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]

[ 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]
[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.


[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)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 01:26 am (UTC)
That's cute. :)

I've yet met to meet a sane confused republican/democrat/communist all rolled into one...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-28 02:25 am (UTC)
How rude.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 09:53 pm (UTC)
And the libertarian comment was sweet? :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-30 02:45 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[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)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2005-06-28 10:00 pm (UTC)
Watch Michael Moore Movies and bash Bush? I've been bashing Bush and the bullshit he has done to this country LONG before he ran for president, my dear.

You know, when he was killing mentally handicapped black people in Texas that through DNA they later found to be innocent.

Why do you assume that if someone disagrees with Bush's policy and attacks it as is their American and Constitutitutional right that they only got their facts from a Michael Moore movie?

Ontop of that, I think it's WONDERFUL that Michael Moore and other film makers, and the OCCASIONAL indie news broadcaster is willing to actually bring hard cold facts that prove that what Bush has been doing is lying to this country, bold faced, and precalculated.

And it's interesting that you say you watch BBC nerws religiously, because you don't seem to be digesting what they are saying if you are so quick to defend Bush and his cronies after they have do thoroughly devastated this country and torn people apart to the point where we are more polarized then we've been since at least Vietnam if not before.

And I don't know if you've been watching the polls lately, but even on conservative networks and polling stations, Bush's approval rating is lower then any presidents since the depression.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theslaughtered
2005-06-30 02:12 am (UTC)
yes, yes I know bush is an evil guy. I hate the bastard, but I wasn't defending HIM, I was defending the LAW. I don't want the son of a bitch to die because if he did we would have Rodger as our leader instead of Ralph, I mean Cheny instead of Bush. Bush is just blamed for more then he is responsible for and I am tired that people just point fingers and people rather then the government and law. If you don't like it get people together, get a lobbyist, have your voice heard and fight it until things change. It is so retarded to blame the President.

I am a Moore fan, like his work, but I am not one sided, I listen to the conservative's arguement because I like to hear what everyone has to say. Unlike what seems to be the whole goddamned country.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[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)