Eminent domain is one thing---it may not be right, but it's a step above this. With this ruling, the court has declared it okay for a local gov't to do pretty much this:
"Hey, you! Yeah, you in the house! Well, we want you to..um...leave, so that we can let this guy"---points to guy--- "start a business. Now, now, don't get so upset. We know you worked hard and saved and all, but you see, he needs the land for himself...hey, why are you mad?"
This is easily one of the most immoral, disgusting, disturbing ruling that has ever come out of that corrupt bench.
While I'm undecided on the whole eminent domain discussion, this is plainly wrong. Once again, liberals in the US are implementing socialism from the bench. I wouldn't trust local officials any further than I can throw them, to make fair and informed decisions in these matters.
Ousting people from their land for public works project is one matter, but to do so for a private developer fosters class warfare at its' worst! Who is to stop wealthy developers from convincing local officials (with kickbacks, I'm sure) to oust middle-class families from an area, so they can make big bucks in a new development?
So, for all you libs that claim that conservatives foster class warfare, maybe you should open your eyes and realize that it's your party's ideals that are really fostering it!
I hope this gets overturned, but unfortunately, some unlucky homeowner will have to go through the courts to fight, to get this issue back to the Supreme Court.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth is my mission, and Logic and Reason are my weapons. - Rush Limbaugh
While I'm undecided on the whole eminent domain discussion, this is plainly wrong. Once again, liberals in the US are implementing socialism from the bench. I wouldn't trust local officials any further than I can throw them, to make fair and informed decisions in these matters.
Ousting people from their land for public works project is one matter, but to do so for a private developer fosters class warfare at its' worst! Who is to stop wealthy developers from convincing local officials (with kickbacks, I'm sure) to oust middle-class families from an area, so they can make big bucks in a new development?
What? Currently, there are only 2 justices appointed by "liberals" (Ginsburg and Breyer - both by Clinton). The rest were appointed by a combination of Reagan, Nixon, Bush,Sr. and Ford. This isnt't to say its a conservative conspiracy but I could hardly see how its liberals "implementing" socialism from the bench. That seems like a knee-jerk reaction...
I think eminent domain is useful and serves the public good, but this is rather disturbing. It'll be interesting to see if anyone in the house or senate responds to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
just one point. uprooting families from thier homes so a private business can go there is not socialism, it's capitalism.
socialism would uproot corporations to make low-rent housing for the lower class. this would also incite class-war, but that's the basis of socialism, lower classes banding together to influence higher classes.
capitalism would say that whatever promotes the free-market best should be done, and laws should accomodate the market. that's what's happened here.
the only person i know personally who had their home taken away for private concerns was my grandmother, and that was in 1930's germany (fascism).
Before it was okay for the gov to come in and buy your property to put in new roads which I can understand although it does suck but for a stupid mall! That is insane. Just imagine all the stuff that's going to happen because some fat cat throws a bag of money at a city official because they want a mall or a bigger office. Plus you don't get the value of your home when they come in because they say what it is worth. I would suggest everyone don't forget your towel, drink several beers, eat your peanuts, and get a ride off of this rock.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
first turn
Nick: I lay a swamp, tap, dark ritual...
Me: If you cast a hypnotic specter I'll punch you in the face
Nick:...ahh I take 3 points of mana burn
The reason I play black according to CrovaxtheCursed:
just one point. uprooting families from thier homes so a private business can go there is not socialism, it's capitalism.
socialism would uproot corporations to make low-rent housing for the lower class. this would also incite class-war, but that's the basis of socialism, lower classes banding together to influence higher classes.
capitalism would say that whatever promotes the free-market best should be done, and laws should accomodate the market. that's what's happened here.
Thank you for saying that.
This is just sick.
Quote from article »
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
This would certainly seem like an abuse of local government power, but I would hope that if any local governments start taking peoples' property away willy-nilly and giving it over to rich developers that the people of their community would realize what *******s they are and vote them all the hell out of office.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."
What? Currently, there are only 2 justices appointed by "liberals" (Ginsburg and Breyer - both by Clinton). The rest were appointed by a combination of Reagan, Nixon, Bush,Sr. and Ford.
I'm not talking about who appointed the justices - I'm talking about the political leanings of the justices themselves. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer are considered liberals, while O'Connor and Kennedy are considered moderates. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are considered conservative (info taken from http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Supreme_Court).
