Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: WMCoolmon on June 23, 2005, 11:51:28 am
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
-
They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
They made their beds, they now have to sleep in them. They should learn to just STFU.
-
:wtf: So what you're saying is that it's perfectly fine for the government to hand you a check and say "Get off your property."
Here's the text of the fifth, btw:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
:wtf: So what you're saying is that it's perfectly fine for the government to hand you a check and say "Get off your property."
Whether that's fine or not isn't being argued, it's what the government put on the land after they take it. As long as the government are getting some sort of cut then it can be viewed as being in the public interest and thus they have no basis for complaint.
-
Great. So the government can decided to do whatever it likes with my property, so long as someone claims to think it's for 'public interest'. :wtf:
To me, the entire point behind property is that it's yours and you can say what to do with it. The fact that the government can't pony up enough money to simply buy out an entire neighborhood isn't really all that comforting, as there are certainly companies who can.
Basically this sounds to me like Wal-mart could, through the local government, buy a neighborhood and put those people on the streets. Depending on property taxes and the result of the market being flooded with people looking for houses, those people could very well end up worse off than they were. And it's all completely legal as long as the new Wal-mart dutifully charges a sales tax.
Edit: I really don't care if that's exactly what's being argued or not, that seems a trivial difference to me. I'm really surprised I've never heard anyone complain about this, and I never thought of it this way as in the passage it's put in the negatory.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Basically this sounds to me like Wal-mart could, through the local government, buy a neighborhood and put those people on the streets. Depending on property taxes and the result of the market being flooded with people looking for houses, those people could very well end up worse off than they were. And it's all completely legal as long as the new Wal-mart dutifully charges a sales tax.
That's the crux of the issue. Though it's less Wal-Mart than it is "seedy developers" who build Strip Mall after Strip Mall.
Basically, what happens is that people live in an area that SD wants to build a mall or something on because it's close to a golf course or natural attraction of some kind. They are required to go to the property owners and offer them a FAIR market value for the property. If it isn't enough, or if the property owners doesn't want to sell, the SD used to be out of luck. Now they can go to the City Council and say "Well, you'll get more tax money from my mall in that area than that bumkin that doesn't recognize progress when he sees it." and the G'Ment goes, "Gee, SD you're right!.....Hey you, peon, here's a check for 1/4 what you could get at market for you're land, not get off!".
It's rediculous and horrific and it needs to stop.
-
I thought America was the bastion of freedom and couldn't be wrong, Lib? :p
Anyway, it's wrong and you should oppose it, write to your senators or w/e.
-
This isn't going to change without constitutional reform and there's a higher probability of Hell freezing over than America reforming its constitution so just STFU and put up with it.
-
I'm against this.
Now that seedy developers can get the government to strong arm you off your land who the f**k is going to need the A-Team any more! :mad:
-
This is screwed up. Christ, San Diego's landscape is going to be rearranged in under four years...
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
This isn't going to change without constitutional reform and there's a higher probability of Hell freezing over than America reforming its constitution so just STFU and put up with it.
I like a positive thinker.
-
Boo-urns to this.
-
ACK! NO! :shaking:
What flavor of crap did they use to justify this decision? This throws the entire concept of private property out the window. You can own your own house and live on your own land, but if the government decides your time is up, out the door you do.
This is disgusting. You shouldn't even need constitutional reform to combat this; it's already in the constitution. For precisely this reason!
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
ACK! NO! :shaking:
What flavor of crap did they use to justify this decision? This throws the entire concept of private property out the window. You can own your own house and live on your own land, but if the government decides your time is up, out the door you do.
This is disgusting. You shouldn't even need constitutional reform to combat this; it's already in the constitution. For precisely this reason!
If you'd bothered to read the article and the thread you'd know what "flavour of crap" they used to justify the decision. The right to take the land is there, it's in the fifth amendment, this is just a clever interpretation and application of it. The only way to change it is to limit the scope of the amendment - which as I pointed out earlier has a lower chance than hell freezing over of ever happening.
-
EDIT: In response to Goob
Haven't you noticed? We don't use the Constitution anymore since Bush doesn't understand most of the words in it.
-
Every government on the planet do this already, but not for private gain. When a new highway is built, often people are forced to sell if their land happens to sit right smack on the projected course. And i kinda agree with that. Progress of a country should not be barred by a couple of people who don´t wish to sell.
However, this is a diferent thing entirelly. They are forcing people off for PRIVATE gain, and that is totally inconstitutional, wherever you go.
It´s one thing for the government to pay top dollar for a piece of land that will help develop an area by building public utilities (a road, a hospital, a school). It´s a whole other ballgame when local authorities do it to allow the building of a new shopping mall. That´s just dumb.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Every government on the planet do this already, but not for private gain. When a new highway is built, often people are forced to sell if their land happens to sit right smack on the projected course. And i kinda agree with that. Progress of a country should not be barred by a couple of people who don´t wish to sell.
However, this is a diferent thing entirelly. They are forcing people off for PRIVATE gain, and that is totally inconstitutional, wherever you go.
It´s one thing for the government to pay top dollar for a piece of land that will help develop an area by building public utilities (a road, a hospital, a school). It´s a whole other ballgame when local authorities do it to allow the building of a new shopping mall. That´s just dumb.
Well said
-
I bet the campaign contributors are licking their lips over this one........
-
That's just it, aldo. There are no campaign contributors to blame on this, just 5 unelected and unaccountable Judges who think this is a good thing.
I mean even Sandra Day O'Connor came down on my side of this, that alone should tell how whacko those 5 really are.
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
If you'd bothered to read the article and the thread you'd know what "flavour of crap" they used to justify the decision. The right to take the land is there, it's in the fifth amendment, this is just a clever interpretation and application of it. The only way to change it is to limit the scope of the amendment - which as I pointed out earlier has a lower chance than hell freezing over of ever happening.
I wouldn't so much use the word clever as the words 'manipulative and insidious'. And yes, if everyone just STFU and deal with it then there is a higher chance of Hell freezing over than it changing. That's why people shouldn't just STFU and put up with it, after all, if corporate wants can dictate your life to this extent, then where has your countries' pride in it's people gone? They are now cattle, to be moved to a new field if they buy a house with their own money that was built there with government persmission (If land deeds work in a similar way to the UK, you can't just turn up somewhere and say 'I think I'll build some houses here') and later on a corporation happens to want to build something there, more slaves to money than citizens of a free country.
I'm a little surprised at your 'put up and shut up and let your life and choices be dictated to you' attitude, it strikes me as everything America isn't supposed to be.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
That's just it, aldo. There are no campaign contributors to blame on this, just 5 unelected and unaccountable Judges who think this is a good thing.
I mean even Sandra Day O'Connor came down on my side of this, that alone should tell how whacko those 5 really are.
And you think super-global-buildo-company isn't interested in free and easy access to prime city-centre real estate? They'll be the first to abus...sorry, take advantage of this. A few hundred thousand dollars into the campaign funds of the relevant politicians, and bobs your uncle. That's what I mean.
Same as...for example, that watered down environment report for the G8 summit; guy responsible, IIRC, received nice big amounts of money from various oil companies with a vested interest. And there's more - on both sides of the political spectrum - system looks crooked as a 3p piece from over here.
It's pretty ****ed up, granted. Albeit I wouldn't use it as a basis for a politically appointed judiciary, due to the inherent risk of bias within the system that would pose.
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
If you'd bothered to read the article and the thread you'd know what "flavour of crap" they used to justify the decision. The right to take the land is there, it's in the fifth amendment, this is just a clever interpretation and application of it. The only way to change it is to limit the scope of the amendment - which as I pointed out earlier has a lower chance than hell freezing over of ever happening.
:wtf: If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, instead of skimming it and posting a knee jerk reaction, you'd notice that not only did I reference the article, I also provided an answer to your previous post.
As Swamp_Thing said, eminent domain should only be used in extreme cases where the public good far outweighs the individual's claim to that particular piece of land. But redistricting property willy-nilly just because some developer wants it is a horrible abuse of power.
-
Isn't the judiciary politically appointed anyway? Wasn't there a big stink about some of Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court last year? Something like that anyway...
As for this, it's disgusting. I mean, we have a compulsory purchase system here, but the govamint pays well over the odds for the land, and it only happens rarely...
-
I find it Ironic. The 5 people who voted "for" were Democrats, and I thought that the Democratic stance was for "the little guy". So basically, now these 5 have gone from "being for the little guy" to allowing the bigger powers to sieze control.
Total bull****.
-
The only thing recent Dems have been for is an increase in their power base and that means an increase in the size of Government, hell the Dems should be falling down at Bush's feet. He's grown government more in 5 years than Bubba did throughout both his terms...:(
-
/*for those kneejerky amung you Lib just critisized Bush*/
this is weird, prety much everyone actualy agrees on this subject.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
:wtf: If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, instead of skimming it and posting a knee jerk reaction, you'd notice that not only did I reference the article, I also provided an answer to your previous post.
As Swamp_Thing said, eminent domain should only be used in extreme cases where the public good far outweighs the individual's claim to that particular piece of land. But redistricting property willy-nilly just because some developer wants it is a horrible abuse of power.
I did read what you wrote.
The fifth amendment gives the government the right to take whatever "private" property they want so long as they suitably compensate the owner and are reclaiming the land for "public use". In other words, the concept of "private property" was and has been moreorless out the window before this ruling was even made.
The difference now is that "public use" not only encompasses things like roads, schools hospitals etc but now also tax revenue from private development. Swamp_Things assessment is flawed because it fails to take that into account. The law no longer sees this as being entirely for private gain anymore.
The problem lies in this:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It doesn't specify what constitutes "public use". Now, you can't expect them to list everything it entails within the constitution so instead you have to rely on the institutions like the courts to make the interpretations. In this case, the ruling didn't go the way the people wanted it to. Tough ****. Deal with it.
-
Tell 'em they're dreamin'
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
In this case, the ruling didn't go the way the people wanted it to. Tough ****. Deal with it.
I'll remind of this line when they come and take the house you spent the greater part of you're life building and raising children to make it a strip mall with a KB Toys and a Bed, Bath & Beyond.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I'll remind of this line when they come and take the house you spent the greater part of you're life building and raising children to make it a strip mall with a KB Toys and a Bed, Bath & Beyond.
Never happen. Look at his location.
-
This seems like something that shouldn't really need an amendment, just an appropriate law. The 5th amendment doesn't seem to say anything about congress not being able to pass a law to say the government can't do this.
-
Every time you use a triple negative, god kills a baby.
-
It's almost like our government has become a racecar totally controled by it's sponsors.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Every time you use a triple negative, god kills a baby.
quoted for truth
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Every time you use a triple negative, god kills a baby.
:lol:
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
It doesn't specify what constitutes "public use". Now, you can't expect them to list everything it entails within the constitution so instead you have to rely on the institutions like the courts to make the interpretations. In this case, the ruling didn't go the way the people wanted it to. Tough ****. Deal with it.
I am appalled by this. It will come up again in court. It's only a matter of time, like copyright. This loophole needs to be plugged.
I don't think many of those justices were appointed by democrats, but it doesn't matter. They can just lie. Once they're on the bench, they can do whatever they want. They're there for life.
-
It's times like this that i'm glad i'm an Australian, nothing like that could happen here. Sure, we can steal an entire Generation of Children from their natural parents, but there's no way we'd allow our land to be taken away without just cause...
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Tell 'em they're dreamin'
:lol: A perfect (and distinctly Aussie) reference for the thread
-
Yeah, I don't think this trend of appeasing big businesses is party exclusive.
I may be arsed to write to a congress(wo)man about this, amazingly enough.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
:wtf: So what you're saying is that it's perfectly fine for the government to hand you a check and say "Get off your property."
Here's the text of the fifth, btw:
Havn't you heard, its a living breathing document :ick:
Sigh, They have no right to do this, honestly. To be frank, if the developer wants the land then he should have to pay the individual that own the property. And they should be able to price gouge him[the developer] if they please. This, honestly is less about public use, and more about the propert owners getting royally ****ed in the ass. And to be even more frank, this is about the developer getting the land for cheaper than he would have gotten it other wise.
Additionally, people call us conservatives loonee for distusting the size and power of the gov't. Well this is a case in point.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Isn't the judiciary politically appointed anyway? Wasn't there a big stink about some of Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court last year? Something like that anyway...
As for this, it's disgusting. I mean, we have a compulsory purchase system here, but the govamint pays well over the odds for the land, and it only happens rarely...
Actually they do not always pay over market price of land. And they often pay less. When I lived in Pennsylvania, the local township used the emminent domain to sieze part of my parents land. When they paid my parents they used a means to calculate it that was completely different than the mean to calculate property taxes. In other words they skirted my parents. **** Emminent Domain.
-
I really wish people would drop the judgements about "conservatives" and "liberals". I probably do do it myself, having spent so much time around people who do, but it just seems absurd to say "liberals are bad" or "conservatives are bad". They seem to balance each other out - if you have an all-conservative government, you end up with a stagnant government. If you have an all-liberal government, you end up with an unstable government.
That side note out the door, I agree that more than likely people won't be "justly compensated" for things. After all, there are so many things about a house that you can't really put a price on, and there are *always* further considerations due to location or different laws that might apply or the trouble to move that can't really be priced (and so can't really be compensated for in exact, and I'm betting will be ignored when determining the price of the property.)
As far as actually amending the Constitution, it's a hard decision. There are some amendments people have been talking about that I don't think belong in the Constitution, and for every amendment to it, the easier future amendments will become.
The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is bad enough. I think the last thing I want is for the current administration to start changing the highest law of the country.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
As far as actually amending the Constitution, it's a hard decision. There are some amendments people have been talking about that I don't think belong in the Constitution, and for every amendment to it, the easier future amendments will become.
The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is bad enough. I think the last thing I want is for the current administration to start changing the highest law of the country.
It is actually very difficult to add a new admendment to the constitution, not just a difficult dicision. And it is difficult for a very good reason. And that is stability. Now I don't want to get into a debate about the interpretation of the constitution, but a "independant judiciary" that is not very independant, can decide what the constitution means and thusly defeat the purpose of any sort of difficulty as it relates to passing admendments.
But let me make it even simpler, They are all political hacks
-
It would still require a 2/3 majority, but, hmm, I can't think of a good example, but as people get more used to something it tends to become easier to do, even if it requires a large proportion of people. For example, suppose one politician cuts a deal with another to gain their vote on an amendment that will really help them, in exchange for voting for an amendment the second guy proposes, that the first guy would either abstain from or vote against.
And also while the SC can "interpret" laws, it can't blatantly contradict them. It also has to decide when to back down, as it is totally dependant on the other two branches for enforcing/abiding by its judgements. If Congress passed a law in contradiction to the Constitution, and the Executive branch supported it, and it had popular support, there's not much the SC could do beyond punish individual violators. Especially since I don't think judicial review is legislated at the constitutional-level.
I don't see it happening with the current political situation, but still, the SC is not all-powerful.
-
Concerning their power, we have seen in madison vs. mulberry that the SC can in fact grant its self power such as in the case of judicial review.
But concerning the 2/3 majority of states, that is a positive thing. a simple majority could all seemingly smaller states to impose their power of the larger states. Just keep in my, when the constitution was enacted their were only 13 states IIRC. And I should point out that they all had their individual gov'ts and initially the gov't was very small.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Isn't the judiciary politically appointed anyway? Wasn't there a big stink about some of Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court last year? Something like that anyway...
As for this, it's disgusting. I mean, we have a compulsory purchase system here, but the govamint pays well over the odds for the land, and it only happens rarely...
I think the US supreme court judges are politically appointed (when one of the existing judges ides, retires, etc), but have to go through voting by congress; I think a minority can block this, and that's what Busch wanted to overturn/prevent. There being an obvious counter-point that part of the role of the judiciary is to respect the minority as well as majority, i.e. be neutral and unbiased. That's probably unlikely as judges are still human beings, so IMO the best situation is at least to have a balanced group of opinions.
Personally, I don't think any judges should be appointed by the government, but by their peers and possibly some politically-independent state organisation.
Incidentally, apparently only 2 of the current judges were appointed by a Democrat president (Clinton on both counts).
My parents first home was compulsarily purchased (it was in Airdrie, well before I was born); they paid (whoaff!) £450 to buy it, and got £300 from the council. So it's a bit of a **** system.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think the US supreme court judges are politically appointed (when one of the existing judges ides, retires, etc), but have to go through voting by congress; I think a minority can block this, and that's what Busch wanted to overturn/prevent. There being an obvious counter-point that part of the role of the judiciary is to respect the minority as well as majority, i.e. be neutral and unbiased. That's probably unlikely as judges are still human beings, so IMO the best situation is at least to have a balanced group of opinions.
The Minority can "block this," but considering the fact that you can change the rules, this is not really such a block. Only a side note.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
The Minority can "block this," but considering the fact that you can change the rules, this is not really such a block. Only a side note.
They can block changing the rules as well, can't they?
-
Concerning their power, we have seen in madison vs. mulberry that the SC can in fact grant its self power such as in the case of judicial review.
Actually the case was Marbury v. Madison.
-
Thankyou for the correction :nod:
-
It's rediculous and horrific and it needs to stop.
You're right. Yeah, I'm pretty shocked too. I just agreed with you. :p
Seriously though, this could lead to a great deal of abuse. All a corperation needs to do is put a few politicians in its pocket and suddenly it can do whatever it wants.
-
Why just corporations? I mean a local gov't could potentially sieze the property of an individual to prevent its development because there is an endangered snail stemming from the fact that a bunch of dogmatic enviromentalist decided to yell and scream and threaten politicians. You don't think that would ever happen? The point is that the coercive powers of gov't are often used to trump the property rights of the individual, each time seamingly stretching the meaning of public use further and further. In reality this is only the most recent event in a long series of events that point to the dangers of gov't planning and general abuse of its coercive powers.
-
http://watleyreview.com/2005/062105-2.html
-
:lol:
Why would they ever want us? New Yorkers look down on us.
-
Oh yeah not to mention that is where they store nuclear waste :p
-
Unless you're talking about the power plant, I have no idea what you're talking about, but we do have abandoned Cold War missile bases. ^_^
-
umm New jersey is home to nuclear waste storage areas. Places like Oyster Creek story their waste on site IIRC.
-
Yes, like I said, power plants. All nuclear power plants store their waste on site...until a better method is devised. I am familiar with Oyster Creek. The entire state isn't a nuclear waste dump.
-
no it is not, and actually I think it is awesome to have 50% of your power from nuclear sources. Very Clean. BUT, I just have an understanding that there are storage locations in NJ. I could be mistaken, though.
-
I only made that remark so others don't misinterpret it, since we have that "one big, giant oil refinery" image courtesy of The Sopranos. It's only because we're so small a state that we can be powered by so little. We're screwed when they have to retire the reactor(s). Oyster Creek is one of the oldest reactors in the country. I was there once on a scout trip. I'd be interested in more information on these supposed storage sites, if you have any. Nuclear power would be great if it wasn't for the hazardous waste and other risks.
-
Intresting at least in CT the goverment can only take the first five feet of your yard if your property exceeds some amount of acres, so they can build a sidewalk or something. That is some what fairer. Still though, nuke Bush.
-
Originally posted by JoeLo
Still though, nuke Bush.
What does that have to to with anything.
-
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
THE IRONY
-
ROTFLMAO :lol:
That's exactly what they should do to all the judges who voted yes on this issue :)
-
:lol:
Superb.
-
:lol:
This ruling will bite them in the ass sooner or later. Mark my words.
-
Looks like sooner if they get that hotel approved. :nod: