Supreme Court says your house is theirs
06-23-2005, 09:49 AM
#12
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breyer - Clinton
Ginsberg - Clinton
Thomas - Bush
Souter - Bush
Kennedy - Reagan
Rehnquist - Nixon
Scalia - Clinton (just kiddin') Reagan
O'Connor - Reagan
Stevens - Ford
Ginsberg - Clinton
Thomas - Bush
Souter - Bush
Kennedy - Reagan
Rehnquist - Nixon
Scalia - Clinton (just kiddin') Reagan
O'Connor - Reagan
Stevens - Ford
06-23-2005, 10:39 AM
#13
Originally Posted by canberra,Jun 23 2005, 02:32 PM
I can't write what I'm thinking/feeling in a public forum.... so I'll just leave it at
I think I saw a segment on 60 minutes on this subject matter. Maybe it was when it first proposed??? I'm not sure I'm right on the segment, but this decision is WAY over the top, IMHO.
06-23-2005, 11:08 AM
#14
Once I found out that the goverment can take away your house for failure to pay property taxes, I realised that Americans don't own homes - they just rent them from the government.
Is this the same country that sparked a revolution over a tax on tea, or have I stepped into the Twilight Zone?
Is this the same country that sparked a revolution over a tax on tea, or have I stepped into the Twilight Zone?
06-23-2005, 11:12 AM
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is definitely Twilight Zone material, IMO.
I think that there should be a Constitutional Amendment that says the Supreme Court can be overturned by a supermajority of the Congress. Stupid laws like these should not be allowed to stand.
I think that there should be a Constitutional Amendment that says the Supreme Court can be overturned by a supermajority of the Congress. Stupid laws like these should not be allowed to stand.
06-23-2005, 11:18 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milford
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What really needs to happen is that the good citizens band together and pressure their state governments to pass laws to restrict this practice. According to the article there are states which already do this. Property ownership is one of the basic rights this country was founded upon. For God's sake, only property owners were allowed to vote for many years. This is a direct attack on the basis of citizenship in the U.S.
06-23-2005, 01:38 PM
#17
This has been happening for decades at least. Noone hears about it unless it happens to you.
Check these folks out. They win most cases they take on in this area. Due to them, there's a little old lady living in (I believe) Ocean City that Trump had to build around. This group is tops in my book.
The Institute for Justice
The very possibility that these guys would get involved in a case in Pitssburgh got the major to back down on one of his proposals.
This is one of the main reasons why I have to (sadly) laugh whenever I hear someone talk about us living in a free country. When the govt owns everything, and you only get to keep what they don't want, any other freedom you have is strictly conditional.
JonasM
Check these folks out. They win most cases they take on in this area. Due to them, there's a little old lady living in (I believe) Ocean City that Trump had to build around. This group is tops in my book.
The Institute for Justice
The very possibility that these guys would get involved in a case in Pitssburgh got the major to back down on one of his proposals.
This is one of the main reasons why I have to (sadly) laugh whenever I hear someone talk about us living in a free country. When the govt owns everything, and you only get to keep what they don't want, any other freedom you have is strictly conditional.
JonasM
I'm totally surprised at the justices who voted FOR this!!
06-23-2005, 04:42 PM
#20
I can't find the decision from my home computer. I just read a few synopses, so I have some idea what happened.
As I understand it, the city in question is considered to be in a state of economic blight. The city designed a redevelopment plan that called for a new office-hotel-retail and housing area where the appelants' homes were located. The cities plan was deemed by the court to be in the best interest of the city and was considered to be thoughtful and reasonable.
I do not know if all of this is true of course. But remember, the Supremes are not fact finders. They must rely on the facts as decided by the lower court, or, if there is evidence that the lower court made a mistake in the finding of facts, return the case to the trial court for further deliberations. So, lets assume the facts are accurate.
That said, do all of you really believe a city cannot take property to revitalize a city that is in an economic depression? If so, then why should a city be allowed to take such steps to effect other public goals? Is the economic stability and future of a city any less important than a roadway or a housing development?
FWIW, decades ago my grandmother had her property taken by emminent domain to build public housing. This happened back in the day when the city didn't really bother to give you the fair value of your property. Our family felt emminent domain should not be allowed for ANY reason, short of civil emergency where a home must be destroyed to stop the spread of fire, for example.
So I ask you, is this simply a step to far for all of you, or are you opposed to the entire concept. If it is just a step to far, then why is economic revitalization a less worthy goal than roads or public housing?
As I understand it, the city in question is considered to be in a state of economic blight. The city designed a redevelopment plan that called for a new office-hotel-retail and housing area where the appelants' homes were located. The cities plan was deemed by the court to be in the best interest of the city and was considered to be thoughtful and reasonable.
I do not know if all of this is true of course. But remember, the Supremes are not fact finders. They must rely on the facts as decided by the lower court, or, if there is evidence that the lower court made a mistake in the finding of facts, return the case to the trial court for further deliberations. So, lets assume the facts are accurate.
That said, do all of you really believe a city cannot take property to revitalize a city that is in an economic depression? If so, then why should a city be allowed to take such steps to effect other public goals? Is the economic stability and future of a city any less important than a roadway or a housing development?
FWIW, decades ago my grandmother had her property taken by emminent domain to build public housing. This happened back in the day when the city didn't really bother to give you the fair value of your property. Our family felt emminent domain should not be allowed for ANY reason, short of civil emergency where a home must be destroyed to stop the spread of fire, for example.
So I ask you, is this simply a step to far for all of you, or are you opposed to the entire concept. If it is just a step to far, then why is economic revitalization a less worthy goal than roads or public housing?