STORM2K

Will Americans lose all their rights?


NEW LONDON, Conn. — City officials voted to evict two homeowners at the center of an eminent domain battle who refuse to leave their riverfront homes, even after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling that the city can seize the property for a private development project.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198303,00.html

What is happening here is what caused the Supreme Court to make the ruling they did. Personally, it was one of the worse rulings that could of came out of the Supreme Court. With this ruling, you can loose what you have saved up for, for your entire life.

tomboudreau wrote:What is happening here is what caused the Supreme Court to make the ruling they did. Personally, it was one of the worse rulings that could of came out of the Supreme Court. With this ruling, you can loose what you have saved up for, for your entire life.

While I do disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, the homeowners won't exactly lose their savings on the deal. People get far more for their property when it's taken by eminent domain than they would selling it on the open market.

It's way more than a matter of just money!!! I don't believe in emminent domain at all. If someone tries to take my property, they'd better have better fire power than I have... 'cause they are gonna have to pry my property deed from my cold dead hands!!!

gtalum - don't fool yourself - that is not always the case. I heard of a place in TX that paid way under what the value should have been just for an extra mall parking lot.

Somehow I doubt it.

I don't like eminent domain, but in every example I've ever seen the property owners were paid far more than market value for their properties.

tomboudreau wrote:What is happening here is what caused the Supreme Court to make the ruling they did. Personally, it was one of the worse rulings that could of came out of the Supreme Court. With this ruling, you can loose what you have saved up for, for your entire life.

With all due respect to the horrific callous disregard for human dignity of the Dred Scott decision (by FAR the worst)... this, IMHO, has GOT to be the worst decision these clowns have passed down since that time. A basic right of the citizens of this nation should be to own their OWN property without the government for reasons of lucrative gain, to come in an take you property away... I don't really care WHAT the money they offer is... if it is YOUR property, they should have absolutely NO right to take it away--PERIOD.

A2K

gtalum - don't fool yourself - that is not always the case. I heard of a place in TX that paid way under what the value should have been just for an extra mall parking lot.

Worse than that! I know of a case where the city seized a man's property, and then when the proposed "development" fell through... put it up for sale... at more than TWICE the price they paid the original owner. These kinds of crooks should be lynched!

A2K

Somehow I doubt it.

doubt it all you want. See above it is a documented case of their abuse of this heinous law.

A2K

I have heard one good story I just forget where it was...A walmart pushed it self in some small community and they used this law to stop them...But besides that the law sucks..

I remember when the town in, I think New Hampshire, where Bryer, (or was it Souter?) one of the SC idiots who voted for this abominable ruling, has a home. There WAS a move to seize his property under the same law.... too bad the locals didn't have the nads to see it through, because I'd have LOVED to see this clown know what it feels like!

A2K

Audrey2Katrina wrote:I don't really care WHAT the money they offer is... if it is YOUR property, they should have absolutely NO right to take it away--PERIOD.

Eminent domain is a specific power allowed under the US Constitution. The question is only "what constitutes public use?".

Audrey2Katrina wrote:doubt it all you want. See above it is a documented case of their abuse of this heinous law.

Someone saying "I heard about this case..." is not documentation.

No it isn't... and I SAW the interview on TV.... failure to accept or believe, doesn't detract from something being a fact either

A2K

gtalum wrote:

Audrey2Katrina wrote:I don't really care WHAT the money they offer is... if it is YOUR property, they should have absolutely NO right to take it away--PERIOD.

Eminent domain is a specific power allowed under the US Constitution. The question is only "what constitutes public use?".

This was NEVER an issue... remember the constitution once considered a black person as only 3/5 of a human being... public use has always meant for a NEEDED project such as a school, or highway, but NEVER for PRIVATE development... these judges stepped over the line and crossed into the realm of almost totalitarian right to an individuals property whenever the caprice of the local government sees fit... it's an abomination and horrible perversion of the true constitutional intent.

A2K

You are right. They use the excuse that it will help the town or city financially by bringing in industry or stores. And, they get by with it too...

Audrey2Katrina wrote:No it isn't... and I SAW the interview on TV.... failure to accept or believe, doesn't detract from something being a fact either

And without documentation, how do you knwo the person wasn't lying on tv?

FWIW I agree, eminent domain for private development is wrong and it was a bad USSC decision. People are fairly compensated financially when their land is taken, though. Of course ther emay be a case or two where they are not, but abuses like that are the exception to the rule. It seems to me those folks would have good recourse if they hired an attorney.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:these judges stepped over the line and crossed into the realm of almost totalitarian right to an individuals property whenever the caprice of the local government sees fit... it's an abomination and horrible perversion of the true constitutional intent.

Actually they put the issue back into the states' hands. Most states have enacted protections against eminent domain in these cases. Unfortunately, Florida isn't yet one of them.

From Fox News:

Is Seattle Making a Profit Off Land Seized Under Eminent Domain?

Tonight, our investigation takes us to Seattle, Washington, where the city used eminent domain to seize land for an extension of the city's monorail system, but voters rejected the monorail project, and the city is now making a sizeable profit selling the land it took.
Dennis Ankeny's property had an auto repair shop and video store on it before he was forced to sell through eminent domain.



DENNIS ANKENY, LOST PROPERTY: When you have 34 years invested in an investment and somebody takes it for public use and all of a sudden, they want to make the $350,000 on your investment, it's hard to even think about what's going on. Yet, there's 34 property owners that are going through the same thing.

If you want the full link... go here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184663,00.html

There ARE other cases, if you had been following this attrocity as I have. And if that's not enough documentation... than nothing will be...this is a hideous abuse of governmental tyranny.

A2K

And without documentation, how do you knwo the person wasn't lying on tv?

Okay, EVERYONE on FOX was lying, including the government official they had from Seattle who was trying to justify this abomination. Hey, if you don't want to believe it--go for it... it IS happening, and at an alarming rate since this horrible decision.

A2K