?

Log in

No account? Create an account
High Court OK's personal property seizures/Another reason it's GOOD to live somewhere beside the US - You don't know me. — LiveJournal [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: 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)
[User Picture]From: docguidums
2005-06-27 09:01 pm (UTC)
well see, the senate is voted for. and it has been voted majority republican. so they have most of the influence that goes through their meetings.. and the president being republican is not going to disagree with their ideas and veto what they think. and they arnt going to fight with him on what he wants either. one party. one rule. dictatorship.
i dont care if it was even all democrates. thats also a dictatorship and it is wrong. just stating that there is no real balance.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-27 09:08 pm (UTC)
Well a full balance is impossible, due to needing an odd number. It isn't a dictatorship. There has never been a division of opinions in this country more strong then now since the civil war.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: docguidums
2005-06-27 09:18 pm (UTC)
true. just. i think that one senate should be one, and presidency should be the other. try to keep it alittle balance. i know. all yelling and hollaring is in vain. oh well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-27 09:30 pm (UTC)
That just sounds like blind libreal rhetoric. The red's got voted in, this is their term to shine, let's just hope we get the Dems back in power next time around.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: docguidums
2005-06-27 09:37 pm (UTC)
im libertarian bitch. i fight for my own side. i just think either or. not just one party in all.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-27 10:32 pm (UTC)
Uh oh, I have yet to meet a sane libertarian.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 01:13 am (UTC)
Their time to shine has killed HOW many people, do you think? And destroyed many, many futures beyond those do you think?

And blind liberal rhetoric?

Sounds like someone watches a little too much Fox news and enjoys being spoonfed that conservative bullshit.

I'm so sick of whenever anyone makes any sense they use "liberal" as an insult.

Our founding fathers are turning in their graves.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-28 02:32 am (UTC)
If you hadn't noticed Bush was elected president and half the county supports him.

Yeah, I hate when people see a Michael Moore movie and suddenly go bashing Bush.

I only read indie news on the web and watch the BBC World news religiously.

I didn't mean ti use it as an insult. I am applying to Berkley and my cousin goes there.

They drafted that law!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 01:09 am (UTC)
It's entirely too polarized right now. It's a nation motivated by nothing but fear. And hate.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 12:56 am (UTC)
That's VERY true. Which is why it is SO dangerous that all of ONE party have all the power.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-28 02:35 am (UTC)
If it's the will of the people and they voted for it. Otherwise you would take the democracy out of it and have the system rigged to keep a balance of opinions? The majority of people are in favor for those elected officals. Just because we didn't win doesn't we should go and attack that system that would be working in our favor if the roles were reversed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 10:06 pm (UTC)
How many of the people now do you believe would be voting for George Bush if the election were to happen today? How many do you think would have voted for him, if there hadn't been the lying mudslinging "swift boat" against Kerry? How many do you think if Bush, and all of his cronies entire campaigns hadn't been based on fear and hate mongering?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-30 02:14 am (UTC)
We had this same deal the last election, that's what everybody thought. Bush is gonna go out because everybody knows he is an evil, lying guy who distilles fear to minipulate the citizens of the U.S.. But he won for the first time the second time around, and here we are.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 12:55 am (UTC)
Precisely.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)