This country blows...
Discussion
[quote=The AP][b]Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes[/b]
Jun 24, 7:34 AM (ET)
By MATT APUZZO
NEW LONDON, Conn. (AP) - Seven homeowners in this small waterfront community lost a groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday when justices ruled that City Hall may take their property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.
Word of the high court decision spread around Bill Von Winkle's part of town like news of a passing relative. "Hello?" he answered his cell phone. "Yeah, we lost. I know, hard to believe, huh?"
"I spent all the money I had," said Von Winkle, a retired deli owner, of the properties he bought in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. "I sold sandwiches to buy these properties. It took 21 years."
The court's decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who argued the decision favors rich corporations.
The fight over Fort Trumbull has been raging for years. New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country.
City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing the adjoining Pfizer center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
Most homeowners sold their properties to make way for wrecking crews, but seven families stubbornly refused to sell. Collectively, they owned 15 houses.
"The U.S. Supreme Court destroyed everybody's lives today, everybody who owns a home," said Richard Beyer, owner of two rental properties in the once-vibrant immigrant neighborhood.
Nationwide, however, legal experts said they don't expect local governments to rush to claim homes.
"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor who specializes in property rights.
In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote. He added that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The four-member bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the power of eminent domain for urban renewal projects.
At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
Meanwhile, the decision did little to bring city officials and property owners here closer together.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
City Manager Richard Brown said he expects more lawsuits, but believes the land fight is over and doesn't expect a showdown when bulldozers arrive in the neighborhood.
Landowners in the lawsuit, however, pledged to continue their fight.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said Von Winkle, who said he would battle beyond the lawsuits and fight the bulldozers if necessary. "I won't be going anywhere."
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.[/quote]
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050624/D8ATUVOG0.html
[rant]Well it's official: The US is sliding down the slippery slope of losing individual freedom. First the PATRIOT Act, then banning unpopular free speech (see flag burning), now the latest in our government's quest for absolute power is granting the local governments the ability to take someone's property and auction it off to the highest bidder. Any bets as to how soon this power is transferred to the federal government? So, Mr. Bush, what's this about a plan to eliminate the federal deficit? Selling New Jersey to Exxon-Mobil?
What kind of country do I live in that sends troops to foreign nations to free its people from the same oppression that citizens at home are beginning to feel? The sad thing is, it's not just Bush. The Democrats, if they had power, would want to take even more of our money, along with our guns.
Anyone up for another revolution? Eh? The British are invited, too![/rant]
Bah, sorry about the rant... it's just that the whole rights-aren't-important-(as-long-as-they're-equal) thing gets me fired up every time...
:ranting:
Jun 24, 7:34 AM (ET)
By MATT APUZZO
NEW LONDON, Conn. (AP) - Seven homeowners in this small waterfront community lost a groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday when justices ruled that City Hall may take their property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.
Word of the high court decision spread around Bill Von Winkle's part of town like news of a passing relative. "Hello?" he answered his cell phone. "Yeah, we lost. I know, hard to believe, huh?"
"I spent all the money I had," said Von Winkle, a retired deli owner, of the properties he bought in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. "I sold sandwiches to buy these properties. It took 21 years."
The court's decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who argued the decision favors rich corporations.
The fight over Fort Trumbull has been raging for years. New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country.
City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing the adjoining Pfizer center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
Most homeowners sold their properties to make way for wrecking crews, but seven families stubbornly refused to sell. Collectively, they owned 15 houses.
"The U.S. Supreme Court destroyed everybody's lives today, everybody who owns a home," said Richard Beyer, owner of two rental properties in the once-vibrant immigrant neighborhood.
Nationwide, however, legal experts said they don't expect local governments to rush to claim homes.
"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor who specializes in property rights.
In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote. He added that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The four-member bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the power of eminent domain for urban renewal projects.
At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
Meanwhile, the decision did little to bring city officials and property owners here closer together.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
City Manager Richard Brown said he expects more lawsuits, but believes the land fight is over and doesn't expect a showdown when bulldozers arrive in the neighborhood.
Landowners in the lawsuit, however, pledged to continue their fight.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said Von Winkle, who said he would battle beyond the lawsuits and fight the bulldozers if necessary. "I won't be going anywhere."
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.[/quote]
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050624/D8ATUVOG0.html
[rant]Well it's official: The US is sliding down the slippery slope of losing individual freedom. First the PATRIOT Act, then banning unpopular free speech (see flag burning), now the latest in our government's quest for absolute power is granting the local governments the ability to take someone's property and auction it off to the highest bidder. Any bets as to how soon this power is transferred to the federal government? So, Mr. Bush, what's this about a plan to eliminate the federal deficit? Selling New Jersey to Exxon-Mobil?
