'Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes'

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:53 am

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.

thepieman · Post by **thepieman** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:03 am

raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

whats going on in this country lately!

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:10 am

It's no big deal, let's all keep watching Desperate Housewives and worrying about our Viagra...

Nothing to see here.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:12 am

I wouldn't let mine go..

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:17 am

Zilog B wrote:I wouldn't let mine go..

It's not up to you to "let" them anymore. They're just going to do it. Our rights are now all up for the revoking...it's just a matter of time before they're all subject to this kind of outrageous abridgement.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:20 am

Burke wrote:It's not up to you to "let" them anymore. They're just going to do it. Our rights are now all up for the revoking...it's just a matter of time before they're all subject to this kind of outrageous abridgement.

Well, let's just say i didn't post my complete thought on the matter, I'll let you finish the ending.

BTW, I'm on the same side of this issue as you are.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:24 am

If the Legislative branch is going after the First Amendment, and the Judicial is targeting the Fifth, I wonder which one is on the menu for the Executive this week.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:29 am

Jim wrote:If the Legislative branch is going after the First Amendment, and the Judicial is targeting the Fifth, I wonder which one is on the menu for the Executive this week.

It better not be the 2nd, i'll be pissed

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:36 am

I'm betting they'll save that one for last, since that's the one that'll actually get people riled up (after all, the First Amendment is nothing more than a shield for those Anti-American liberal crybabies at the ACLU, so who needs it).

Probably the only thing more dangerous than these attacks are America's apathy towards it.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:37 am

Jim wrote:I'm betting they'll save that one for last, since that's the one that'll actually get people riled up (after all, the First Amendment is nothing more than a shield for those Anti-American liberal crybabies at the ACLU, so who needs it).

Probably the only thing more dangerous than these attacks are America's apathy towards it.

Yep. I personally think some people are starting to wake up. I hope it's not too late.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:44 am

The love of money was once the root of all evil. Now apathy is, too.

There aren't enough people waking up fast enough nor enough who are willing to speak out against this kind of tyrannical 9-man fist ****...Americans always wait until **** hits the fan and the fan falls over on them before they do anything.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:46 am

Zilog B wrote:Yep. I personally think some people are starting to wake up. I hope it's not too late.

The rich get richer and the poor get done up the arse

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:51 am

Izzo wrote:The rich get richer and the poor get done up the arse

This isn't about rich vs. poor. The haves vs. have-nots is just a distraction from the larger point...this false "for the greater good" Spock mantra crap is choking the republic. And people are lapping up the tapioca of "we're trying to protect you from terrorists" and "it will stimulate the economy" like stroke victims in a spinning wheelchair.

Sadly, I am convinced we will have to wake up to a Half-Life 2 style world before 99% of the mindless masses figure it out.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:57 am

Burke wrote:This isn't about rich vs. poor. The haves vs. have-nots is just a distraction from the larger point...this false "for the greater good" Spock mantra crap is choking the republic. And people are lapping up the tapioca of "we're trying to protect you from terrorists" and "it will stimulate the economy" like stroke victims in a spinning wheelchair.

Sadly, I am convinced we will have to wake up to a Half-Life 2 style world before 99% of the mindless masses figure it out.

I get it .. sure I do but where did this originate from ... some developer with deep pockets started this process ... who is to say that a homeowner would get fair value for their property...the cities now can apparently tell a person to get out , here is some cash now move along ..

in my opinion it does boil down to the have and have-nots because the 'haves' are benefitting from this while have-nots aren't ... which is typical ...

I am just dumbfounded that this passed ... I guess i'll just burn my flag in protest ... oh wait

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:00 pm

I'll have to cover my home with a huge American Flag tarp.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:06 pm

Unreal ...I printed the story off CNN for a couple people here at work to read...

I was told ....."well, as long as you get paid for it what's the big deal...you might even make money off it"

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:09 pm

Izzo wrote:Unreal ...I printed the story off CNN for a couple people here at work to read...

I was told ....."well, as long as you get paid for it what's the big deal...you might even make money off it"

Well, dust off your sandals and find move on to more willing ears. Great advice from Paul the Apostle.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:12 pm

Burke wrote:Well, dust off your sandals and find move on to more willing ears. Great advice from Paul the Apostle.

...I wanna roll up the story and club them over the head with it

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:31 pm

Someday maybe the Iraqis will liberate us from our oppressive regime

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:33 pm

Blisster wrote:Someday maybe the Iraqis will liberate us from our oppressive regime

We'll need it.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:36 pm

Blisster wrote:Someday maybe the Iraqis will liberate us from our oppressive regime

Now THAT would be irony at it's finest.

Chrome · Post by **Chrome** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:20 pm

Welcome to fascism. The interests of government and business subjugate those of the individual.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:25 pm

The area in question...I can see it outside my office window. Turn to my right and I can see the Superior Courthouse out that window.

That Ft Trumbull area has been shut down for a looooong long time, people knew what was going on over there. Blighted...badly, even though the article states some are not considered blighted, the area is trashed. The city of New London has been undergoing a huge gentrification project (basically cleaning up and making more upscale, restoring some nice historical areas too...old whaling history here). Industrial areas have been slowly squeezing in on that peninsula from all sides for a long time. The writing was on the wall, even in braille.

