Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:30 am

Tombstone wrote: No, not their personal pockets, but the government's pocket. My basic argument is that we have plenty of money going to our government. (Excise taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, permits, fees, licensing, etc.)

I just don't like the ever growing government presence both in our lives and our pocketbooks.

They've now found a way to raise additional money for their "programs" by using this neat new land grab trick.

There is another element to this that needs to be pointed out. Over the years, I have seen growth in government, in large part, in response to pressure from the public for more and more services from government.

I agree that it is out of control but I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t place the blame soley on the public officials shoulders.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:42 am

Tombstone wrote: This is an interesting response. Have you and I had an online spat that I didn't know about? Or...are you trying to start a fight?We've not had a spat, Tombstone. I'm not trying to start a fight. It's a comment about Forum Garden, not about you at all. It was triggered by a misattribution of a quote from you to me, criticizing socialism. It reminded me of a comedy sketch from the 1960s, the punch line from the working class man being "I know my place".On Forum Garden, there is the upper-class stratum where decisions are made, there is the middle-class who voice ideas which are not anathema to the Sheila Broslofskis of this world, and the untouchable working class who know their place. The final sentence, about taxes, was just me trying to amuse.

The original of the sketch is here, for comparison.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:54 am

Clint wrote: There is another element to this that needs to be pointed out. Over the years, I have seen growth in government, in large part, in response to pressure from the public for more and more services from government.

I agree that it is out of control but I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t place the blame soley on the public officials shoulders.

Indeed. And, unfortunately, some of the more burdensome services that the states, counties, and cities are required to provide are mandated by our Federal Government.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:56 am

spot wrote: We've not had a spat, Tombstone. I'm not trying to start a fight. It's a comment about Forum Garden, not about you at all. It was triggered by a misattribution of a quote from you to me, criticizing socialism. It reminded me of a comedy sketch from the 1960s, the punch line from the working class man being "I know my place".On Forum Garden, there is the upper-class stratum where decisions are made, there is the middle-class who voice ideas which are not anathema to the Sheila Broslofskis of this world, and the untouchable working class who know their place. The final sentence, about taxes, was just me trying to amuse.

The original of the sketch is here, for comparison.
Roger. No worries, took me by surprise because I didn't understand the context. Thanks for that.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:26 pm

Tombstone wrote: Indeed. And, unfortunately, some of the more burdensome services that the states, counties, and cities are required to provide are mandated by our Federal Government.
Exactly.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:23 pm

posted by tombstone

gmc,

My socialism comment was made in the context of this current event. This is a forcible redistribution of wealth only made possible by local government authority.

The decisions are made by the authoritarian body: the local government. The private profit argument is a side-show and a distraction.

The motivation is the ability for the government to get more taxes to fund the government bureaucracy. The vehicle to do this through large companies or development projects.

So, excuse an American for not understanding why you Brits argue against property rights so fervently and why this decision is only seen at one level (the "evil rich" companies) when the real issue is the government's gleeful enabling of private parties to take other people's property in order to line their municipal pockets?

I think we actually agree more than disagree and are falling out over semantics

If this was a "socialist" move you would expect to see land taken of the rich and distributed to those with less. A forcible re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. A walmart being removed to build low cost housing or something like that. This looks more like a forcible re-distribution from the poor to the rich.

A socialist is also someone who thinks all should be owned by the state. You will find many shades of socialist in the UK but very few that now advocate complete state ownership of everything. It's kind of a discredited philosophy. The loony left spouting revolutionary socialism are on the fringes of the political scene.

I would actually agree with you that the real issue is the govt enabling private parties to take other people's property to line their municipal pockets but it seems a case of the rich using their money and influence to get the law changed so that they can sequestrate someone elses land for their own benefit making then richer in the process. I would suggest increasing tax revenue is not the main motive of the developers.

So how about if the state confiscates property from the rich to re-distribute it to the poor that is socialism. If the state confiscates land from the poor to give to the rich having been persuaded to change the law to make it legal then tit's not socialism just old fashioned political opportunism. carpet bagging perhaps to use an american term.

Why do you think we argue against property rights so fervently? It's not really something I've noticed come up much in discussion.

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:28 pm

We're all doomed!

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:55 am

turbonium wrote: We're all doomed!

ROFLMAO @ Turbonium! :wah:

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:40 pm

This is absolutely, positively brilliant:

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty1.html

i hope it happens. they should do the same for all five of the justices who voted for the majority.

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:30 pm

I don't see the court descion as being so wrong. Imagine living next to a strip joint that attracts hookers and bikers till 3am. I forone would rater have an office complex in it place. money is power and thatis as it should be. this is a good chance to condemn sinfull and ugly properys and at the sametime inhancing our communities. I am a friend of business, not an impeder!

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:46 pm

Jives wrote: ROFLMAO @ Turbonium! :wah:
Methinks he gets my intent!! :wah:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:39 pm

Text of the decision

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... vol=04-108

Click on the other cases cited, there are some interesting contradictions dealing with Fourteenth Ammendment Rights, acknowledged in their concluding paragraph, which they state are "dangerous results."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:45 pm

MicahLorain wrote: I don't see the court descion as being so wrong. Imagine living next to a strip joint that attracts hookers and bikers till 3am. I forone would rater have an office complex in it place. money is power and thatis as it should be. this is a good chance to condemn sinfull and ugly properys and at the sametime inhancing our communities. I am a friend of business, not an impeder!

I think you need to buy some empathy pills, Micah. This was private property. Imagine whatever it is you may own and cherish (a house, tennis shoes, whatever) taken from you and given to someone else just because they convinced the government they can make better use of it than you.

You'd be okay with that??

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:35 am

posted by michalorain

I don't see the court descion as being so wrong. Imagine living next to a strip joint that attracts hookers and bikers till 3am. I forone would rater have an office complex in it place. money is power and thatis as it should be. this is a good chance to condemn sinfull and ugly properys and at the sametime inhancing our communities. I am a friend of business, not an impeder

Interesting comment. Does this mean you think only property owners should have the right to vote, for instance-as your founding fathers thought-and that universal suffrage and all being equal in law is a bad thing? That the rich and i suppose big corporations should be able to do as they like with no recourse available to those affected by their decisions? Replace what you have , liberal democracy where individual freedom is valued. with a feudalism of wealth where people of little worth can be deprived of their assets at the whim of the more powerful?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:44 am

MicahLorain wrote: ... this is a good chance to condemn sinfull and ugly properys and at the sametime inhancing our communities. I am a friend of business, not an impeder!

WRONG! You are a friend of those businesses you agree with, and an impeder of those you don't.

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:18 am

if i was offered fair market for my property by any upstanding business i would see no problem. i would relocate into an equal property. this isnt china or russia!!! can anyone freaked out by this ruling think of one person they know that has been forced out of their home by an evil corporation and made to live on the streets? more over reaction from the leftist anti business crowd. always somethin!

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:27 am

MicahLorain wrote: if i was offered fair market for my property by any upstanding business i would see no problem. i would relocate into an equal property. this isnt china or russia!!! can anyone freaked out by this ruling think of one person they know that has been forced out of their home by an evil corporation and made to live on the streets? more over reaction from the leftist anti business crowd. always somethin!You know, however extreme one is, there's always someone more eye-poppingly extreme around the corner. I find that a comforting thought.

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:36 am

spot wrote: You know, however extreme one is, there's always someone more eye-poppingly extreme around the corner. I find that a comforting thought.
ive already found a couple extremists here. you and tw5002 on the left and bts and gravestone on the right. themiddle is being crushed like a bug here in the usa. sad

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:45 am

MicahLorain wrote: ive already found a couple extremists here. you and tw5002 on the left and bts and clint on the right. themiddle is being crushed like a bug here in the usa. sadLet me make sure I got it right: You're happy that absolutely anyone with a more profitable business plan which involves your already developed plot, domestic or commercial, can have you forcibly evicted, in exchange for fair cash value, and oblige you to relocate, if they apply to the local authority and demonstrate their case? And that's not an extreme position?

