News & Politics - Supreme Court Ruling basically takes away private property

**TheAngel** · 06-27-2005, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Armed robe-ery: Supreme Court heists property rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 27, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

There's a theory out there as to why the Supreme Court outlawed medically prescribed marijuana ... so there would be more left for the them to smoke. This would at least explain how some justices are satisfying their "munchies" by snacking on the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that private-property rights are sacred, unless a city decides they could instead collect more taxes from a different source. The Court reached a 5-to-4 decision which cleared the way for the city of New London, Conn., to proceed with a plan to replace a residential neighborhood with office space, a conference hotel, a pedestrian riverwalk, and new residences – presumably where the old residents could buy back their land at several times what they paid for it years ago.

In this case, the city of New London, Conn., squared off against homeowners who were trying to keep the municipality from condemning their houses for use as part of a redevelopment project, including a $270 million facility to be built by Pfizer.

The Court's decision was based simply on the fact that the economy of the area is depressed, and the project would bring in far more in tax revenue than the people who live there pay. The ruling also saves area government from having to get rid of people the old-fashioned and slower way: by raising their property taxes until they can't afford to pay them. Eventually, there would have been plenty of room for Pfizer due to Pforeclosures.

One woman, who will now have to move, has lived in the same house for 87 years, ever since she was born. I'm sure the government will break the news to her in traditionally gentle fashion: "Unless you want your tombstone to be a Fuddruckers sign, beat it Grandma!"

The five justices who voted against private property were a group whose next colonoscopy will find an anomaly, and the large polyps will turn out to be their own heads – benign to them, malignant to the rest of us.

Those judges were: "Librarian from Hades," Ruth Bader Ginsburg; John Paul Stevens, who was nominated to the Court by Gerald Ford, perhaps after falling down the steps of Air Force One and suffering a closed-head injury; mamma's boy and Stan Laurel ringer, David Souter; another stain left on the black robe of the Court by Bill Clinton alongside the Bader Ginsburg discharge – Stephen Breyer; and Anthony Kennedy, who proves that even Reagan made mistakes.

While many issues decided by the Court can and should be debated, often it's their reasoning, or lack thereof, that we should find most troubling. For example, when the Supreme Court decided that juveniles cannot be executed, Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in that case:

The stark reality is that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty. It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty. While not controlling our outcome, [it] does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.

Who loosened the wheels on the intellectual Hoverounds of these coots? "International opinion"? "The United States is the only country in the world that gives sanction to ..."? What does the U.S. Constitution say? Who cares? As long as nobody in the world cries "sacre bleu," they figure they've done their jobs.

Where is the anger from the left concerning the New London ruling? Where are the self-proclaimed champions of the working class and downtrodden? Where is the outrage from Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, home-stater John Kerry, et al? Simple – their furor is cooled by an understanding that they'd be admitting agreement with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and the rest of the dissenters. With judicial nominations sure to be on the horizon, the last thing Democrats need is to be seen on the side of the same legal philosophy they're preparing to "Bork."

John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion that New London's plan "unquestionably serves a public purpose." Well, so does plowing under the Supreme Court building, but we don't have the right to do that, do we? Not unless a developer wants the space. After all, Justice Stevens, a shopping mall will supply more tax revenue than the Court, right? Government buildings, not to mention their contents, only consume tax money.

Watching the Court fall victim to its own "reasoning" could never repair the damage done by the ruling, but it would provide some small but pleasurable measure of justice, if only briefly, to those who could otherwise find none.

Quote:

Supreme Court decision undermines property rights

Monday, June 27, 2005

With their decision in Kelo v. New London allowing local government to take property through eminent domain and transfer it to other private owners, the U.S. Supreme Court has made property rights in the United States as insecure as those in Cuba.

You can now live on or do business on your property only so long as our politicians and their big business patrons do not want it.

Jerry Kohn
Oak Forest

===

Home ownership used to be part of the American dream and private property constitutionally protected but the Supreme Court has found something that appears nowhere in the Constitution - that government can take property from A and give it to B if B pays more taxes.

The Fifth Amendment clearly states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Which part of "public use" does the Supreme Court not understand? How can private developments be considered public use?

Where are the liberals, the champions of the middle class, to protest the fact Joe Sixpack's house can now be seized and sold to big corporations and real estate developers? They are strangely silent about this latest outrage from activist judges.

Governments argue that forcibly transferring property from one person to another is justified because it increase tax revenue and employment, thereby serving a public purpose. But if the promise of more jobs or more revenue is enough to take someone's property, then nobody is safe in their home.

Practically any home in the United States would generate more tax dollars as a warehouse club. Small businesses provide fewer jobs than an industrial park. And houses of worship produce no tax dollars and hardly any jobs.

The Institute for Justice recently released a report showing that in the last five years, state and local governments have taken or threatened to take more than 10,000 homes, businesses, churches and private land. In 3,700 of these cases private homeowners or small business owners were forced to sell their property to private developers.

Eminent domain was designed to facilitate the building of roads, bridges, and the like. The Fifth Amendment was not written as a means of increasing government revenues at the expense of an individual's property rights. The right of Americans to be secure in their homes and property is in serious jeopardy.

This time, it is the bulldozers, and not the British, that are coming.

Daniel John Sobieski
Chicago

I just thought you guys might find this interesting. I live on 27 acres in the center of a residential area in southern Indiana and it worries me that since the Supreme Court has made this ruling, the government can simply come in and take my land which has been lived on by my family for five generations. Welcome to America.

**Avatar** · 06-27-2005, 07:29 AM

That was an incredibly partisan news-item.

This is a (quite straightforward) case of expropriation/eminent domain ... as long as they pay just compensation (see fifth amendment) the state are allowed to seize and redistribute your property. What consititues 'public use' may be debated, and that's what the Supreme Court did, but it's not a new development.

mh67511 · 06-27-2005, 04:00 PM

I think it's wrong to take someones land for private development. If a PRIVATE DEVELOPER wants land than they need to contact the friggin' landowners and that's what the law should be. They shouldn't be able to hide behind the local governments and have them do their dirty work.

It's one thing to pay someone money to build a highway or school and in those cases I think they should look for areas that affect the fewest numbers of people. But seizing someones property and then selling it to a private developer to build a hotel? It's ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed.

I'm surprised this isn't more of a concern to low-income advocates since many low-income areas constitute these so called "blighted" areas, whatever the hell "blighted" means.

If cities are so concerned about tax revenue why don't they just increase the sales tax or cigarette tax or hotel tax orr etc. There are so many different ways to increase tax revenue. And hell, half the time they give business tax BREAKS just to bring their business to the community! Anyways there's never a guarantee new developments will be successfull.

TomServo · 06-27-2005, 04:57 PM

This is bad news....I hope my nobody wants to build a mall where I live.

Milt Palacio · 06-27-2005, 07:31 PM

I am by no means a legal expert but this seems like a very bad decision to me.

Can somebody do a better job explaining it than that horrible article did? Will there be big implications?

mh67511 · 06-27-2005, 08:18 PM

I think all they did was say that for a city to define "public use" as taking land, giving to a private developer, and opening a hotel, etc. is perfectly legal if the tax revenues will be higher. Cities always had the right to take the land, but I believe they could only take land that was blighted and only if they intended the land for "public use." So I think all they did was broaden the definition of "public use."

That's probably wrong but that's what I got from it (I heard a few news reports on the TV regarding this as well.)

mh67511 · 06-28-2005, 04:05 PM

Don't you just love the irony?

Quote:

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

TomServo · 06-28-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh67511

I think all they did was say that for a city to define "public use" as taking land, giving to a private developer, and opening a hotel, etc. is perfectly legal if the tax revenues will be higher. Cities always had the right to take the land, but I believe they could only take land that was blighted and only if they intended the land for "public use." So I think all they did was broaden the definition of "public use."

That's probably wrong but that's what I got from it (I heard a few news reports on the TV regarding this as well.)

that is pretty much it. So basically any private developer or corporation that wants to build something where someone's home is located can do so if they know how to lobby politicians into saying it is for the public good.

*Natalie* · 06-28-2005, 07:08 PM

*sighs*

Jeny · 07-14-2005, 07:14 AM

I can see why they voted the way they did... it just doesn't mean I agree with it.

I can understand eminent domain being used for public uses such as freeways and schools... but its outrageous to think that any private corporation could stand behind the local goverment and weasel people out of their homes.

Like someone said above, I hope nobody decides they want to build something on my land one day... the supreme court has made it pretty hard to fight it now. thanks.

**TheAngel** · 07-16-2005, 08:53 AM

To build something, as was previously said before, such as schools and highways is understandable. Some homes in my neck of the woods are being taken by the state because a new bridge is being built that would releave traffic congestion and would help inprove the economic flow between two neighboring cities. However, to think that my land, 26 acres that my family has owned for nearly five generations, could be taken by the government and I could be paid some piddly little sum that they have approved and could then be sold to a contractor to build a neighborhood or a hotel or something that would supposedly boost the economy. In all reality it's a crap shoot, there's no guarantee that the hotel or the houses or whatever would boost the economy but a school would relieve overcrowding, a road will releave traffic congestion, those are viable solutions to a presented problem. Building office space, residential areas, and a boardwalk are not solutions but possible just a bandaid to a much larger economic problem in the area.

GhostWriter · 07-22-2005, 05:25 PM

I believe that none of this is at all justified and that the government can try your hardest to make it seem right but they know their wrong. That's unconstitutional.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Supreme Court Ruling basically takes away private property