There may be a variety of factors that go into who is appointed to the court by a president. Just because Reagan, Nixon, Ford, and other Republican presidents appointed a certain justice doesn't mean that that justice aligns with the political views of the president who appointed them. We are currently seeing that with GW's nominations. He's forced to pick more moderate appointees to get them appointed (all before the so-called "compromise" on the filibusters, of course).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth is my mission, and Logic and Reason are my weapons. - Rush Limbaugh
Not to be the third person to jump on this dogpile, but the irony of this debate is just too juicy to pass up. As Generatrix and Bardo correctly point out, this ruling couldn’t be any more dissimilar to the classical aims of both liberalism generally and socialism specifically.
Rather, the ruling seems to embody the tenets of capitalism in general, as Generatrix said, but Libertarianism specifically, as it is essentially an end-run around housing-market regulations. Here’s the ironic part: T2Sux seems to be an unabashed libertarian/objectivist, judging by the Ayn Rand references as well as the opposition to socialism being expressed.
So, T2Sux, if I haven’t mischaracterized your political beliefs, could you explain how one can simultaneously hold a libertarian perspective and decry this ruling? As a person who very much identifies with the personal-liberty half of libertarianism, but who doesn’t understand how those liberties can be maintained without some form of social/economic justice, I would really like to know.
I can somewhat see the thought process that would lead one to see the ruling as being socialist in nature, as on is face, it seems like it concentrates power in the hands of governments (very un-libertarian). But when that power is explicitly being used to deregulate social protections in favor of a Reaganomic free-market system, I honestly don’t see how anyone could suggest that this is a “liberal” or “socialist” decision.
And that is perhaps the most vexing aspect of this ruling. People like T2Sux and Laton hate it, and see it as a manifestation of liberal power in government. People on the other side of the aisle hate it, and see it as a manifestation of conservative power in government (as it is proof that the fulcrum of partisan balance has been pushed so far to the right as to make the term “liberal” all but meaningless). If this is how the debate stacks up, I don’t see how any kind of true consensus can be reached, as the sides are no longer speaking the same language.
just one point. uprooting families from thier homes so a private business can go there is not socialism, it's capitalism.
Wrong. Government and business are not supposed to be "in bed" together.
socialism would uproot corporations to make low-rent housing for the lower class. this would also incite class-war, but that's the basis of socialism, lower classes banding together to influence higher classes.
To enslave them, in other words.
capitalism would say that whatever promotes the free-market best should be done, and laws should accomodate the market. that's what's happened here.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. Infact, this is nearly the opposite. I'm amazed that you would say this. In the free market one could only buy what another party is willing to sell.
the only person i know personally who had their home taken away for private concerns was my grandmother, and that was in 1930's germany (fascism).
How dare the National Socialists do that to her!
Quote from Rowsdower »
So, T2Sux, if I haven’t mischaracterized your political beliefs, could you explain how one can simultaneously hold a libertarian perspective and decry this ruling?
How can one who holds a libertarian perspective not decry this ruling?
This is completely against libertarian philosophy. Completely!
Saying libertarians would support this idea is like saying liberals believe the poor have no right to life.
As a person who very much identifies with the personal-liberty half of libertarianism, but who doesn’t understand how those liberties can be maintained without some form of social/economic justice, I would really like to know.
I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.
Wrong. Government and business are not supposed to be "in bed" together.
i agree, they should stop. but them stopping would shut down capitalism.
Quote from ljossberir »
To enslave them, in other words.
no, if you enslave them, then they become the lower class, and will rebel. socialism is about balance of power, and negates the presence of slavery.
Quote from ljossberir »
How dare the National Socialists do that to her!
i'm sorry that you were the one to fall into the trap, but i added that on purpose, hoping that someone else would bring up the title. the nazis were not socialist, they were fascist. just because you name something that way, does not make it so. if a dictator who runs their country in a fascist manner calls themselves the "democratically ellected president of the people's democratic republic of crazyland" that does not make them democratic.
if titles dictated policies, then you would have every single president hailing from the democrats, since your country is democratic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no 'I' in 'team,' but there's a 'we' in 'weapon.'"
-Catapult Master
This would certainly seem like an abuse of local government power, but I would hope that if any local governments start taking peoples' property away willy-nilly and giving it over to rich developers that the people of their community would realize what *******s they are and vote them all the hell out of office.
I agree. I mean i dont think that they will just do as "T2sux" said and just tell you to leave. Or if they do, i doubt they would do it often. Just the fact that they made a law saying they can is indeed F'd up but I dont think it will happen like that.
Im not sure what sort of case would have to take place in order for them to do it though... I could understand if we were cramped on land, but there is still a **** load of land out there.
I would be proud to be a canadian too. Cananda has awhile to get as bad as the us has gotten.
regardless of how anyone wants to label the politics, this is nasty. i understand the need to make roads and other things like that, but siezing private property for business is just wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no 'I' in 'team,' but there's a 'we' in 'weapon.'"
-Catapult Master
i agree, they should stop. but them stopping would shut down capitalism.
What is that supposed to mean? Are you simply confusing capitalism with "greed"?
no, if you enslave them, then they become the lower class, and will rebel. socialism is about balance of power, and negates the presence of slavery.
When the workers dictate how much they are paid, what their work conditions are like, what products they produce and how much - that sounds like slavery of the capitalist class to me. Not to mention the poverty that would come from that.
i'm sorry that you were the one to fall into the trap, but i added that on purpose, hoping that someone else would bring up the title.
I knew, but I couldn't help it.
the nazis were not socialist, they were fascist.
Both are authoritarian, that's for sure.
just because you name something that way, does not make it so. if a dictator who runs their country in a fascist manner calls themselves the "democratically ellected president of the people's democratic republic of crazyland" that does not make them democratic.
if titles dictated policies, then you would have every single president hailing from the democrats, since your country is democratic.
The Nazis didn't respect private property, socialists don't respect private property. The Nazis enacted socialist policies in the pre-war years.
He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: "As Christ proclaimed 'love one another'," he said, "so our call -- 'people's community,' 'public need before private greed,' 'communally-minded social consciousness' -- rings out.! This call will echo throughout the world!"
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these
things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate
the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life --
accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical
force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action --
accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the
freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any
form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all
government interference with private property, such as confiscation,
nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of
robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
I know we aren't moving toward political views but can I say this much:
I think this is alot like the Patriot Act. It could be used for pure abuse but probably won't because ppl will kill other ppl if it does.
And also another unfortunate side effect of this, when we look back on history in the current media minded world ppl will blame this piece of work on this President just because happened on his watch. At least we'll know better though...
socialists don't respect private property. The Nazis enacted socialist policies in the pre-war years.
Command-and-control 'State' socialist governments (like China), don't respect private property--I think you're still caught in some Cold War era ideological battlefield. But most socialists respect property rights and personal freedom. Socialism, in its pure form means 'worker ownership over means of production', let's not drag the philosophy through the mud, okay?
By HOPE YEN WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing ``disproportionate influence and power'' to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.
issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' she wrote. ``The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
``It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,'' said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. ``I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.''
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: ``A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result.''
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, Conn., 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.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision ``means a lot for New London's future.''
``I am just so pleased to know that what we did was right,'' he said. ``We can go ahead with development now.''
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of 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, with losses of residents and jobs. Last month, the Pentagon also announced plans to close the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, one of the city's largest employers, which would eliminate thousands of jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to ``just compensation'' for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with ``just compensation,'' is unconstitutional.
``The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,'' Thomas wrote. ``So-called 'urban renewal' programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.''
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
I find this absolutely frightening. Now corporations can move in anywhere they would like, just by waving the almight tax-dollar in front of City Hall.
I'm not against progress, not at all. But I refuse to believe that the city (or any government, for that matter) has the right to tell me what's best for me. How many families are going to suffer due to political incompetence?
Can see it now. "Whoops, over budget again...I know! Let's evict a neighborhood and build a Wal-Mart! More money for us to blow, err...spend!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from adidaw52 »
We all learned a good lesson, girls like to make up rules and most tend to be liars.
Quote from Donutninja »
Magic is a battlefield now? I thought Love was a battlefield.... wait Mark Rosewater is Pat Benatar?
This is kind of frightening, I agree. I live about 45 minutes away from New London, and I can say through experience that it is a very nice town, right on the water, etc. I don't know how many year-round residents it has, but many people I know own summer residences in New London. Along with these people, there are also all the historic houses that you see with plaques that say built in (17--,18--, etc.) which I don't think they could possibly ruin without much consequence. Personally I would be pissed off if they plagued New London with a Wal-Mart or something of the sort, maybe they shouldn't have built the 2 biggest Casino's in the world less than 20 minutes away from New London if they were worried about people coming to the town and spending money etc. There is plenty to do there, Mystic is full of fun stuff, Aquariums, Boating Museums, tons of old boats, etc.
Point being it'd be a complete shame if they put something huge smack dab in the middle of a nice town like NL. A lot of towns seem to be ruined by developers around my area, but there's nothing I can do about it....
P.S. - I am almost positive the US Naval Base is in Groton.
The Nazis didn't respect private property, socialists don't respect private property. The Nazis enacted socialist policies in the pre-war years.
What a weird association. And one that doesn't follow logic at all. Like saying Osama Bin Laden doesn't support abortion, American conservatives don't support abortion.
This is sick.
Eminent domain is one thing---it may not be right, but it's a step above this. With this ruling, the court has declared it okay for a local gov't to do pretty much this:
"Hey, you! Yeah, you in the house! Well, we want you to..um...leave, so that we can let this guy"---points to guy--- "start a business. Now, now, don't get so upset. We know you worked hard and saved and all, but you see, he needs the land for himself...hey, why are you mad?"
This is easily one of the most immoral, disgusting, disturbing ruling that has ever come out of that corrupt bench.
Isn't Socialism sexy?
Ousting people from their land for public works project is one matter, but to do so for a private developer fosters class warfare at its' worst! Who is to stop wealthy developers from convincing local officials (with kickbacks, I'm sure) to oust middle-class families from an area, so they can make big bucks in a new development?
So, for all you libs that claim that conservatives foster class warfare, maybe you should open your eyes and realize that it's your party's ideals that are really fostering it!
I hope this gets overturned, but unfortunately, some unlucky homeowner will have to go through the courts to fight, to get this issue back to the Supreme Court.
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
What? Currently, there are only 2 justices appointed by "liberals" (Ginsburg and Breyer - both by Clinton). The rest were appointed by a combination of Reagan, Nixon, Bush,Sr. and Ford. This isnt't to say its a conservative conspiracy but I could hardly see how its liberals "implementing" socialism from the bench. That seems like a knee-jerk reaction...
I think eminent domain is useful and serves the public good, but this is rather disturbing. It'll be interesting to see if anyone in the house or senate responds to it.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
socialism would uproot corporations to make low-rent housing for the lower class. this would also incite class-war, but that's the basis of socialism, lower classes banding together to influence higher classes.
capitalism would say that whatever promotes the free-market best should be done, and laws should accomodate the market. that's what's happened here.
the only person i know personally who had their home taken away for private concerns was my grandmother, and that was in 1930's germany (fascism).
-Catapult Master
generatrix homepage
(\ /) this is my bunny, avi
(-.-) he fell asleep reading a textbook
([|]) my study habits are even worse
Nick: I lay a swamp, tap, dark ritual...
Me: If you cast a hypnotic specter I'll punch you in the face
Nick:...ahh I take 3 points of mana burn
The reason I play black according to CrovaxtheCursed:
This is just sick.
What a twisted country this is becoming.
Our home and native land...
Yeah. Although I'm sure it's only a matter of time before our country goes to hell too, for the moment, I'm damn proud of being Canadian.
Seriously, something with your system needs to change, because it isn't working as is. When did Democracy stop working in favour of the people?
There may be a variety of factors that go into who is appointed to the court by a president. Just because Reagan, Nixon, Ford, and other Republican presidents appointed a certain justice doesn't mean that that justice aligns with the political views of the president who appointed them. We are currently seeing that with GW's nominations. He's forced to pick more moderate appointees to get them appointed (all before the so-called "compromise" on the filibusters, of course).
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
Rather, the ruling seems to embody the tenets of capitalism in general, as Generatrix said, but Libertarianism specifically, as it is essentially an end-run around housing-market regulations. Here’s the ironic part: T2Sux seems to be an unabashed libertarian/objectivist, judging by the Ayn Rand references as well as the opposition to socialism being expressed.
So, T2Sux, if I haven’t mischaracterized your political beliefs, could you explain how one can simultaneously hold a libertarian perspective and decry this ruling? As a person who very much identifies with the personal-liberty half of libertarianism, but who doesn’t understand how those liberties can be maintained without some form of social/economic justice, I would really like to know.
I can somewhat see the thought process that would lead one to see the ruling as being socialist in nature, as on is face, it seems like it concentrates power in the hands of governments (very un-libertarian). But when that power is explicitly being used to deregulate social protections in favor of a Reaganomic free-market system, I honestly don’t see how anyone could suggest that this is a “liberal” or “socialist” decision.
And that is perhaps the most vexing aspect of this ruling. People like T2Sux and Laton hate it, and see it as a manifestation of liberal power in government. People on the other side of the aisle hate it, and see it as a manifestation of conservative power in government (as it is proof that the fulcrum of partisan balance has been pushed so far to the right as to make the term “liberal” all but meaningless). If this is how the debate stacks up, I don’t see how any kind of true consensus can be reached, as the sides are no longer speaking the same language.
Wrong. Government and business are not supposed to be "in bed" together.
To enslave them, in other words.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. Infact, this is nearly the opposite. I'm amazed that you would say this. In the free market one could only buy what another party is willing to sell.
