Eminent Domain

[Melody]

The Supreme Court heard a case today regarding the government's right of eminent domain. If you haven't been following it, here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.eminent.domain/

It amazes me that anyone can possibly see any similarity between the government using eminent domain laws to build public roads, or buildings such as schools, and stealing someone's land to sell to another private individual/company. Let's hope the Supreme Court can see the difference.

 

[jamaesi]

"Without any limits on the government's eminent domain power, every home, church, or corner store" would be vulnerable to being replaced by "shopping centers, business parks and office buildings, since they produce more tax revenue," said Scott Bullock, attorney for the homeowners, before the high court Tuesday.

Jeez.

Our government at work. <3

 

[Scuba Pete]

That is beyond the pale. I hope they have enough sense to "just say no" to the Good Ol Boys politics of the GOP.

 

[linwood]

This is a major legal battle in a county just to the south of me .

They have established eminent domain for a large area of undeveloped lots in order to sell them to a devoloper to build a village.

The plot owners have taken them to court.

The county is arguing that the taxes levied on the new developmentwill benefit the entire county as if that is the same as public improvements such as roads and traffic tools.

 

[No*s]

I firmly hope it is defeated.

 

[Melody]

This is my favorite part of the entire trial and I soooo hope this will stick in the judges minds:

Wesley Horton, representing New London, said governments need the flexibility to allow private development in areas that could produce more tax revenue.

"So if you took away a Motel 6 and replaced it with a Ritz Carlton," asked O'Connor, "More taxes. That's OK?"

"Yes it's OK," Horton replied quietly.

"So if B pays more than A, that's acceptable?" countered Justice Antonin Scalia.

Again Horton answered "Yes."

If they allow this, nobody is safe. We're back to the railroad robber baron days.

 

[Pah]

The Supreme Court heard a case today regarding the government's right of eminent domain. If you haven't been following it, here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.eminent.domain/

It amazes me that anyone can possibly see any similarity between the government using eminent domain laws to build public roads, or buildings such as schools, and stealing someone's land to sell to another private individual/company. Let's hope the Supreme Court can see the difference.

I hope I am wrong but there may be precednt in some municipalities selling their land to make the display of a cross or Ten Commandment stone part of a private venture.

Property can be taken (with no goal in mind) for various reasons including the appearance of being a slum or for safety

But I agree with you - I'm just a bit pessimistic

 

[Melody]

Property can be taken (with no goal in mind) for various reasons including the appearance of being a slum or for safety

That actually is part of their argument and, in fact the Supreme Court set precedent when they ruled that it was ok for Washington to eliminate the slums back in the 60's (I think).

However, this is not the case here. One home owner bought her home in the 80's and has spent the last 25 years restoring the victorian house to its original grandeur. This is about a business developer who couldn't convince everyone to sell their homes and went to the city. It's about the city trying to steal property from one private individual to give to another because it puts more money in their pocket.

If that's all it's about, then we're all at risk of losing our homes or businessess to the Donald Trump's of the world just because they have deeper pockets.

 

[Isis-Astoroth]

There is something not right about the government taking another persons land to benefit the 'public' when the person who owned the land won't benefit.

 

[TranceAm]

There is something not right about the government taking another persons land to benefit the 'public' when the person who owned the land won't benefit.

But that is only a small part of the discussion...
The other person who gets the land will render more benefits to forementioned government.

I think the next article will show some ot that "greed":

Court fight: This land is your land?

[size=-1]PETE YOST[/size]

[size=-1]Associated Press[/size]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struggled Tuesday to balance the rights of property owners against the goals of town officials who want to sweep away old neighborhoods and turn the land over to private developers.

Riverfront residents who are suing the town of New London, Conn., say their working-class neighborhood is slated for destruction primarily to build an office complex that will benefit a pharmaceutical company that built its research and development headquarters nearby.

But an attorney representing the city, Wesley Horton, told the court the revitalization project would create new jobs and trigger much-needed economic growth. He said increased tax revenue is enough of a legal basis for the city to exercise the power of eminent domain and compel the residents to sell their homes.

If a city wanted to seize property in order to turn a "Motel 6 into a Ritz-Carlton, that would be OK?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked.

"Yes, your honor, it would be," Horton replied.

The justices expressed sympathy for the longtime residents. At the same time, they questioned whether they have the authority to stop the town's plans.

The outcome could have significant implications.


<snip>


From: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/10967606.htm?1c