?

Log in

No account? Create an account
You don't know me. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
randomposting

[ website | The Realm of Randomia ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

High Court OK's personal property seizures/Another reason it's GOOD to live somewhere beside the US [Jun. 26th, 2005|08:29 pm]
randomposting
[mood |sicksick]
[music |saturn commercial]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes 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, Connecticut, 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.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: ahx_fedora
2005-06-26 06:45 pm (UTC)
That's ridiculous...How can they just seize and destroy people's properties..
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-26 07:04 pm (UTC)
Right?

I guess in the name of malls?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: life_is_pain43
2005-06-26 07:12 pm (UTC)
I don't even know what to think about that.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-27 07:10 pm (UTC)
It's a hell of a thing.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: rouninisapphire
2005-06-26 08:22 pm (UTC)
this makes me angry.
>X(

i hate the us government so much right now.
grrr.


here, take a gander at this, you might get a kick out of it.
www.sorryeverybody.com

just copy and paste, i guess. i dunno how to do the little tag thingys to make it clickable.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: rouninisapphire
2005-06-26 08:23 pm (UTC)
p.s.- go to the galleries.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-26 08:55 pm (UTC)
I just heard about that on PBS last night. Sad that they kick people out of their homes. But I do understand it can be benifical to the city's economic development, but unneccesary when there are plenty of other sites to build upon.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-27 09:04 pm (UTC)
It's unnecessariy regardless of how many other sites are available. You can't just tear down a families home and kick them out because they live in a "prime location". That's ridiculous.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: docguidums
2005-06-26 09:00 pm (UTC)
its those old fucking rightwingers that have taken over our fuckin government. if you look, the republicans have taken over the house and the senate. giving them unlimited power. it used to be democrates in one, and republicans in the other, to even out the others reign. now its a fuckin dictatorship. Alle Hagel Diktator George Bush die Sekunde!! augh!! this fucking government makes me so angry. Why does the government have to fuck everything up??? they arnt making friends this way.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-26 09:34 pm (UTC)
Um, House isn't supposed to be controlled by one party and the Senate isn't supposed to be controlled by the other. You realize the senate is made up of senators right? and it is pretty much 50/50, this term it just happens to have a Republican leader. It's called democracy, I am hoping you aren't an American because you should know that if you ever were in the fifth grade. But then again, I hope you aren't American, because if you aren't it's pretty pointless to criticize another country when I am sure you have faults in your own.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-27 10:51 pm (UTC)
I agree that it's ridiculous.. But not about them being senile.

Senile people don't have the capacity to fuck other people up so significantly, I don't think.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
From: lickedastopsign
2005-06-26 09:26 pm (UTC)
i'mtipsy right now anddidnt read onewordofthat!! hahahaohand plus,my spacebars fricken BROKEashell!!ugh sorry!<3
(Reply) (Thread)
From: lickedastopsign
2005-06-26 09:26 pm (UTC)
just thought you d all like to know,btw.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: flossums
2005-06-28 04:45 am (UTC)
O.O That's really awful, but there have been precedences in other countries. For instance - the government wanted possession of some piece of land near where I live, so they bought it off the families who were living there.

It's not the best, and I would hate it if it was my place, but that's the way it goes. It's not like the government is kicking them out to the streets - I'm pretty sure they'd buy it off the people living there. Then, the people who lived there just go out and get another place. Callous, perhaps, but most people move houses frequently anyway.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 10:15 pm (UTC)
But what if it's your family estate? What if all your memories are there? A lot of people are really atttached to their family homes.

And I know from personal family experience that they don't always give you waht your house is worth. If they can give you less.. They will.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)