Eminent Domain Ruling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Real0ne -> Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 12:43:28 AM)

Of course the whole idea of the constitution was to protect us from this. 

What is different than the king saying hey i need your farm heres a nickel now get out?  Fuedalism?


The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that cities may seize and demolish private homes - even in non-blighted areas -- to make way for shopping malls and other private development. We host a debate with the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the homeowners and a spokesperson for the association of cities and towns in the Connecticut. [includes rush transcript]



luckydog1 -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 12:57:05 AM)

But the way you read the Constitutiopn the Feds would have no right to interfere, right?  It would depend on the State constitution and city charter would it not?  And I do believe the poeple were getting paid far more than a nickle.  And why would people in blighted areas have fewer rights?



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 1:05:00 AM)

Bold emphasis, as always, is Mine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

What is different than the king saying hey i need your farm heres a nickel now get out?  Fuedalism?


The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that cities may seize and demolish private homes - even in non-blighted areas -- to make way for shopping malls and other private development. We host a debate with the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the homeowners and a spokesperson for the association of cities and towns in the Connecticut. [includes rush transcript]


Not much?
 
I was just wondering if there was a reason you elected to not include the breakdown of the vote...holding true to form (as in the New London ruling).  Just thought I would get this end of things out of the way, right off the bat. 

quote:


Stevens was joined in the majority by three other liberal justices, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and by Anthony Kennedy, a moderate conservative who is often a swing vote. Kennedy also filed a concurring opinion suggesting that some condemnations of private property might be unconstitutional if there is "the risk of undetected impermissible favoritism of private parties" by the body exercising eminent domain.
O'Connor's dissenting opinion was signed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thomas also filed his own dissenting opinion suggesting that the court should reconsider earlier precedents on which yesterday's ruling was based.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05175/527821.stm






cyberdude611 -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 1:11:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Of course the whole idea of the constitution was to protect us from this. 

What is different than the king saying hey i need your farm heres a nickel now get out?  Fuedalism?


The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that cities may seize and demolish private homes - even in non-blighted areas -- to make way for shopping malls and other private development. We host a debate with the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the homeowners and a spokesperson for the association of cities and towns in the Connecticut. [includes rush transcript]


The majority ruling that allows eminent domain was written by Justice Souter. Who is one of the most liberal members of the court.

Keep in mind that far-left radicals do not believe in private property. Under communism for example, all property is owned by the state.

And most conservatives disagree with the ruling.



Real0ne -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 1:33:22 AM)

June 25, 2005 Property rights and wrongs In Vindicating the Founders, Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Thomas West sought to present a historically accurate picture of the founders' views and policies on issues of race, sex, class and justice. He did so because he found the founders' views to be superior in truth and fairness to the views of their historical predecessors and successors, foremost among them the Progressives. Professor West first addressed the founders' view of property rights in a 1992 Claremont Institute briefing paper that was expanded and elaborated in the second chapter of his book on the founders. The following observations are based on Professor West's work. In his 1992 paper, Professor West began by noting that the debate over the meaning of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment misses the point -- the point being the political importance of the right to property. The right to property was central to our founding; it occupied a vital place in the system of free government the founders built. The right to property was an instrument to defend common people from the power of the establishment. In our time the right to property is widely misunderstood, above all by liberals who do not share the vision of justice that animated our Constitution. This week the liberal assault on property rights reached one kind of culmination in the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. For the past hundred years the attack on private property has been central to the

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/010835.php


i have to laugh:  China is finding liberty and we are heading toward the old fuedal system

http://www.collarchat.com/m_933583/tm.htm



Real0ne -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 1:38:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

But the way you read the Constitutiopn the Feds would have no right to interfere, right?  It would depend on the State constitution and city charter would it not?  And I do believe the poeple were getting paid far more than a nickle.  And why would people in blighted areas have fewer rights?


To the best of my knowledge virtually all the state constitutions are written within the "supreme law" the us constitution.  i certainly did not review every states constitution.   Any state, city charter, whatever that wrote law to the contrary woudl be in violation of the supreme law therefore null and void if put to the test in a valid justice system.

no money



Real0ne -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 1:56:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

The majority ruling that allows eminent domain was written by Justice Souter. Who is one of the most liberal members of the court.

Keep in mind that far-left radicals do not believe in private property. Under communism for example, all property is owned by the state.

And most conservatives disagree with the ruling.




Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of: (a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation; (b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity; c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right; (d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment; (e) acquiring abandoned property; (f) quieting title to real property; (g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility; (h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or (i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html

i think gw was in, in 2006

say bye bye house!



Real0ne -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 1:59:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

Bold emphasis, as always, is Mine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

What is different than the king saying hey i need your farm heres a nickel now get out?  Fuedalism?


The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that cities may seize and demolish private homes - even in non-blighted areas -- to make way for shopping malls and other private development. We host a debate with the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the homeowners and a spokesperson for the association of cities and towns in the Connecticut. [includes rush transcript]


Not much?
 
I was just wondering if there was a reason you elected to not include the breakdown of the vote...holding true to form (as in the New London ruling).  Just thought I would get this end of things out of the way, right off the bat. 

quote:


Stevens was joined in the majority by three other liberal justices, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and by Anthony Kennedy, a moderate conservative who is often a swing vote. Kennedy also filed a concurring opinion suggesting that some condemnations of private property might be unconstitutional if there is "the risk of undetected impermissible favoritism of private parties" by the body exercising eminent domain.
O'Connor's dissenting opinion was signed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thomas also filed his own dissenting opinion suggesting that the court should reconsider earlier precedents on which yesterday's ruling was based.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05175/527821.stm


i thought i was the only one who read this stuff LOL



UtopianRanger -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 3:40:11 AM)


quote:

Of course the whole idea of the constitution was to protect us from this. 


It still does, my friend. The Fifth amendment spells things out rather nicely :

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


quote:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that cities may seize and demolish private homes - even in non-blighted areas -- to make way for shopping malls and other private development. We host a debate with the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the homeowners and a spokesperson for the association of cities and towns in the Connecticut. [includes rush transcript]



I've noted before that while others are rankled by the courts ruling here, I've always seen it as a blessing in disguise. They've essentially done nothing more than take the ambiguity away and stipulate that it's a ''states issue’’, to be decided within local jurisdictions. It really woke people up....  It gave way for the states and individuals of the state, to more narrowly define how and where the ''takings clause'' could be used.

It had a two fold effect : It made the individual states stronger and more powerful in this regard and made the people understand/realize that private property is the cornerstone of freedom and individual liberty.



JMO



- R




LadyEllen -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 7:33:41 AM)

We have the same thing here, called compulsory purchase. Its used when land needs to be taken for the building of highways, airports and the like, as well as for projects approved of by local government. It can be fair or unfair, depending on your point of view and the compensation paid, but many who are subject to this action are less than well pleased.

Here's a nice little story about something that happened to my dad's family. My grandad was born in the early 20th century - out of wedlock, and we have no idea who his father was - Edward VII for all we know. This was far from a happy situation in those times, and he struggled against a tide of prejudice all his working life because of it. The word bastard is utterly beyond the pale in my family to this day, 30-odd years after his death, because of the way he had to deal with it. He worked in the factories in Bimingham all his life apart from a stint in the airforce in WWII, and worked damned hard and saved and brought up three kids.

Come the 1960s, he managed to purchase a few acres up in the countryside outside the city. He built his own house and farmed pigs and looked forward to his remaining years in this much better situation.

Except, that the land, along with similar plots occupied by similar families in the area, was then subject to compulsory purchase, for no apparent reason, though the local council seemed to have a problem with them living there. They were moved out and into social housing in the new estate in the village down the road.

Guess what happened next?

Local councillors and miscellaneous other "worthies" moved in, and now sit on property worth millions. And this with no involvement of the queen or the prime minister or anyone else up the hierarchy. Simply the greed of a few well placed individuals, beyond reproach as wealthy and influential pillars of society.

E



Real0ne -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 11:56:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Guess what happened next?

Local councillors and miscellaneous other "worthies" moved in, and now sit on property worth millions. And this with no involvement of the queen or the prime minister or anyone else up the hierarchy. Simply the greed of a few well placed individuals, beyond reproach as wealthy and influential pillars of society.

E


thats the problem i see also.  most shopping, well every shopping center around here is not private and virtually all of them are corporately owned.



Sinergy -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 12:14:00 PM)

 

This actually has merit with the port of LA and LB.  The reason for this is the lack of rail infrastructure to support the tripling in size of the harbor.

What will need to happen in order to build this up is vast numbers of houses will need to be purchased from the owners in a fairly expensive housing market, by the government.

This is important because these rail lines would have no use apart from commerce for large corporations.

Sinergy



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 2:02:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger


quote:

Of course the whole idea of the constitution was to protect us from this. 


