Not if some rich bastard has his eye on your land for development...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotu ... index.html
Plan on passing your house down to your children?
Moderator: Dictators in Training
Um, that's a good thing. You don't want some Dufus getting in the way of production just because his grandpappy built the house he's living in. They're getting fair market value for the property anyway, so just take the money, move and stfu.
Last edited by Narrock on Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
This is seriously absurd.
I can begrudgingly accept clearing houses for roads, but WHAT BUSINESS does the government have helping private projects - no less by forcing innocent people out of their property against their will?
And fair market value is BS. A person has the right to decide for themselves what they want to sell *their* property for. And don't forget that the government isn't reimbursing them for the cost of the move, the cost of finding a new house, and of finding a new job if you're far away enough.
Pure insanity.
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
Mindia wrote:Um, that's a good thing. You don't want some Dufus getting in the way of production just because his grandpappy built the house he's living in. They're getting fair market value for the property anyway, so just take the money, move and stfu.
you've got to be kidding me Mindia
There's absolutely no way a government should be able to FORCE you to move, just so they can put up a mall, or an office tower, or whatever
This is the part I don't get...but it is early and maybe I am confused...
So Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were against this decision....and the liberals and moderates voted in favor of it?
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.
So Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were against this decision....and the liberals and moderates voted in favor of it?
Tikker wrote:Mindia wrote:Um, that's a good thing. You don't want some Dufus getting in the way of production just because his grandpappy built the house he's living in. They're getting fair market value for the property anyway, so just take the money, move and stfu.
you've got to be kidding me Mindia
There's absolutely no way a government should be able to FORCE you to move, just so they can put up a mall, or an office tower, or whatever
Look at the population explosion. Does it really make sense to halt production for sentimental value?
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Scalia is pretty consistent in his viewpoints and this goes against it. The liberals are pretty much for government doing what they want. Why does this surprise you, Shiraz?
Mindia, eminent domain should not be extended to 'private' concerns ever. I have no earthly idea how the SCOTUS managed to pass this, and it's hugely troubling. It's too easy to take advantage of.
Mindia, eminent domain should not be extended to 'private' concerns ever. I have no earthly idea how the SCOTUS managed to pass this, and it's hugely troubling. It's too easy to take advantage of.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
– C. S. Lewis
– C. S. Lewis
Mindia wrote:Tikker wrote:Mindia wrote:Um, that's a good thing. You don't want some Dufus getting in the way of production just because his grandpappy built the house he's living in. They're getting fair market value for the property anyway, so just take the money, move and stfu.
you've got to be kidding me Mindia
There's absolutely no way a government should be able to FORCE you to move, just so they can put up a mall, or an office tower, or whatever
Look at the population explosion. Does it really make sense to halt production for sentimental value?
what's it got to do with sentimental value?
You could build a brand new house, and 6 months later the government could come and say, "We decided this lot is the perfect spot for a mini-mall. Here's your cheque for the value we've appraised your house at. You have 1 month to move"
You have no legal recourse to stop them from bulldozing your brand new house
-
mappatazee
- NT Traveller
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:54 am
- Location: au Eugene
- Contact:
Tikker wrote:Mindia wrote:Tikker wrote:Mindia wrote:Um, that's a good thing. You don't want some Dufus getting in the way of production just because his grandpappy built the house he's living in. They're getting fair market value for the property anyway, so just take the money, move and stfu.
you've got to be kidding me Mindia
There's absolutely no way a government should be able to FORCE you to move, just so they can put up a mall, or an office tower, or whatever
Look at the population explosion. Does it really make sense to halt production for sentimental value?
what's it got to do with sentimental value?
You could build a brand new house, and 6 months later the government could come and say, "We decided this lot is the perfect spot for a mini-mall. Here's your cheque for the value we've appraised your house at. You have 1 month to move"
You have no legal recourse to stop them from bulldozing your brand new house
Yes, it's actually not a new thing. I learned that in Real Estate school 7 years ago. It's called Eminent domain. Wikipedia has a good explanation of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
Last edited by Narrock on Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Mindia wrote:Tikker wrote:Mindia wrote:Tikker wrote:Mindia wrote:Um, that's a good thing. You don't want some Dufus getting in the way of production just because his grandpappy built the house he's living in. They're getting fair market value for the property anyway, so just take the money, move and stfu.
you've got to be kidding me Mindia
There's absolutely no way a government should be able to FORCE you to move, just so they can put up a mall, or an office tower, or whatever
Look at the population explosion. Does it really make sense to halt production for sentimental value?
what's it got to do with sentimental value?
You could build a brand new house, and 6 months later the government could come and say, "We decided this lot is the perfect spot for a mini-mall. Here's your cheque for the value we've appraised your house at. You have 1 month to move"
You have no legal recourse to stop them from bulldozing your brand new house
Yes, it's actually not a new thing. I learned that in Real Estate school 5 years ago. It's called Eminent domain. Wikipedia has a good explanation of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
EXCEPT This gives the government the ability to sieze PRIVATE property and hand it over to PRIVATE developers to do with it as they please. I can understand siezing property to build roads etc but giving a privately owned company authority to level a neighborhood so they can put in condos, Walmart, etc is fucking ridiculous.
EXCEPT This gives the government the ability to sieze PRIVATE property and hand it over to PRIVATE developers to do with it as they please. I can understand siezing property to build roads etc but giving a privately owned company authority to level a neighborhood so they can put in condos, Walmart, etc is fucking ridiculous.
You're missing the entire point. The only thing the state cares about is how much tax dollars and employment opportunities are generated.
In this case, a Riverside hotel and shopping plaza will generate more tax revenue and more jobs than a residential neighborhood.
