creek or are starting construction... You gotta go through them...  And they are really strict!



I agree that I doubt it will ever happen to me (or you for that matter), but the fact that is COULD is the real issue here IMO...

And strict or not...noone is above certian lobbying powers. Money makes the world go round. 

M


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> And strict or not...noone is above certian lobbying powers. Money makes the world go round.
> 
> M



True - true....

I just think in a small town it's easier to control your own destiny without the lobbyists stomping all over the place... 
The big "lobby" group here in Hunter is the Slutsky family - the owners of Hunter..  they do amazing things by political manuvering...

Can you tell I dig this small town thing?


----------



## madman (Jun 27, 2005)

HA! HA! HA! It cant happen here!!!! It can now happen anywhere. This was not a question of blight, the city admitted that from the start.It all started with a large company who wants to build a hotel and shopping ,to go along with a new research building for Pfizer. This is a ruling that would make Stalin and Marx proud


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 27, 2005)

madman said:
			
		

> HA! HA! HA! It cant happen here!!!! It can now happen anywhere. This was not a question of blight, the city admitted that from the start.It all started with a large company who wants to build a hotel and shopping ,to go along with a new research building for Pfizer. This is a ruling that would make Stalin and Marx proud



Thats my point tooo its crazy.....

Wow and you should see what pfizer is doing to their headquaters location which is right near me...Wow..talk about building some new facilities..thankfully in this particular instance they owned all the land already and there were no private residences. 

I still would love to know how they are assured there will be economic growth, and/or how many "jobs" will be created..or sustained for that matter..someone else mentioned it earlier..look at Atlantic City..off boardwalk...DUMP..but all the same things were promised when they decided to "rebuild". 

Man how can we fix the issues that continue to plague this beautiful place we live?

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 27, 2005)

A couple of gallons of gasoline, a book of matches. No problem.

(could go in the movie wuotes thread, too)


----------



## Stephen (Jun 27, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> hammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't trust the government to be that well-intentioned. That was the problem with the Patriot Act. It works as long as the government can be trusted not to abuse it.

I'd rather not give them the chance. There are people talking in NH now about legistlating so that the gov'ts can't do this.


-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 27, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> There are people talking in NH now about legistlating so that the gov'ts can't do this.



I love NH...  
Great skiing...  Great - Dont F with me attitude!


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 27, 2005)

Go Texas!

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3239023

Never thought I'd ever, ever say that.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 27, 2005)

tree_skier said:
			
		

> I am surprised at the outrage coming from the people who support the democratic party both on this board and elsewhere.  This is exactly the position of the democratic nominated judge's party.


the concept of blindly supporting one of the two major parties on every issue just because you agree with them on most doesn't fly with me.  i believe people should hold parties accountable on each individual ruling or legislation and not blindly agree just for the sake of solidarity.  nothing could be more dangerous to a democracy than an entire nation going along with a single point of view or political stance because a party dictated what is the appropriate view to it's constituency.  if we don't agree with the party we voted for, it's important we let them know that.

that is actually the democrats biggest problem right now...  they certainly aren't lining up with repub voters on issues and are moving more towards the middle than most dems are comfortable, thus they are trimming down on both sides and are being squeezed out.  looking forward to the next election in which hopefully the party will start listening to the voters and get out of the identity crisis it currently faces.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 27, 2005)

My brother is as far left as I am right.

We see dead eye-to-eye on this issue. 

-Stephen


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 27, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> My brother is as far left as I am right.
> 
> We see dead eye-to-eye on this issue.
> 
> -Stephen


there are few things more sacred in america than the right to own property.  i can't see many people agreeing with this issue.  emminent domain has certainly pushed our country further when used for important public projects such as the interstate system which is one of the biggest reasons for our current economic state, but to force the sale of private homes to private owned or publically held companies is antithesis to so many american values it is behold belief any judge could rule in favor of it, let alone five supreme court judges of any political pursuassion.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 28, 2005)

oops


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 28, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> but to force the sale of private homes to private owned or publically held companies is antithesis to so many american values it is behold belief any judge could rule in favor of it, let alone five supreme court judges of any political pursuassion.



Its beacuse it'll NEVER be their houses...EVER....so why should they care?...most of them are probably on a board or going to be on a board of some of these major corporations that will want to take mine and your houses...

M


----------



## Stephen (Jun 28, 2005)

One of the things I've now come to realize is that the Supreme Court found that the states hold the responsibility for their domain. Thus, according to CT state law, this is "legal".

That is why this needs to be addressed with the respective state governments as opposed to the federal government.

Not saying that they were right, just trying to understand where they were coming from.

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 28, 2005)

To be fair to SCOTUS, their ruling, as is the case most of the time, is very narrow in particular, but could be broadly applied. In _this_ case, with _that_ set of governing laws, _this_ is the decision. The majority opinion did state that states are free to enact legislation to close the loophole, and sort of makes a case that it's important for them to do so. Texas, New Hampshire, and Connecticut are doing it, and if I'm not mistaken, Delaware, Arkansas, and Ohio already have. More will.

Also, Supreme Court Justices don't, as a rule, sit on the boards of any corporation. Talk about a conflict of interest...


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 28, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> One of the things I've now come to realize is that the Supreme Court found that the states hold the responsibility for their domain. Thus, according to CT state law, this is "legal".
> 
> That is why this needs to be addressed with the respective state governments as opposed to the federal government.
> 
> ...



I had no doubt that this was a decision made on a case by case basis and that each individual state would decide on letting someone use eminent domain for private corp use, but for sure it doesnt matter at what "level" its still totally WRONG...

I can't say it enough....I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY...how is it not mine? The govt isnt trying to come take my car...I "buy" it the same way I would any land...whats the difference? Oh...they can't make any money off my car...that MUST be it.

M

P.S. this is not a partisan issue...this crosses all boundries political and otherwise.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 28, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Talk about a conflict of interest...



Yeah i know, but what happens when they retire? Oh and just because they don't officially "sit" on any board doenst mean they can't have HUGE influence. 

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 28, 2005)

Most Justices die shortly after retiring. In fact, teh only reason they retire is because they're about to die. The beauty of a lifetime appointment...
Their influence from the bench is far far greater than anything they, or anyone, could exert from a boardroom. No comparison.

The more I look at it, the harder time I'm having deciding what I think. On the one hand, the majority opinion strictly adheres to the law, as written, and provides some strong impetus to get teh laws changed. That's a good thing. On teh other, the dissent falls more in line iwht my thinking, though I think it attempts to too strongly assert the Court's opinion that determinations of public use are for the judiciary. I like the idea of those decisions not being in the hands of politicians, but I don't liek the idea of them being in the hands of people who are not accountable.

Arrgh...I'm so confused!!!

Here's a link to the opinions, should you be interested- they are actually quite interesting:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

O'Connor's dissent starts on page 27, Thomas' follows


----------



## JimG. (Jun 28, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> In Hunter we have a power that controls all and stops development in it's tracks...
> 
> It's called the DEP...  We sold our soul to the devil that is NYC...  They put new sewers in to protect their water and now if you live near the creek or are starting construction... You gotta go through them...  And they are really strict!



I'm similarly protected...Fishkill Creek runs through my property and it's a protected Hudson river watershed. In fact, I'm sitting pretty because it isn't part of the NYC watershed, so the DEP isn't as concerned with it as they are with the reservoir system watersheds like the Scoharie up by you. All they worry about is that it stays clean and they can stock it with trout every year.

The zoning in that area does not allow any commercial development on the river. However, this decision still irks me alot and I hope that NY considers legislation to limit what it might do.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 28, 2005)

If this is real, then it's a beautiful thing:

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html


----------



## JimG. (Jun 28, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> If this is real, then it's a beautiful thing:
> 
> http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html



We can certainly hope so anyway :lol:  :beer: !


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 28, 2005)

I was just coming to post that link. Would have beat you, Stephen, except I couldn't stop laughing long enough.
Lost Liberty Hotel
Just Desserts Cafe
And a free copy of Atlas Shrugged instead of a Gideon Bible.

Made my day.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 28, 2005)

good one stephen I was coming to pist that now...does everyone read FARK? thats where I got it...

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 28, 2005)

That's where I got it, too.
I think blackhalo over there is about to blow a gasket.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 28, 2005)

Friend heard it on Rush Limbaugh.

-Stephen


----------



## loafer89 (Jun 29, 2005)

The story was just posted on Yahoo news, I thought it was funny too. :lol: 

They have police cruisers patroling his house. :-?


----------



## smitty77 (Jun 30, 2005)

I hope the story is true, and I hope it all goes through.  I would love to see it get shoved right up his arse.  I don't care what the ruling implies.  Sure states can pass legislation to close the loophole, but what if they do the opposite and open the floodgates for land-grabbing?  I agree with SkiDog - I bought it, it's mine, and you're not going to take it from me.

Smitty


----------



## dmc (Jun 30, 2005)

smitty77 said:
			
		

> I hope the story is true, and I hope it all goes through.  I would love to see it get shoved right up his arse.  I don't care what the ruling implies.  Sure states can pass legislation to close the loophole, but what if they do the opposite and open the floodgates for land-grabbing?  I agree with SkiDog - I bought it, it's mine, and you're not going to take it from me.
> 
> Smitty



Just for arguments sake...  Cause I *love *to play "devils advocate"...

What if you had several neighbors that had crappy trashed houses that were bringing your property values down and someone wanted to enact this law to put in nicer buildings that would crank your value back up and better the entire community?


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 30, 2005)

Therein lies the problem, *dmc*, as I'm quite sure you know. I think that's part of why the SCOTUS basically said "Yep, it's up to the local gov't to decide." Kind of sucks, though.
Who wins? In the end, whoever has the most money/power/influence/lawyers/brains/take your pick.


----------



## pizza (Jun 30, 2005)

[No message]


----------



## pizza (Jun 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> What if you had several neighbors that had crappy trashed houses that were bringing your property values down and someone wanted to enact this law to put in nicer buildings that would crank your value back up and better the entire community?



Generally speaking, a developer wanting to put up a hotel or something will approach the city's zoning committee to invoke the eminant domain laws. They don't care what kind of houses are already in the proposed site - they just want the land.

Also consider that because of the nature of the buildings that go up, this power is typically used to take out entire tracks of homes, not individual places. So if for some reason your neighbors were targeted because their houses were crappy, the entire neighborhood would be rezoned for the new development. In other words, they would also be targeting YOU.

That said, if a house is in lousy enough condition, it could be condemned for a number of things other than eminent domain. For example, if it is not up to code, a C of O could be revoked and the asshats inside would have to leave. Sometimes these houses are as ugly on the inside as they are on the outside, creating unsanitary conditions such that public health officials can remove the residents. Sometimes there's illegal activity that goes on inside. The list goes on and on. Bottom line: eminent domain is not the answer.


----------



## Snickers (Jun 30, 2005)

You cannot have it both ways. I was taught this as a youngster and was led to believe that it carried over into adult life. I am glad it isn’t a sin to be wrong. Increasingly, the Federal Government (please note I make no distinction between parties, for all intent and purposes there is no distinction) has it both ways. I stand corrected, they have it their way.

The carefully crafted checks and balances of the forefathers no longer exist to any meaningful extent. The meaning of words changes over time. So what was said historically (or in a historical context) may be contrary to what the meaning becomes today. The end result is that those in power gain more power. Those not in power, slowly lose what they have.

This erosion of rights starts slowly, very slowly. Should it go unchecked the only recourse is war. (As Great Britain found in 1776). This is not a call to war. This is a call to alarm. Even the minutest of freedoms must be guarded at all times as though it is a great treasure, for this is exactly what it is. Any lost freedom regained is a cause for joy. The loss of any freedom for anyone is a cause for sorrow.

We are tired of being abused. Tired of having the Constitution ignored. Tired of being forced to forget our own heritage for the sake of “Political Correctness”. Tired of having our rights stripped away, one by one. And now, we are tired of having our homes taken from us, so someone else can profit.

There are those who would say that the constitution laid out for (what was at the time) an agrarian society cannot apply to what America has become. Truth is truth, whether you are a farmer, industrialist or engineer. So we must look at the Constitution of the United States and ask, “Is this truth”. It has (for the most part) held in tact for almost two hundred and thirty years. This is a pretty good indicator.

Either you hold tightly to what the Constitution boldly proclaims, or you are a traitor to this country. If you interpret it to make law, you have committed treason. If you do not consider the people when interpreting the Constitution you have committed high treason for the Constitution is OF, FOR and BY the people.

It is not for industries, municipalities nor even the Government itself (other than something to keep the Government in check). Read the preamble, I dare you. Start with the first three words, “WE THE PEOPLE”.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2005)

Welcome aboard Snickers...I think there are quite a few folks who feel the same way you do.


----------



## loafer89 (Jun 30, 2005)

I live about 1 mile from the largest shopping mall in Suffolk County. This ruling kind of makes me wonder what might happen if the mall wants to expand?

Development has been rampant in my town and nearly all of the usable/buildable land is now gone. My town would sell the town hall to a developer for the right price :roll:  :roll:

As an example, Sports Plus is a large sports complex that is located just next to the mall, and they had a beautiful par 64 golf course. The owner sold the land (about 20-30 acres) to build condominuims on. :evil:  :angry:


----------



## dmc (Jun 30, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> For example, if it is not up to code, a C of O could be revoked and the asshats inside would have to leave.



Pizza - That was a great use of "asshat"... Good job...

I'm convinced that I'm hopelessly liberal cause I'm still a little unsure about this law...  I can still kinda see where it could be good to serve the needs of the many but I'm starting to sway...

I'm enjoying the debate...

Last night I had dinner with my best buddies who's one of the Town Trustees of the Village of Hunter...  I was joking that I would use this law take some property to open a bar - all I needed was his backing...
He assured me that it would never happen in Hunter...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 30, 2005)

I see the use for good of the ruling, but I think the probability of misuse is extremely high. Note, I said "probability", not "possibility".


----------



## dmc (Jun 30, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I see the use for good of the ruling, but I think the probability of misuse is extremely high. Note, I said "probability", not "possibility".



I agree...


----------



## jargen (Jul 2, 2005)

*the L word*



			
				ctenidae said:
			
		

> Interstingly, looking into it a bit more. It's not so surprising that the liberal judges voted for it. Actually, when you think about it, it's to be expected. Liberals aren't concerned with teh individual- they're concerned with the Public. That means everyone. COnservatives tend to be more concerned with individual rights and actions.



The prevailing 5-vote majority was comprised of Justices Anthony Kennedy (R-Reagan), David H. Souter (R-Bush), John Paul Stevens (R-Ford), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D-Clinton), and Stephen G. Breyer (D-Clinton).

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/

With Democratic nominees accounting for 2 of the 9 people on the Supreme Court, you've really got to suspend the factual reality of the matter to blame liberals for any Supreme Court decision these days.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 2, 2005)

*Re: the L word*



			
				jargen said:
			
		

> With Democratic nominees accounting for 2 of the 9 people on the Supreme Court, you've really got to suspend the factual reality of the matter to blame liberals for any Supreme Court decision these days.



LOL There's a big difference between who appointed them and thier voting philosophy. I'd be hard pressed to call Souter a conservative.

-Stephen

By the way, welcome to the boards. So, are you into hiking, or skiing, or both?  :wink:


----------



## andyzee (Jul 2, 2005)

2 words, BS


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 2, 2005)

> Liberals aren't concerned with teh individual- they're concerned with the Public.


true only to a limited point.  this is more so the case in point with spending money on programs.  most "liberal" politicians generally want to keep or enhance social programs whereas the "conservative" view point is cut social programs or reduce spending.  to say this was a liberal decision is hog wash, it is a borderline communistic decision.  emminent domain for social reasons is a liberal one, i have no idea what emminent domain for private development could possibly be.  technically it isn't even communicistic since a corporation can do what ever they want with that land once it has been taken over.


----------



## smitty77 (Jul 5, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> smitty77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Someone's been watching me.... :wink:
Your example sounds exactly like where I live.  We built a new house a year and a half ago on a vacant lot in a neighborhood where probably 50% of the homes are "trashed houses".  I always joked with friends and family that I never imagined I would be the "rich" one in the neighborhood.     The town in general has  very high unemployment and teen pregnancy rates.  There are lots of other neighborhoods like mine.  It was the only place I could afford a new house, but like every other town in central MA, the values are on the rise.

Back to your example.  Suppose some builder were to convert all of the trashy homes in my neighborhood into huge 4000 sq.ft. colonials with 3 car garages and swimming pools.  Property values skyrocket and now my small 1500 sq.ft. cape would be bringing down the value of these new homes.  I'd be next on the list to have my house razed all in the name of "bettering the neighborhood".  The benchmark gets raised, and someone is always left below the average.  What goes around comes around.

Smitty


----------



## dmc (Jul 6, 2005)

Interesting...
Was just reading that GWB and cronies used "Eminant Domain" to secure 13 acres of private land from private citizens to build the Texas Rangers stadium...


http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html


> April: The Rangers shepherd through the Texas legislature a bill that creates the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), a quasi-governmental entity that is given the power of eminent domain. Shortly after the bill is signed by new governor Ann Richards, 13 acres of private property are seized for the Rangers' new ballpark, later prompting two lawsuits.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 6, 2005)

I think you'll find that's the case with every stadium ever built. Not making excuses for GWB, just saying...


----------



## dmc (Jul 6, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that's the case with every stadium ever built. Not making excuses for GWB, just saying...



But GWB is Mr Property rights - everyman - type dude...
And has dodged this question while the conservatives BLAST the liberals on it...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Interesting...
> Was just reading that GWB and cronies used "Eminant Domain" to secure 13 acres of private land from private citizens to build the Texas Rangers stadium...
> 
> 
> ...



You know that, like mentioned, this happens with almost all stadiums. I would ask what the "conditions" of that "private" land were? Was it nice, or a dump? The eminent domain law obviously isnt new, just this new "twist" on it. Still stinks..noone should ever have their personal property taken for any reason unless they feel like giving it up.

They would've invoked eminent domain in NYC if they had approved the new Jets stadium. 

I think the Yanks aren't taking any private land though, they'll be using the park right next to the stadium..

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> You know that, like mentioned, this happens with almost all stadiums. I would ask what the "conditions" of that "private" land were? Was it nice, or a dump? The eminent domain law obviously isnt new, just this new "twist" on it. Still stinks..noone should ever have their personal property taken for any reason unless they feel like giving it up.
> 
> They would've invoked eminent domain in NYC if they had approved the new Jets stadium.
> 
> ...



I'm just saying - that it was GWB who is a Mr Property rights, Joe everyman, Don't pronounce G's, cowbow hat wearing kinda guy..
And he's not commenting... Cause he's done it..  He's taken peoples land for his profit....
And his supporters are ALL against this ruling..  Blasting the liberal judges gfor signing this thing...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Got ya...you're just commmenting that Bush inst blasting the supreme court about this ruling..

It certianly is a sticky subject.

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is....


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> I'm just saying - that it was GWB who is a Mr Property rights..



Interesting perspective.
From dedicated property rights activists (read: libertarians) he's basically universally loathed..


----------

