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.
Imminent Domain is SUPPOSED to be just for public use like you stated, but the government has twisted it like they do with everything. Only thing I can see as a possible solution would be to take a second out for as much as allowable and let them deal with your lawyers as to them paying you what is owed PLUS legal expenses.
Bad Republican judges! Bad!
But O'Connor and friends did good (the 4 dissenting):
"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."
So it basically goes down like this:
Jimmy "the fish" Companero wants to build a new resort hotel in Oakland to launder his money from all his operations. He goes to the local city council, bribes the hell out of them under the table, and they grant rights to bulldoze a crapload of prime real estate.
Thanks to this ruling, they can now do it without fear of reprisal lawsuits.
__________________
That's right. I hit him so hard he fell off the internet.
Quote: Originally Posted by noTe
Yo man. I put some 36 inch wheels on mine a month ago for the new 50 cent video. It was fsckin' baller.
The building I am in now here in La Mirada has been looked at by Home Depot for their new 102,000 sf super store. Even though they have a 60,000+ sf store 3/4 of a mile away. They have been pushing to get this location and many of the landlords did exactly what I said above, maxxed out the properties with seconds and sent Home Depot the balance they owe, plus the cost of relocating us (the tenants) and I think they have started to look elsewhere.
Damn socialists strike again. Republicans are wusses when it comes to nominating judges typically (esp in Dem controlled Senates). Most of Reagan's judges did well (2:1), but Papa Bush's split as usual on this. Only decent thing he did in his term was to nominate Clarence Thomas to the bench.
This is the beginning of the end, without property rights all other rights are pretty meaningless. Better go out and exercise my 2nd Amendment rights now
Quote: Originally Posted by iball
Bad Republican judges! Bad!
But O'Connor and friends did good (the 4 dissenting):
"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."
So it basically goes down like this:
Jimmy "the fish" Companero wants to build a new resort hotel in Oakland to launder his money from all his operations. He goes to the local city council, bribes the hell out of them under the table, and they grant rights to bulldoze a crapload of prime real estate.
Thanks to this ruling, they can now do it without fear of reprisal lawsuits.
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Another Problem on our rights (Law Change)
Linear Mode