It still does, my friend. The Fifth amendment spells things out rather nicely :

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


quote:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that cities may seize and demolish private homes - even in non-blighted areas -- to make way for shopping malls and other private development. We host a debate with the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the homeowners and a spokesperson for the association of cities and towns in the Connecticut. [includes rush transcript]



I've noted before that while others are rankled by the courts ruling here, I've always seen it as a blessing in disguise. They've essentially done nothing more than take the ambiguity away and stipulate that it's a ''states issue’’, to be decided within local jurisdictions. It really woke people up....  It gave way for the states and individuals of the state, to more narrowly define how and where the ''takings clause'' could be used.

It had a two fold effect : It made the individual states stronger and more powerful in this regard and made the people understand/realize that private property is the cornerstone of freedom and individual liberty.

JMO

- R 


I don't disagree with you, Ranger... However, we need to look at the fact that these cases went to the Supreme Court as a result of a peceived "abuse" of Eminent Domain".  I do not believe that private property, regardless of the condition, should ever be forcibly taken away from the owners just because some private entity made a case for new revenues and jobs with a local town council.. 
 
Original:  Real One 
quote:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation; (b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity; c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right; (d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment; (e) acquiring abandoned property; (f) quieting title to real property; (g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility; (h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or (i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.


Do I misunderstand?  I don't think a private developer for a new hotel, target strip center, yada, yada, applies to any of the above explanations of public use.
We are speaking about private entities as opposed to necessary government use which is truly and logically justified to be  for the common good.  And even then, I feel that the local government should be held accountable and be expected to "make their case" that this is the best and only area where these government "for the common good" projects need to be located.  Instead of addressing the actual issue of abuse of this power, the Court throws it back into the laps of the local governments who then feel justified in doing whatever they damn well feel, because "The Supreme Court said we could".  But, I guess, as long as it isn't in our backyard, most people don't really pay attention.  It often take a personal loss to get angry and stand up and say "No".  I prefer not to wait until they come to take My house.  If I stand aside and say "okey dokey" today on that other neighborhood, there is really nothing to stop them from coming into My neighborhood tomorrow.  We are allowing the setting of dangerous precedents. 
I have a real problem with this. 
I am surprised that this thread is not getting much discussion!  Should I wonder why?
 
*Edited for those damn tags.

 



ferryman777 -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 2:15:53 PM)

General Question;
Can a public Utility, for instance, use eminent Domain to purchase property, then turn around, a year or so later, and sell it to some private corporation; say a WalMart. What I mean to ask is; can the situation of what happened to LadyEllen's dad, applie also.

Anyone ?



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 3:12:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferryman777

General Question;
Can a public Utility, for instance, use eminent Domain to purchase property, then turn around, a year or so later, and sell it to some private corporation; say a WalMart. What I mean to ask is; can the situation of what happened to LadyEllen's dad, applie also.

Anyone ?


Good question...and may need some research.  I am going to make a few assumptions here and hope I don't make and ass out of Myself!  *Smile*
Well, LadyEllen's Dad's situation was presented as a simple, "get out, there is no reason except compulsary purchase".  The fact is, if no justification has to be given, then abuse will occur. No accountability often equates to misappropriation.   And apparently it did in that case.  This is, unfortunately, the direction in which we are heading with the recent rulings.  My opinion, of course.
My gut answer would be that safeguards are or should be in place so that if and when legally covered eminent domain situations come up, there has been careful investigation and approval for a specific plan of action before an actual sale takes place.  And that is usually a fairly long process.  I would hope that if property is permitted to be purchased by a major utility company, as an example, because it is needed, that particular area is needed and all the plans are approved, that is what happens with that property.  It is not or should not be handed over with the proviso "if you change your mind, you can consider this a personal investment and sell it to someone else".  But...shrug...there is always room for abuse, and I bet there are people out there who could quote chapter and verse.
Anyone else?



SusanofO -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 3:48:23 PM)

There is a case here in Nebraska (just outside of Omaha) where a bunch of nuns who have owned land (surrounding their convent) for almost a century, were going to have to give it up to the state - which was planning to use it to build some local firing range and practice area for police and fire-fighters.

The public out-cry was so loud over that, that the state eventually backed down, and found another spot in the country to build their facility. However, the state dragged their decision on that out for over a year, before they backed down.

Here in Nebraska, there are many places they could build that facility, I think, or at least negotiate with a different seller - which is what the state eventually did. Practically 3/4 (if not more) of the land outside of Omaha in this state is rural area.

I haven't heard of any government entity lately, in my state, just seizing a citizen's land for governmental purposes, although I don't doubt it has probably happened here before.

- Susan



shianne -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 4:35:10 PM)

Not only that but the government has the right to use deadly force to enforce the taking of personal property. Keep giving the government more power and they will keep taking more. Hell in school now, some of the schools, require the kindergarten and first graders to put all their personal property school supplies, dump them in a box and then distribute them evenly to the class. Sounds like just teaching kids to share? Is it not a subtle lesson in obeying the authority and allowing personal property to be taken without question?

The US was built on the drive to be a better person, to work harder, to own more, and the right to not have it taken away. It is being destroyed in the opposite direction.

Maybe we should all read the rainbow fish and feel better.


Orion



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 5:02:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

There is a case here in Nebraska (just outside of Omaha) where a bunch of nuns who have owned land (surrounding their convent) for almost a century, were going to have to give it up to the state - which was planning to use it to build some local firing range and practice area for police and fire-fighters.

The public out-cry was so loud over that, that the state eventually backed down, and found another spot in the country to build their facility. However, the state dragged their decision on that out for over a year, before they backed down.

Here in Nebraska, there are many places they could build that facility, I think, or at least negotiate with a different seller - which is what the state eventually did. Practically 3/4 (if not more) of the land outside of Omaha in this state is rural area.

I haven't heard of any government entity lately, in my state, just seizing a citizen's land for governmental purposes, although I don't doubt it has probably happened here before.

- Susan

 
There's a great example of the people in action.  We are the government and many have forgotten that.  They just refer to the government as if it is some big entity somewhere that really has nothing to do with them on a personal level except what they receive in government benefits. 
Eminent Domain is usually not a quick process, and if things like this come to the attention of the people and the objections rise, that is what representation is all about.  It is supposed to be the will of the people.  Here is a great example of how the "government" was going to take a quick and easy route, when there were viable alternatives. 
They were forced to listen.  I am sure they were not necessarily happy, but, if nothing else, those in the positions of power will always be expedient!  At least if they have to depend on votes to keep them in that position of power.  *Smile*
I am glad it worked out.
In My local area, this was not a case of Eminent Domain, but Donald Trump was coming into the area to build a many storied building.  He got approval from the Phoenix Town Council, and then, much to their embarassment, had to withdraw that approval.  There was a zoning agreement on the books that nothing over a certain height could be built in the area, and the people made them stick to it.  Mr. Trump has graciously moved on, but that easily could have been a case of ignoring the zoning in order to line pockets.  And I am not talking about The Donald's pockets.



luckydog1 -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 5:13:08 PM)

But Real the Feds are not allowed to do anything they are not explictly authorised to right?  That is what you and Farg keep insisting.  Which clause gives the Feds the right (specifically enumerated) to interfere in a local issue like this?  It seems to me that the 10th amendmant would require the Feds to have nothing to say on this issue.  And as I pointed out, no one is being paid a nickle for thier farm here.



UtopianRanger -> RE: Eminent Domain Ruling (4/4/2007 5:30:33 PM)

quote:

However, we need to look at the fact that these cases went to the Supreme Court as a result of a peceived "abuse" of Eminent Domain".  I do not believe that private property, regardless of the condition, should ever be forcibly taken away from the owners just because some private entity made a case for new revenues and jobs with a local town council..


Hands down agree with you my beautiful blond lady friend ; }  But trust me that this ruling was essentially a ''call to arms'', for people to get up off their asses, get involved and take their power back. Last year we saw a record amount of legislation passed/enacted that protects private property from nutty, power-hungry bureaucratic infringements.

Shortly after the ruling came out a year-and-a-half back, we had record turn out at the city council meetings where folks had it placed on the agenda for discussion. I can remember one particular meeting where our city manager actually tried to talk-up a half-ass rebuttal for why in some instances using the ''takings clause'' to broaden/beautify cash-strapped, depressed local economies would be a true benefit to all.

That rebuttal was met with irate, stone-faced interruptions, where the ''gavel'' had no effect. One guy stood up and said that if it was ever used in ''this town'' local officials might find themselves ''carried off'' from the side walk one night and tossed into the ''narrows'' part of our river, which is 45 degrees in the winter time and moves through the canyon at speeds approaching twenty five miles per hour. Needless to say, the council got quiet.

I think in some of these super liberal places back east and maybe California, where you have these folks in your local government who have been fully indoctrinated into such little known concepts like ''Communitarianism'', you're always going to experience ''collective thinking '' and a ''Hive type mentality''  --- People just need to rise up, fight back and remind these fruit cakes that they're merely servants of the people.





- R






Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875