Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 11:13 AM
WASHINGTON -- 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 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.
The city of Louisville where I work did just that to 2 different neighborhoods so that the airport could be expanded . They pretty much said"This is what your house is worth , you have 6 months to leave." Are you saying that what they did was illegal ?
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Not in that case, eminent domain states that if the goob has a compelling reason with the interest and welfare of the general public in mind they can swipe your house.
expanding an airport falls under that ruling. What this particular piece is about is the total misapplication of eminent domain.
They did similar things recently in Milwaukee. An area called Shorewood (very expensive homes, even little crackerboxes are going for $300,000) took an old folks residence, turned it into condos. Well next door were two nice homes, the city sent them letters telling them they lived in a "Blighted zone" (ie: slum) and told them to get the hell out, they were expanding the condos.
THAT is blatently illegal but there is no way to fight it short of an AR-15
Absolute insanity, a true disgrace of local and federal governments using the right of eminent domain for development!! And this from a supposedly conservative SC?
__________________
The Tazman aka Martin Price
Proud father of a Devil Dog
THAT is blatently illegal but there is no way to fight it short of an AR-15
Hehe, I didn't want to be the first one to say this. A man's home is his castle, and I believe every owner has a right to defend his from seizure or destruction. I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution about airports or office buildings.
It's a sad ruling for sure. Unfortunately, it's been going on forever. Municipal governments will often seize private property to get Wal-Mart's tax dollars into their town. In Tennessee, there's a beautiful lake, surrounded with very ritzy homes, called the Tellico Lake. Some time back, it was beautiful, lush farmland, covered by farms that had been in their respective families for generations. The Tennessee Valley Authority successfully seized the land for the lake - but seized much more than was needed, then turned around and sold the property surrounding the lake to private developers.
Seizing property for public use is one thing. That's bad enough and should only be done when absolutely necessary. Seizing property for private development is disgusting, an outrage.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
It is going on now in Manhattan, Kansas. With the help of the city Gov. a private developer is taking about 30 blocks of homes that are owned by mostly retired people.
The developer wants to put inmore shopping areas (strip malls).
They have visions of it being the shopping center of America[:@], well at least the region.
There are stores vacant now and they can't fill them. But our liberal Goverment says they know what is best for all the displaced people. They will get ,on average, $65,000 for their homes and the cheapest they can buy (affordable housing) is over$110,000.
I am glad I don't live there anymore, I would not leave my home alive.
What's the need for government when they already have the RIGHT to take everything?
This ruling should have people in the streets- we've become a monarchy.
Absolute insanity, a true disgrace of local and federal governments using the right of eminent domain for development!! And this from a supposedly conservative SC?
I agree with the first sentence but who says the court is "conservative?" We have no such thing.
I took this from a column written on Townhall.com and it is completely accurate.
******
The court has precisely three conservatives: Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor are wild cards. Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are liberals. One so-called moderate, O'Connor, leans heavily liberal. As of 2003, O'Connor had voted with Ginsburg on 75 percent of the cases on which both had sat.
So much for eminent domain