What kind of country do I live in that sends troops to foreign nations to free its people from the same oppression that citizens at home are beginning to feel? The sad thing is, it's not just Bush. The Democrats, if they had power, would want to take even more of our money, along with our guns.
Anyone up for another revolution? Eh? The British are invited, too![/rant]
Bah, sorry about the rant... it's just that the whole rights-aren't-important-(as-long-as-they're-equal) thing gets me fired up every time...
:ranting:
Imp2024, Yes, I too have wondered for some time where we are really going. I know that "ordinary" American folks feel as we do in the UK and indeed, the EU.
Where IS the social responsbility that we elect these "cretins" for? When are THEY, going to deliver?
Both sides of the Atlantic, they're all the same!!!
Where IS the social responsbility that we elect these "cretins" for? When are THEY, going to deliver?
Both sides of the Atlantic, they're all the same!!!
That sucks, Eminent Domain should only be used for the building of freeways, railroads, and the like.
To allow it's use for private hotels, Etc is pure greed(obviously the cities will get more taxes from a large hotel than they would from some home owners.
We are way pasted due for a new, strong, political party in the U.S. as the Republicans and Democrats can't seem to do anything but run amok.
I hope that Americans will start to open their eyes and learn from the mistakes made in other countries.
The U.S. has done in 200+ years, What it took Europe centuries to do, I can't help but feel we are on the slippery slope of losing that.
(No offense to any other counties intended)
(except for maybe France)
To allow it's use for private hotels, Etc is pure greed(obviously the cities will get more taxes from a large hotel than they would from some home owners.
We are way pasted due for a new, strong, political party in the U.S. as the Republicans and Democrats can't seem to do anything but run amok.
I hope that Americans will start to open their eyes and learn from the mistakes made in other countries.
The U.S. has done in 200+ years, What it took Europe centuries to do, I can't help but feel we are on the slippery slope of losing that.
(No offense to any other counties intended)
(except for maybe France)
When are the politicians going to realise that they run the country ON OUR BEHALF? We entrust them to manage the country, while we go about our lives, making the money etc to keep us all in the manner that we wish. We do not elect them to rob us blind/line their own pockets/ban us from pursuing our pastimes.
If they cannot do this, and I also refer to local government, they should resign.
Anybody agree?
If they cannot do this, and I also refer to local government, they should resign.
Anybody agree?
I have a motorway <a mile away that opened four years ago. It's an urban area and thousands of houses were demolished for it. That's a lot of families.
Yet it is a good thing.
The local economy is now booming and has created a lot of jobs.
We are a country and have to develop socially. I now live with some extra traffic noise (open land between me and the Mway) but I now have a better environment overall and there is more money around.
We fight wars and, guess what? People die. Not good for them or their families. Hopefully the rest benefit.
Yet it is a good thing.
The local economy is now booming and has created a lot of jobs.
We are a country and have to develop socially. I now live with some extra traffic noise (open land between me and the Mway) but I now have a better environment overall and there is more money around.
We fight wars and, guess what? People die. Not good for them or their families. Hopefully the rest benefit.
mrmaggit said:
When are the politicians going to realise that they run the country ON OUR BEHALF? We entrust them to manage the country, while we go about our lives, making the money etc to keep us all in the manner that we wish. We do not elect them to rob us blind/line their own pockets/ban us from pursuing our pastimes.
If they cannot do this, and I also refer to local government, they should resign.
Anybody agree?
most succinctly put, sir. I think it's time that there were some rules about proving your abilities to (at the very least) manage a successful company, before they let you loose on a whole country... thing is, not many entrepreneurs want to be politicians...In the UK (and most "developed" contries), local government does have the power to obtain land and peoperty under Compulsory Acquisiytion Orders.
Land for most of the airports and airfields in the UK were obtained in this manner as has most of the land which now lies under the UK's motorway system. Obviously, before this land is obtained, there is usually a long session of Public Hearings where oponents can voice their opinion. On many occasions, the oponents win.
Also, when land is acquired in this way, the landowners usually receive adequate financial compensation, although this may not be enough to satisfy a person for the loss of their property.
Land for most of the airports and airfields in the UK were obtained in this manner as has most of the land which now lies under the UK's motorway system. Obviously, before this land is obtained, there is usually a long session of Public Hearings where oponents can voice their opinion. On many occasions, the oponents win.
Also, when land is acquired in this way, the landowners usually receive adequate financial compensation, although this may not be enough to satisfy a person for the loss of their property.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff