logo Sign In

Eminent Domain and Property Rights

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
As you may or may not know, the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that cities and towns CAN seize private property for development "in the public good", ie: Eminent Domain (the notion that an issue would or is currently a public domain issue).

In the past, this has been done with reasonable adherence to the constitutional clause that "just compensation" needed to be given in return for property taken (although in many cases the compensation was not given at all). Now, the door is oen to government seizure of property on a whim.

This is the most dangerous piece of legislation from the bench that I have ever seen. This effectively sets back the clock to pre-revolutionary days, when the British Empire forced people to house their troops regardless of whether they wanted them there.

One more step on the journey into the hell that is socialism. "Everyone's property" = no property.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
What you're saying is, the government can bulldozer your house to build a freeway and not even compensate you for that? Isn't that absolutely illegal?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
But what goes around comes around. They bulldoze your house, then an alien ship will come down and "bulldoze" the Earth in favor of an intergalactic superhighway.

"Thank you. And have a nice day."
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
What you're saying is, the government can bulldozer your house to build a freeway and not even compensate you for that? Isn't that absolutely illegal?


Not any more!

In the past, this would happen and typically a person would be compensated, assuming they wanted to move. However, there were many cases in which a person could refuse and there would be years of protracted eminent domain court battles, usually resulting in the person being forced out, but also usually being compensated. Now, those battles are no longer an option, and the compensation will not be forthcoming. This is incredibly dangerous, as the US legal system is (was) based on "Castle Law", eg: A man's home is his castle. That has been torn to shreds now.

I heard on a radio program yesterday that a developer in the town where the justice who wrote the majority opinion lives, is planning to push for development of the justice's 31 acres and put a hotel on it called "The Loss of Liberty" hotel, and in it have an ice cream shop called the "Just Desserts" restaurant. I hope they succeed.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Bossk I just knew someone would make a "Hitchhikers" joke about my comment

JediSage, it's quite ironic, because there's in the US constitution it says one can bare weapons to defend his property, and yet the government can take it and not compensate?

Over here the government can take down your house if they wish to build something like a freeway or a subway station, but they have to pay you before they destroy your house, and they can't do a thing until you've moved out (usually a few blocks away). Still, there's nothing you can do, if they want to take your home they will, and you just gotta take the money and go away. I think that'ss absolutely awful, but not to at least compensate the owners? Well you could try suing, and I'm positive one would win, I mean, c'mon!
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
I think there's a bit of confusion regarding what this new ruling is about. It's not about the government being able to seize property on a whim without compensation.

Previously, the general interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was that the government could seize your land and compensate you for such things as highways, public buildings, elimination of blight, etc. Such things are often essential to the economy so the Fifth Amendment makes sense.

The suit before the court presented a different situation involving the government seizure of private property in the name of another private party. Meaning, the government can now seize your property in the name of a private developer who wants to build a mall, an office building, etc. Basically, if the new construction will provide tax revenue for the government, such a seizure is considered for the "public good" and more important than a private homeowner's rights.

So now, a rich private developer can grease his politician buddies and have you thrown off your land so he can build a Dairy Queen and nail salon.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had this to say in her dissenting opinion:

"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."

I'm disgusted by the ruling and hope Justice Souter loses his home due to his own F'd up decision.
Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Post link
Just one more reason for me to sell everything I own and go live in the woods somewhere.

My jaw was on the floor after reading this ruling and I know the ramifications of it will be felt everywhere. The really sad part is that things like this happen in the government everyday and most people don't even know about them. Perhaps not as big as this one but things are always being past that mess with your liberties.

“You know, when you think about it, the Ewoks probably just crap over the sides of their tree-huts.”

Author
Time
Post link
Oh I see, so basically huge corporations can now use their puppets in the government and make sure no one gets in the way of their profit. Nice. Corporate america at it's best, eh? Reminds me of "Batteries not included", except that there are no space robots and the old folks lose their home.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Jay
I think there's a bit of confusion regarding what this new ruling is about. It's not about the government being able to seize property on a whim without compensation.

Previously, the general interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was that the government could seize your land and compensate you for such things as highways, public buildings, elimination of blight, etc. Such things are often essential to the economy so the Fifth Amendment makes sense.

The suit before the court presented a different situation involving the government seizure of private property in the name of another private party. Meaning, the government can now seize your property in the name of a private developer who wants to build a mall, an office building, etc. Basically, if the new construction will provide tax revenue for the government, such a seizure is considered for the "public good" and more important than a private homeowner's rights.

So now, a rich private developer can grease his politician buddies and have you thrown off your land so he can build a Dairy Queen and nail salon.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had this to say in her dissenting opinion:

"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."

I'm disgusted by the ruling and hope Justice Souter loses his home due to his own F'd up decision.


It is a dark day, to say the least. Prior to this ruling, I've heard of other disputes that fell out of the interpretation you mention. I remember one in particular, where a church believe it or not was being forced out in favor of a shopping plaza. I don't remember where or when (unfortunately), but I do know it was getting ugly, and it clearly falls outside the range of private-public transition.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Bossk I just knew someone would make a "Hitchhikers" joke about my comment

JediSage, it's quite ironic, because there's in the US constitution it says one can bare weapons to defend his property, and yet the government can take it and not compensate?


Uhhh...you wouldn't believe some of the things I've read about this today. The court may have just crossed the line. The American people are slow to anger, but when they are angered...it's not a good thing.


Letters to the Editor
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Mackey256
Just one more reason for me to sell everything I own and go live in the woods somewhere.


I have considered this. Unfortunately, I don't think my wife and kids would go for it, and we just bought a new house. Thankfully it's in a "hilly" section of town that is not very suitable for developers.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Literally living in the woods, in a Blair Witch style? Or you mean, move to the countryside?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Literally living in the woods, in a Blair Witch style? Or you mean, move to the countryside?


Blair Witch all the way, baby. However as noted, that's a dead issue now.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Thankfully it's in a "hilly" section of town that is not very suitable for developers.


The animals of the swamp said something like that right before Disney drained it and build his world.

“You know, when you think about it, the Ewoks probably just crap over the sides of their tree-huts.”

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
As you may or may not know, the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that cities and towns CAN seize private property for development "in the public good", ie: Eminent Domain (the notion that an issue would or is currently a public domain issue).

In the past, this has been done with reasonable adherence to the constitutional clause that "just compensation" needed to be given in return for property taken (although in many cases the compensation was not given at all). Now, the door is oen to government seizure of property on a whim.

This is the most dangerous piece of legislation from the bench that I have ever seen. This effectively sets back the clock to pre-revolutionary days, when the British Empire forced people to house their troops regardless of whether they wanted them there.

One more step on the journey into the hell that is socialism. "Everyone's property" = no property.


While I disagree with the ruling, I don't think it said that the Government doesn't have to give "just compensation" I think this case was just about what reasons the government can give for invoking Eminent Domain. But they still have to give "just compensation".
Author
Time
Post link
THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, TEXAS, HOME OF SIX FLAGS OVER TEXAS, HAS VOTED THIS ACT INTO AFFECT IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE NEW DALLAS COWBOYS STADIUM. IF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN HOMES IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA DO NOT ACCEPT THE OFFER MADE ON THIER PROPERTY BY THE CITY COUNCIL THEN THE CITY CAN SEIZE THAT LAND. I THINK IT'S A BULL$#!+ WAY OF THE GOVERNMENT BEING ABLE TO TAKE WHAT THEY WANT. ANYBODY REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE NATIVE AMERICANS ???

"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide

Author
Time
Post link
It would figure the stinking Dallas Cowboys would that.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
But what goes around comes around. They bulldoze your house, then an alien ship will come down and "bulldoze" the Earth in favor of an intergalactic superhighway.

"Thank you. And have a nice day."


LOL man that was such a good book.
Author
Time
Post link
A few years ago in Cypress, a Costco tried to use Emminent Domain to seize the land of a church, to build a new store. They were taken to court, and the church won the right to keep their land. The city council wasnted the Costco for the property taxes, and acted as a real-estate agent for them(Churches are non-profit, and tax-exempt).

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Author
Time
Post link
1. Warbler is right. Just compensation is required.
What changed is that before, governments (City, State, Federal) could take land only for civil uses...a highway, police station, etc. After this ruling, they can take land and give it to private citizens that can use the land for private business that would provide more tax revenue.

2. This happened a couple years ago in my city as well. The city had lined up a large development to revitalize the west side. They offered many homeowner's fair compensation, and many took it, but a handful refused. The city decided to take the homes via eminent domain, citing the homes as being 'blighted'. The people fought back, started a petition and got a referendum on the ballot, and the business complex was voted down.

The thing about this whole affair that really set the city on fire was the city definition of blighted. By the laws of the city, 90% of the cities homes are blighted. The (ex-)mayor's own home is blighted. I don't remember everything about the laws, but the one I do remember, is that if your home doesn't have an attached garage, its blight.

3. A small town in Vermont or Montana or some other low population state has already acted on this new ruling. In their town is the estate of one of the supreme court justices that ruled in favor. They want to claim his land and turn it into a combination hotel/museum. The museum would be "The Museum of Lost Liberties".

4. Using this ruling, I want to see a group get together and try to get control of the Kennedy Compound. I would laugh my butt off at that.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller


3. A small town in Vermont or Montana or some other low population state has already acted on this new ruling. In their town is the estate of one of the supreme court justices that ruled in favor. They want to claim his land and turn it into a combination hotel/museum. The museum would be "The Museum of Lost Liberties".


LOL! that would be bueatiful. Go for it!