Tsupreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
<div class="IPBDescription">This is kinda disturbing</div> <a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...zing_property_2</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership 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.
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.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice
Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Crikey. Does that scare anyone else?
I mean, they can just take your house, demolish it, and put up a shopping mall? Against your will?
<b>Edit:</b> F'd that title up pretty good.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership 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.
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.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice
Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Crikey. Does that scare anyone else?
I mean, they can just take your house, demolish it, and put up a shopping mall? Against your will?
<b>Edit:</b> F'd that title up pretty good.
Comments
Next they'll use excuses like "there's oil deposits under your house which we want to drill" (it seems to be the trend nowadays)
Money doesn't buy back memories. It's your house, for christ's sake.
Yah, now you have to spent the time moving, finding a new house which may force you to move schools or drive longer or mess up your life in other ways. This is ballocks.
Come and get me, I say.
My family's been in this house for just about 22 years now. It's got a memory or two associated with it.
Plus, they're making <i>strip malls and hotels</i> with the land. Not owned by the government.
I know what the others mean when it comes to memories associated with houses and also putting work into your house, while i was living in australia we must have doubled the rent value of our house in the two years we were living there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However i havn't really experienced much... "connection" with a a house, i've moved nearly every year/two years of my life and i tell you it gets hard to establish bonds <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It makes practical sense for the government but it makes a mockery of the average dream of putting down roots and making some place yours. We're territorial animals in the end and now one of our needs is being made harder to satisfy.
Well, in America anyway <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
BINGO :O.
I think it's quite reasonable to expect people to want to keep their house after living in it for a considerable amount of time and pretty sure Cydane is the majority in this particular case.
A house, reguardless of time in them is just a house, its wood, bricks probably, dry wall, and some sheet metal. It isn't really anything to care about, what there is to care about is in your mind. As long as you HAVE the memories, you aren't going to lose them. Now should you suffer from amnesia then perhaps one could feel sorry for you, but since you wouldn't remember the house, you haven't lost anything?
This is why I don't get it, the government is willing to relocate you (your choice or theirs) to a new home with more then enough compenstation. I actually do have a case in point to prove that as well.
My Uncled owned all the land that is currently a Shell gas station, down to where a new dentist office is being built (fathers side not mothers). Not only was he ENORMOUSLY compensated, but he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life (he is now 46, city bought the land when he was 30). More people are able to now move in, improve the city, with better healthcare facilities, convience stores, office buildings, etc.
The only down side I can see was he had to move, so what did he do? He took the money and bought a house just outside of the city limits. Which he likes to live in the country so he opted for that.
Some of you are just so... I can't even think of a decent word to describe it, bent on material possesions when you don't even get to take those with you when you die, is one of my biggest pet peeves with people.
"Omg not my house, not my car, etc". I like having things as much as anyone else, but if the government is willing to pay me to relocate, get a new car, who are you to care? What right do you have to do that? None according to the fifth amendment, it doesn't even say the have to compensate you, but they do because the government isn't some evil devil trying to destory people.
*Edit addenum*
Spacer, I would never want to be included in that group of people who are that vain. Material possesions are nothing, it is the people who occupy them that matter, that is all. Anything can be replaced that is of material worth, you have to agree with that. Memories are all in your head, the same for sentimental value, its all in your head. While I may not "want" to be forced to move, I wouldn't raise a stink about it, why? Because I can "set down roots" elsewhere, if you don't like the city's way of doing things, move outside the city a little ways, problem solved for quite a few years as my story demostrates.
I just recently had to move from my original house.
That is where all of my childhood was spent, it IS something special to me.
It always makes me sad to drive by there (my dad lives up the block so I am still around there regularly).
Home is where the heart is.
A house can be just a house, but to some people it is a home.
Even when I was still in college Home was 87-02 Palo Alto St. Not Oberlin, OH.
Kinda like I am now, and always be a New Yorker, New York is my home (in a broader sense). If NY just sudenly was no more, I would be VERY sad, yet it is just some material items bound to gether.
Where I live now is not realy 'home', not yet (and probably never, as I will be moving again).
We should bulldoze graveyards, or perhaps bulldoze the Hiroshima/Auschwitz memorials. After all, they're just memories, right? As long as we have those memories then it'll never be forgotten, right? Why not bulldoze the rainforests down and flatten the mountains, we'll have memories of the species that lived there, and that's all that matters, right? They're just taking up space as they are, right? God knows we need a better economy and more money and more shopping malls and god knows we need to furfill our desire to destroy everything that once was, right? Forward in the name of expansion and higher profits.
Oh, wait..
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My whole point in one line, yet no one here seems to realize it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So saying "I want to keep my house because it's where I was raised and where all my childhood memories like" or "I want to keep my house because my mother died here and I'd rather her deathbed didn't become a Mcdonalds" is vain? Yes, of course.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have that right, what part about that don't you understand?
Don't like the US, move out, easy as that... oh wait.. then you won't have the same rights and/or freedoms. Double standards are easy to name aren't they?
<!--QuoteBegin-spacer+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (spacer)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
We should bulldoze graveyards, or perhaps bulldoze the Hiroshima/Auschwitz memorials. After all, they're just memories, right? As long as we have those memories then it'll never be forgotten, right? Why not bulldoze the rainforests down and flatten the mountains, we'll have memories of the species that lived there, and that's all that matters, right? They're just taking up space as they are, right? God knows we need a better economy and more money and more shopping malls and god knows we need to furfill our desire to destroy everything that once was, right? Forward in the name of expansion and higher profits.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes lets compare historical markers with current home owners who aren't going to die soon. In fact lets just bastardize every single group of land into one consumable product right? Is that what you are referring to spacer?
You make assumptions about topics that aren't even on the same playing field as what the article is referring to, it has nothing to do with rain forests, historical monuments, which the government(s) protect. Thanks for being looking like a fool.
He ended up making it too expensive for them to buy by getting it rezoned as a gravel pit and renting it out to a gravel company. He can't farm it for the time being, but at least when they fill the gravel pit back in, he'll have the land back.
this **** goes on all over the country. The worst part is that companies will pay politicians to exercise eminent domain power and there is little private citizens can do about it. My advice, if you ever get caught in something like this, raise as big a public stink about it as you can. Write to every newspaper, get it on the front page as a human interest story. Go on local radios, talk to every politician in the area. You can fight back, but you can't half **** it.
Kinda like when ever I leave NY I come back and as I cross the bridges and see the sky line I get happy.
even if it is just concreate and steel.
Some people CAN just up and move, some people can't. There is nothing materialistic involved. (my new house is "nicer" then my old one).
Around here they pay you 25% above what your land value currently has, since the land usually goes up in value, and not down.
we will simply elect better representative next time.
untill then we will exersise our right to free speach and complain about things we don't like.
And yes, I am familiar with eminent domain, and I REALY don't like it.
Some people/ideas/places/items are considered "mine" by people, they become part of you and how you define yourself. It hurts to lose these things.
Don't like the US, move out, easy as that... oh wait.. then you won't have the same rights and/or freedoms. Double standards are easy to name aren't they?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
MAH WRONG
Europe enjoy the same if not more freedoms/rights
So saying "I want to keep my house because it's where I was raised and where all my childhood memories like" or "I want to keep my house because my mother died here and I'd rather her deathbed didn't become a Mcdonalds" is vain? Yes, of course.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have that right, what part about that don't you understand?
Don't like the US, move out, easy as that... oh wait.. then you won't have the same rights and/or freedoms. Double standards are easy to name aren't they?
<!--QuoteBegin-spacer+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (spacer)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
We should bulldoze graveyards, or perhaps bulldoze the Hiroshima/Auschwitz memorials. After all, they're just memories, right? As long as we have those memories then it'll never be forgotten, right? Why not bulldoze the rainforests down and flatten the mountains, we'll have memories of the species that lived there, and that's all that matters, right? They're just taking up space as they are, right? God knows we need a better economy and more money and more shopping malls and god knows we need to furfill our desire to destroy everything that once was, right? Forward in the name of expansion and higher profits.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes lets compare historical markers with current home owners who aren't going to die soon. In fact lets just bastardize every single group of land into one consumable product right? Is that what you are referring to spacer?
You make assumptions about topics that aren't even on the same playing field as what the article is referring to, it has nothing to do with rain forests, historical monuments, which the government(s) protect. Thanks for being looking like a fool.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, uh...
1: Fair enough, I don't like the US, I don't have the same rights/freedoms either, that's true. I have more. Fair point.
2: It seems to be that soon every piece of land WILL BE a consumable product, first unoccupied land already owned by people, then the land the people themselves live in.
Thanks for being looking like a fool. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*shakes fist at government
If they ever tried to bulldoze my house Id just have my two Oni buddies stand guard outside. (hey its their house too ya know)
Ha
Lets see that bulldozer try to get through that.
::Bulldozer emocon:: <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif' /><!--endemo--> ::My house emocon:: <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->