If you can't think of an acquaintance involved in anything like this, I suspect it's because it's new caselaw. I wonder how widespread it'll get. It has a huge potential for being applied.

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:15 am

spot wrote: Let me make sure I got it right: You're happy that absolutely anyone with a more profitable business plan which involves your already developed plot, domestic or commercial, can have you forcibly evicted, in exchange for fair cash value, and oblige you to relocate, if they apply to the local authority and demonstrate their case? And that's not an extreme position?

If you can't think of an acquaintance involved in anything like this, I suspect it's because it's new caselaw. I wonder how widespread it'll get. It has a huge potential for being applied.

eminent domain has been on the books for decades. public works projects such as roads, expanding roads, race tracks, shopping centers, new housing replacing older dirty poor housing, hospitals, amusement parks, airports and the list goes on have all been done repeatedly here in the usa. still i bet no one can think of a single person that has been through this process or was left twisting in the wind. business keeps the country running. the antis here are liberals that demonize business.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:52 am

MicahLorain wrote: eminent domain has been on the books for decades. public works projects such as roads, expanding roads, race tracks, shopping centers, new housing replacing older dirty poor housing, hospitals, amusement parks, airports and the list goes on have all been done repeatedly here in the usa. still i bet no one can think of a single person that has been through this process or was left twisting in the wind. business keeps the country running. the antis here are liberals that demonize business.
HilariousÃ¢â‚¬¦Tombstone is a liberal. :wah:

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m liberal to the core. :-3 :wah:

Where has imminent domain been used to build a shopping center?

Read the thread. I said early on that I had been through the process. The "antis" here are on both ends of the political spectrum, as I see it.

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:28 am

Clint wrote: HilariousÃ¢â‚¬¦Tombstone is a liberal. :wah:

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m liberal to the core. :-3 :wah:

Where has imminent domain been used to build a shopping center?

Read the thread. I said early on that I had been through the process. The "antis" here are on both ends of the political spectrum, as I see it.
i know a shopping center in my area required the razing of nearly 100 homes and businesses. same with big box stores that have led to apartmrnt bldgs being razed. are you living in the wilderness?? been going on for years! opposing the court ruling puts you at odds with big businesses and the health of our corporations that provide jobs and steady land values. you sound liberal to me.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:58 am

MicahLorain wrote: i know a shopping center in my area required the razing of nearly 100 homes and businesses. same with big box stores that have led to apartmrnt bldgs being razed. are you living in the wilderness?? been going on for years! opposing the court ruling puts you at odds with big businesses and the health of our corporations that provide jobs and steady land values. you sound liberal to me.
I know land has been purchased to build shopping centers. Was the law of imminent domain applied or did the developer just go out and negotiate purchases with the property owners?

I realize that to some people, anyone who ever held a government job is a liberal. If thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s your perception, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be happy to be liberal in relationship to where you stand.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:49 pm

i don't see anything in those two posts that has to do with the supreme court's ruling on takings. how about starting a new topic for your antibusiness screeds, rather than just dumping them here?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:07 pm

:yh_clap MicahLorain wrote: ... been going on for years! opposing the court ruling puts you at odds with big businesses and the health of our corporations that provide jobs and steady land values. you sound liberal to me.

I figured as much. You're a swizzle stick - just writing whatever will stir things up.

:yh_bye

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:45 pm

Scrat wrote: Read it Anastrophe. Micah says I am a antibusiness liberal, what BS. I will admit that I am biased towards small business because small business is the lifeblood of America, small business is not as destructive as big business though because it doesn't have the power to buy off politicians.

When big business and politicos mate the offspring is exactly what we are talking about. The people lose the power.

When people lose power, people lose their rights.

The Seattle Monorail Project is an example of big business screwing common people by paying off politicos.
i hate to sound like a broken record, but what do the two posts have to do with the supreme court's ruling regarding Takings (eminent domain condemnation of property)?

yes, big business, politicos in cahoots, evil evil evil. great. what does it have to do with the supreme court decision?