Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Even more freedoms taken away....
Dekron
Member UncommonPosts: 7,359
Now you can't even be secure in owning your home if you live in a city...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
Comments
Eminent Domain isn't exactly taking away a freedom - it's in the Constitution. All this ruling does is clarify the cases in which it can be used.
As part of the city's right to take away your property, they have to give you fair compensation for it. They aren't just kicking you out and saying goodbye. In most cases, you are given months or even years of notice as well, so it's not like you don't have time to plan and find other arrangements.
Does it suck having your neighborhood destroyed in the name of development? Yes. Is it anything new? No. Most major cities have neighborhoods cut in half by freeways, in the name of development.
In the past, this right has only been used, as the article mentioned, for building public works. Schools, highways, etc. This ruling clarifies that it can also be used in cases where the new property will be much more valuable than the old.
I think it's alarmist to say that more freedoms are taken away - they're fairly compensating you for the cash value of the property, and in most cases will help pay moving costs and the like. While is disappointing to see that it can be used to foster private development, in actuality, nothing has really changed.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan
"Whoever controls the media controls the mind..-'Jim Morrison"
"When decorum is repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out." ~Abbie Hoffman
Actually I think you failed you see the point of the article. Yes, eminent domain is in the fifth amendment for public use. This new decision allows for private use now. Read the whole article. It's not about building libraries, schools, highways, etc., which is something I could understand, it's about how now, cities can decide your home can be demolished to make way for office buildings, malls, etc.
Listened to the radio all day( i make inner city deliveries)it pretty much gives the city a LOT of power to take a home in the name of economic development.
Now not only can we not even be sure of owning a home wich is pretty much a middle class families MAJOR investment but now we can be sure to be ripped off in the process when a "fair market price" is offered.Dont think for a second that the city govt is going to haggle on a price here.They make 1 offer and thats it take it or leave it.No counter offers,nothing like a legitimate real estate purchase.
1st the medical marijuana issue saying even when we are in our HOMES we CANT do what we want to do in private.Now we have to fear a frickin wal-mart opening up nearby and having our home be demolished for an entrance to the wal-mart.
This country is more and more like a socialist state every time the supreme court opens up its collective mouth.
Its time to vote libretarian folks.Libretarians couldnt screw up this country any more than democrats and republicans already have for the last 200 years.
Want to ENJOY an mmo?
Dont start a guild and dont be a leader or volunteer to be coleader or captain.
Just play the damn game:)
Not particularly 200 years. It mainly started to go to hell when ol' Abe got control.
Libertarian has some very admirable beliefs. My problem with them, and why I don't associate, is their almost seemingly anarchist type attitude.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
It's all about the independent party. They don't have a central authority telling people what to think, and don't vote along party lines.
I think this new decision shows just how much big business/corporations influence political power. I certiantly know I would REALLY pissed off if a hotel or restuarant wanted the property my house is on and I had no say in it. Now I am sure alot who support this ruling might tell you the odds of actually having your property taken away because of this. It doesnt matter the odds of it happening, it matters that it can happen.
Although the city or whoever has to give you fair market value for your property, in many cases that is no where near the amount you would get from selling it on your own. For instance in my neighborhood in the suburbs south of San Francisco, when we first bought our house on less than 1/4 of an acre (the house itself is only 1300 sq/ft), it cost a little under $500,000. Now down the street 2 months ago the same model house sold for $1.3 million; in less than 8 years my houses value has more than doubled. I am sure its safe to say that if the city wanted the land I live on for a private company to use, my parents wouldnt get anywhere near that $1.3 million.
While previously I was ok with the fact that a city can take your land for public domain (school, highway, etc..) it really makes me angry that if a McDonalds wanted to move onto the property I live on and they influenced the local politicians with enough money, I have no say what so ever. I certiantly know that when the founding fathers created the constitution that is "supposed" to be governing our land to this day, they wouldnt have wanted anybody to just waltz in and take their land. That was precisely what they were trying to get away from.
It saddens me to know how little "we the people" mean to politicians. While there may be the rare exception, its most likely safe to say that those who hold office could give a rats ass about "the people". This isnt a democrat or republican thing, its a government in general thing. Its both sides of the political scale, because although it seems that Republicans are the rich white guys, I can garuantee you that Democrats are also generally rich white guys. We no longer live in the democracy that was supposed to be put into place when this nation was founded. The people dont hold the power. Sure we can vote in the election, but as everybody knows popular vote means squat. Whoever holds the electoral votes wins.
There was a quote I liked in that article. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,". I think he forgot to add that screwing over its citizens is also a traditional and long accepted function of government.
This past election was my first, and I recall how many people were saying that they voted for Bush or Kerry becuase they were the lesser of two evils. If that doesnt scare you, then it should.
Sorry to go off a little bit...just kinda how I feel.
Libretarians from my point of view arent about anarchy.Anarchy is by definition against ANY form of govt.
Libretarianism is more about personal responsibility.This leads to less dependency upon govt.It is my beleif that our dependency on big govt has made all of us less independent.The choices that big govt makes just seems ridiculous sometimes.
The out of control spending and the current tax system is just out of control.
Here is a book written by my fave libretarian and congressman John Linder:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060875410/qid=1119613140/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-2297879-0926404?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Take a look:)
Want to ENJOY an mmo?
Dont start a guild and dont be a leader or volunteer to be coleader or captain.
Just play the damn game:)
I wonder if the people being ousted by the local government, could sue for emotional distress, mental hardship ect, just to stick it to em. Send a message to the city counsel, it may be cheaper to leave it alone.
I guess now the days of sitting on your property waiting for a developer to buy it is gone. The city steps in give you the value that the property taxes are based on, <saving the developer big $$> and the city gets a hefty kickback I'd imagine.
For all of his talk on taxes and spending, you'd think John Linder would have voted against some of the larger appropriation bills this past year.
Property Rights have always been a tough issue. I understand economic development can be just as beneficial to a community as roads, etc., but I'm not too thrilled about the possibility of private business ceasing land. Even though this case lost, I'm sure the ruling will be challenged in the future.
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Isnt it a bit odd that there are laws concerning the taking of federal govt land?
Yet we no protection now.
Want to ENJOY an mmo?
Dont start a guild and dont be a leader or volunteer to be coleader or captain.
Just play the damn game:)
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan
Corporations have almost finished their take over of most Western Governments.
Soon we will look to Asia and the Middle East as bastions of freedom...
Ironic isnt it
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
This is one of the worst things that has happened to homeowners in years. It's simply not fair. Being a homeowner, I'm scared to death now that they'll come in and do something like this to us. We live in a very fast growing area and land is starting to get scarce. All I can say is that I HOPE they pay these homeowners the market value of the house. If not, a lot of money will be lost.