Now..how about those people in the once beautiful country that is not "casino-ized" by the native indians....they owned gorgeous farm houses and large lots, with intentions of living there all their life. Many were farms that had been in the family for generations, and by all intentions that was to be continued...but the indians managed to get their way there and force many to sell to them.

Noevo · Post by **Noevo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:46 pm

I can sense the State of Michigan drooling over the concept of bulldozing Detroit and starting over. Move the people out, raze the city (with the exception of the 5 modern buildings there) and then rebuild it and move the people back in. See, theres always a positive

Noevo · Post by **Noevo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:11 pm

also interesting; from the actuall ruling

"Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164"

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:12 pm

thepieman wrote:whats going on in this country lately!

They've been doing that in Stockton for YEARS.

tao_jones · Post by **tao_jones** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:14 pm

Burke wrote:The love of money was once the root of all evil. Now apathy is, too.

The statement reminds me of the part in Boondock Saints that the Priest says...

Movie wrote:there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

I saw this first hand by my old college. The city was adding an addtional lane to the road...at first the people that owned houses were offered settlements if they chose not to go with those the city would come in and offer less money and then condem the houses.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:38 pm

Odd, the Justices *I* thought that would be pro-big business were the dissenters. Shows how little I know of the supreme court I guess.

I deal with I. Domain at work and it is SCARY at times. Basically like this:

"Leave, get out you have X days to be gone. Here is just compensations AS WE SEE FIT"

No argument, no legal recourse for the average citizen. You just leave and hope they(gov't) compensates well enough to snag a new home. Spooky.

Any legal types here know what the next step in the process is? Can this be appealed so we(citizens) don't get ass-****ed by municipalities that aren't above a bribe or two? Judicial branch is handing WAY too much power over to the government.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:43 pm

I been mullin this one over for awhile now. Office work has ceased....

Supreme court DIDN'T really make a ruling allowing anything new. Supreme court just chucked the ball back into the state courts and told em that the interpretation of "public use" was up to the local government. Thats about all I can wrap my noodle around right now. Been trying to read the tea-leaves in terms of what the ruling might have looked like if the supreme court had stopped the development. I just can't seem to figure out what would have been said. It almost would require a concrete ruling on what "public use" constitutes. Smacks of states-rights kinda ruling.

Still, I'm in limbo, this thing stunned me. I just pray that somehow, someway this can be reversed or re-thought.

IRS · Post by **IRS** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:33 pm

This happened when they built the new Jeep Plant...... they made one offer then told them what day to be out.

It also happened when they put in the Green Belt Parkway, it's a of ramp that leads directly into down town Toledo.

Both were over 30 houses each if I remember right, some of the people that lost there houses to the new jeep plant tried to fight it, didn't make a bit of difference.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:42 pm

So if the majority of your equity is in a house and the city rolls you over using this decision, you're in the poor house. Good luck to you.

Spammy · Post by **Spammy** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:49 pm

Burke wrote:So if the majority of your equity is in a house and the city rolls you over using this decision, you're in the poor house. Good luck to you.

Excellent point.

If you buy a home and get a **** load of equity, they are going to pay you the purchase price and a very small margin of equity increase. No where near what you would get if you sold it to another home buyer, (based on values in that neighborhood)

No where close to what you could sell it for

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:58 pm

Spammy wrote:Excellent point.

If you buy a home and get a **** load of equity, they are going to pay you the purchase price and a very small margin of equity increase. No where near what you would get if you sold it to another home buyer, (based on values in that neighborhood)

No where close to what you could sell it for

ASSUMING they are obligated to pay a decent price...who's to say that they don't decide next that they don't have to pay fair market price or anything at all? If you resist, you're a terrorist!

This isn't like imminent domain, there is no life and death immediacy; this is wink-wink gladhanding between increasingly greedy city officials and developers.

Spammy · Post by **Spammy** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:15 pm

[quote="Burke"]ASSUMING they are obligated to pay a decent price...who's to say that they don't decide next that they don't have to pay fair market price or anything at all? If you resist, you're a terrorist!

This isn't like imminent domain, there is no life and death immediacy]

mountainman · Post by **mountainman** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:28 pm

One of these guys going crazy on a crew with an assault rifle would stifle their progress.

Who thinks it'll happen?

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:06 pm

mountainman wrote:One of these guys going crazy on a crew with an assault rifle would stifle their progress.

Who thinks it'll happen?

All that would do is require the already militarized police force to come out every time, cracking down in advance to try and stem the homeowner's defense.

They might as well have a live burning of the Constitution, the ratings would be galactic.

mountainman · Post by **mountainman** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:22 pm

Burke wrote:All that would do is require the already militarized police force to come out every time, cracking down in advance to try and stem the homeowner's defense.

They might as well have a live burning of the Constitution, the ratings would be galactic.

PPV?

Would it be sponsored by Don King and Trump?

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:24 pm

I dunno.......

Somehow we need to figure out how to best utilize the land. I'm sure there's some greed involved here somewhere. Still, if it looks like a warzone and is due for development, then there is a gain, right?

My only beef is that land owners get paid what it's REALLY worth, as the before and after are two different things.

mountainman · Post by **mountainman** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:28 pm

Usually (at least in my town), if someone is trying to take over a lot of land for development, they usually pay a very good price (if not great). We just bought this house that is just down from a VERY large P&G depot/factory. I heard they are going to try to buy us up (small neighborhood). If so, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Man, I hope they do.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:31 pm

...what am I working for then ?