[WMCoolmon]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

[Admiral LSD]

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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.

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
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.

[WMCoolmon]

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'.

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.

[Liberator]

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.

[Unknown Target]

I thought America was the bastion of freedom and couldn't be wrong, Lib?
Anyway, it's wrong and you should oppose it, write to your senators or w/e.

[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.

[karajorma]

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!

[NGTM-1R]

This is screwed up. Christ, San Diego's landscape is going to be rearranged in under four years...

[vyper]

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.

[Rictor]

Boo-urns to this.

[Goober5000]

ACK!  NO!

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!

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Goober5000
ACK!  NO!

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.

[redsniper]

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.

[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.

[WeatherOp]

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

[aldo_14]

I bet the campaign contributors are licking their lips over this one........

[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.

[Flipside]

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.