Better wipe the home off your asset list

[johnlw]

The Founders are turning in their graves.

How do you spell Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer?

S O C I A L I S T S

I only hope the average American understands how disgusting this decision is. Not only is it a blatant and willful disregard of one of the bedrock principles of this country, it is the moral equivalent of the previously mentioned "Justices" setting fire to the Constitution of the United States.

Keep that image in your mind because that’s what these individuals just did.

John

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

http://www.watleyreview.com/2005/062105-2.html

New York State to take New Jersey by eminent domain

 

[eridanus]

The Founders are turning in their graves.

How do you spell Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer?

S O C I A L I S T S

I'd call them lapdogs for the capitalist pigs myself.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/souter_p...SQDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Ha ha ha...local townie proposes seizing justice souters home, to replace it with "lost liberty inn", as the inn will generate much higher taxes than the supreme justices current home does.

Wonder how far this one will go...

 

[laurence]

Hmmm, update

Normally I don't like congressional shenanigans, but I'm pretty happy to hear about this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161279,00.html

Maybe I won't be kicked out of my house after all.

 

[maddythebeagle]

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said.

This explains a lot. Maybe this dirty liberal should go back to high school civics class. It isnt the job of the supreme court to make laws that need to be enforced. The court interpreted the law. The congress can change the law. That is balance of power in action.

 

[Martha]

I just saw Laurences post on the proposed law to deny federal funding to governmental entities that use eminent domain to finance private projects. This is very troublesome to me. Despite the Supreme Court decision, many states already had allowed eminent domain for private projects so long as their was a public benefit--such as cleaning up a blighted area. This power had long been used in my community with good results. For example, a very run down area of town was condemned to put in a paper mill. Most owners sold happily but there always are a few holdouts. A current project involves a large expension of a medical center. This expansion provides huge benefits to a community that has grown little for years, and which lost significant population after the steel industry crash of the 1970s.

We aren't talking marinas here.

I haven't read the proposed legislation; I hope it isn't painting with as broad a brush as it seems.

 

[Spanky]

Despite the Supreme Court decision, many states already had allowed eminent domain for private projects so long as their was a public benefit--such as cleaning up a blighted area.

What is the definition of public benefit? Who gets to decide on what will serve the public interest? It seems that the decsion is always based on economic or financial criteria, e.g., brining in more revenue, creating more jobs. This topic will always be debatable and the decision will always be controversial since we are only human with different perspectives.

 

[Martha]

Spanky, I agree that the decisions are tough and not without controversy. But what I saw was my city in trouble. Any new businesses of significant size would end up in the suburbs while the city itself stagnated. Due to condemnation, the owners of blighted property got good money for their property and their relocation costs. A city is being revitalized. Good jobs are coming to town. Without this power, one holdout can prevent a project the public at large believes is invaluable. But I do worry about the tyranny of the majority.

 

[laurence]

My initial, emotional reaction was that the decision by the supremes was too broad (look at me! Armchair quarterbacking the Supreme Court! ). I whole heartedly support eminent domain for public projects or redevelopment, but solely basis justification on tax revenue means anyone with money can push anyone else off their property if they so desire. In California, with prop 13, property taxes only bump up to current market value when the home is sold. Hell, some one could knock on my door and say "you are selling me your house because I'll pay higher property taxes, here are the govt. papers, you have 30 days!". Hey, increased tax base! I think the pendulum has swung way to far in one direction with this decision.

 

[Spanky]

Don’t worry - The reform of Proposition 13 protection for property will be formidable to implement because of potential oppositions and myriad lawsuits. No one is willing to pay their fair share of property taxes to fund education and other public services.

 

[Honkie]

US judge set to lose home under law he brought in
By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 10/07/2005)

A US Supreme Court Judge could lose his country farmhouse thanks to a controversial law which he himself voted to bring in.

Furious protesters are plotting to seize David Souter's $150,000 (£86,400) 19th century home and turn it into a hotel after he voted to give towns the legal right to make compulsory purchases. They view his support for the legislation as an affront to every American's inviolable right to personal property.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/10/wjudge10.xml

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I just saw Laurences post on the proposed law to deny federal funding to governmental entities that use eminent domain to finance private projects.  This is very troublesome to me.  Despite the Supreme Court decision, many states already had allowed eminent domain for private projects so long as their was a public benefit--such as cleaning up a blighted area.  This power had long been used in my community with good results.  For example, a very run down area of town was condemned to put in a paper mill.  Most owners sold happily but there always are a few holdouts.  A current project involves a large expension of a medical center.  This expansion provides huge benefits to a community that has grown little for years, and which lost significant population after the steel industry crash of the 1970s.

We aren't talking marinas here.   

I haven't read the proposed legislation; I hope it isn't painting with as broad a brush as it seems.

You all know how I feel about this stuff, but as usual I go a step beyond.
I would say (except for roads, bridges, etc) there should NEVER be any
"public taking" of property. "Blight" will eventually be fixed by private money
and entreprenuerial instincts, if you could only keep the government out
of it (which of course you can't). Blight I can stand. Trampling on The Bill
of Rights gets my back up.

JG

 

[laurence]

You all know how I feel about this stuff, but as usual I go a step beyond.
I would say (except for roads, bridges, etc) there should NEVER be any
"public taking" of property. "Blight" will eventually be fixed by private money
and entreprenuerial instincts, if you could only keep the government out
of it (which of course you can't). Blight I can stand. Trampling on The Bill
of Rights gets my back up.

JG

And we now enter the small area where Mr. Galt and I agree!