How dare the National Socialists do that to her!
How can one who holds a libertarian perspective not decry this ruling?
This is completely against libertarian philosophy. Completely!
Saying libertarians would support this idea is like saying liberals believe the poor have no right to life.
I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.
i agree, they should stop. but them stopping would shut down capitalism.
no, if you enslave them, then they become the lower class, and will rebel. socialism is about balance of power, and negates the presence of slavery.
i'm sorry that you were the one to fall into the trap, but i added that on purpose, hoping that someone else would bring up the title. the nazis were not socialist, they were fascist. just because you name something that way, does not make it so. if a dictator who runs their country in a fascist manner calls themselves the "democratically ellected president of the people's democratic republic of crazyland" that does not make them democratic.
if titles dictated policies, then you would have every single president hailing from the democrats, since your country is democratic.
-Catapult Master
generatrix homepage
(\ /) this is my bunny, avi
(-.-) he fell asleep reading a textbook
([|]) my study habits are even worse
*sigh* I thought something useful would come out of Connecticut for once...
I agree. I mean i dont think that they will just do as "T2sux" said and just tell you to leave. Or if they do, i doubt they would do it often. Just the fact that they made a law saying they can is indeed F'd up but I dont think it will happen like that.
Im not sure what sort of case would have to take place in order for them to do it though... I could understand if we were cramped on land, but there is still a **** load of land out there.
I would be proud to be a canadian too. Cananda has awhile to get as bad as the us has gotten.
Legacy - Full English Breakfast
Vintage - Dragon, Cerebral Assasin, Oath
regardless of how anyone wants to label the politics, this is nasty. i understand the need to make roads and other things like that, but siezing private property for business is just wrong.
-Catapult Master
generatrix homepage
(\ /) this is my bunny, avi
(-.-) he fell asleep reading a textbook
([|]) my study habits are even worse
What is that supposed to mean? Are you simply confusing capitalism with "greed"?
When the workers dictate how much they are paid, what their work conditions are like, what products they produce and how much - that sounds like slavery of the capitalist class to me. Not to mention the poverty that would come from that.
I knew, but I couldn't help it.
Both are authoritarian, that's for sure.
The Nazis didn't respect private property, socialists don't respect private property. The Nazis enacted socialist policies in the pre-war years.
Talking about Hitler here:
Oh and to clear something up about Libertarians:
I think this is alot like the Patriot Act. It could be used for pure abuse but probably won't because ppl will kill other ppl if it does.
And also another unfortunate side effect of this, when we look back on history in the current media minded world ppl will blame this piece of work on this President just because happened on his watch. At least we'll know better though...
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
By HOPE YEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing ``disproportionate influence and power'' to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.
issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' she wrote. ``The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
``It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,'' said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. ``I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.''
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: ``A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result.''
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, Conn., 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.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision ``means a lot for New London's future.''
``I am just so pleased to know that what we did was right,'' he said. ``We can go ahead with development now.''
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of 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, with losses of residents and jobs. Last month, the Pentagon also announced plans to close the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, one of the city's largest employers, which would eliminate thousands of jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to ``just compensation'' for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with ``just compensation,'' is unconstitutional.
``The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,'' Thomas wrote. ``So-called 'urban renewal' programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.''
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
On the Net:
The ruling in Kelo v. New London is available at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf
Thoughts on this?
I find this absolutely frightening. Now corporations can move in anywhere they would like, just by waving the almight tax-dollar in front of City Hall.
I'm not against progress, not at all. But I refuse to believe that the city (or any government, for that matter) has the right to tell me what's best for me. How many families are going to suffer due to political incompetence?
Can see it now. "Whoops, over budget again...I know! Let's evict a neighborhood and build a Wal-Mart! More money for us to blow, err...spend!"
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Point being it'd be a complete shame if they put something huge smack dab in the middle of a nice town like NL. A lot of towns seem to be ruined by developers around my area, but there's nothing I can do about it....
P.S. - I am almost positive the US Naval Base is in Groton.
svalbard
email.[email="svalbard.motl@gmail.com"]svalbard.motl@gmail.com[/email]
aim.andvaranaut3
Buy an iPod!
I don't agree that this practice should be used often, but a few circumstances I could see where it *may* be warranted.
What a weird association. And one that doesn't follow logic at all. Like saying Osama Bin Laden doesn't support abortion, American conservatives don't support abortion.
Godwin's Law!
The ruling should, and rightfully, elicit a response from politicians. Hopefully, it won't turn into a political issue.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower