STORM2K

From CNN.com:

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

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.

They completely ignored the "public use" requirement for eminent domain in the 5th Amendment. I'm so ANGRY right now! Private property rights have just been eliminated in the USA. Now the govenrment can take your house and give it to private developers if they think they'll get more tax revenue otu of it that way.

I agree with you! (I hope you can see the shock on my face) This is one dangerous ruling for any property owner.

gtalum wrote::grrr:

They completely ignored the "public use" requirement for eminent domain in the 5th Amendment. I'm so ANGRY right now! Private property rights have just been eliminated in the USA. Now the govenrment can take your house and give it to private developers if they think they'll get more tax revenue otu of it that way.

I agree....my dad is red hot about this decision. He owns a small piece of property near Lake Lanier that developers have been trying to purchase from him for a several years; but dad wants to keep the property as long as he lives. Why?...he bought that lake lot in 1964...and bought it for my late mother; she wanted to live near a lake when they retired.

Sadly, mom didn't live anywhere near retirement age....but to dad, it's kinda his memorial to mom; the value to him (and I) is totally sentimental. I doubt dad would willingly sell that lot if someone offered him three times fair market value. Now, thanks to the USSC, developers won't even have to pay him what the property is worth to take it....just as long as the local city council allows them.

What's worse -- let the government have it or let vigilants torch it because a crime is committed there?

I totally disagree with this ruling. The government can now seize anyones property for any reason. We are slowly losing our rights. The constitution has been thrown out the window. It won't be long till major corporations will take whatever they deem necessary with the backing of local government in the name of progress. It will certainly be a good time to be a crooked politician on the take as the market will be ripe. Just a matter of time if you own a choice piece of property before you are evicted....MGC

What's scary-- This is the first time I have heard of this...I think alot of people are going to be suprised by this.

I'm hoping this is the wake-up call that finally unites us all as Americans against partisan interests. I have seen nothing but anger from all across the political spectrum on the political boards I participate on.

gtalum wrote:I'm hoping this is the wake-up call that finally unites us all as Americans against partisan interests. I have seen nothing but anger from all across the political spectrum on the political boards I participate on.

Its got me fired up !!!!!

So what are they going to take from us next, the right to speak freely??

You're right. The second amendment is down. This along with the (un)PATRIOT(ic) Act pretty much does away with the 5th. I wonder which is next.

Don't get me started on that Act. I think it was just an excuse for the government to take even more liberties with our freedoms. The founding fathers would be appalled by the way the country is heading today.

What's really surprising is how the court split on this decision.

exactly why I have no plans to live in the USA after getting my PHD

Derek Ortt wrote:exactly why I have no plans to live in the USA after getting my PHD

Good luck going anywhere else. Even with this abortion of property rights law, we still have more property rights than anywhere else in the developed world.

GalvestonDuck wrote:What's worse -- let the government have it or let vigilants torch it because a crime is committed there?

Letting the Government have it!! If the government tried to take my properity they would have bloodshed on their hands because the only way this nazi government would get my home is over my dead body and a few of there's too.

I have been planning to relocate to Cayman anyways (for Tax purposes once nwhhc starts making a decent profit... to avoid the 40% tax I would have to pay on the profits). But now since my private property can be siezed for any purpose... I do not want to be in a place where what someone owns is not really theirs

it was not the right that voted in favor of this. Those that are branded as "right extremeists... thomas and scalia... voted in favor of your property rights.


This is the first step toward Communism in our great nation where the land belongs to everyone, not the one who OWNS the land

3 of the 5 majority Justices are Republican appointees.

That said, unfortunatelky this lays the groundwork for Bush to shove uber-conservative Justices onto the bench. Bad news for us all. I will also begin making evacuation plans to a property outside of the US, but for different reasons than you.

This is the most ridiclous pile of rubbish I have ever seen.

I'm being nice today.

YES John Paul Stevens (Ford)
YES Anthony Kennedy (Reagan)
YES David H. Souter (H.W Bush)
YES Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Clinton)
YES Stephen Breyer (Clinton)

NO Sandray Day O'Connor (Reagan)
NO William H. Rehnquist (Reagan)
NO Antonin Scalia (Reagan)
NO Clarence Thomas (H.W. Bush)