Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

I encourage everyone to bring their points of view to political discussions. But if you show up still wearing your "Gore/Kerry/Edwards" campaign materials and go off on how Bush hasn't really been the president for the past five years, you've pretty much lost all credibility with mainstream America.

Losing all credibility with mainstream America is just about the highest accolade I could imagine.

we'll see about that my friend.......if bush supporters are mainstream america then losing my credibility with them is a badge of honor.

See what I'm dealing with here folks?

ok, take a look at this:

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4626

Yes, you have quite a bear to cross there cjhsa. perhaps a freshly laundered hair shirt with reversable collar would serve you well.

Thanks Letty.

You see, my friends. Sometimes the courts get it right, and that was my point in asking each individual to weigh all the circumstances.

I do have to smile thinking of Jefferson's comment about the Supreme Court: Nine old men who never retire and seldom die. Now I feel a bit smug about Sandra Day.

Also shocked to be in agreement with Scalia. What this means now is that developers will use municipalities to do their dirty work. If they had to buy the property, they'd have to pay market value. The government is allowed to take it at a fraction of that. Somebody is saving a bundle. And I'd bet that bundle is being handed to another somebody under the table.

Can somebody tell me where the "public use" is in this case?

Unlike a previous article I used eminent domain rather than the incorrect imminent domain.

Eminent domain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the owner's consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale.

In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.

The term "expropriation" is often seen as synonymous with "eminent domain" and may especially be used with regard to jurisdictions that do not pay compensation for the confiscated property. A noted example is the 1960 Cuban expropriation of property held by U.S. citizens, following a breakdown in economic and diplomatic relations between the Eisenhower administration and the Castro regime.

The term "condemnation" is used to describe the act of a government exercising its authority of eminent domain. It is not to be confused with the term of the same name that describes the legal process whereby real property, generally a building, is deemed legally unfit for habitation due to its physical defects. Condemnation via eminent domain indicates the government is taking the property; usually, the only thing that remains to be decided is the amount of just compensation. Condemnation of buildings usually occurs through health and safety hazards or gross zoning violation. In this case, the owner of the property does not lose the property, he or she merely needs to make corrections to the property to bring it up to health, safety and/or zoning codes.

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited merely to real property. Governments may also condemn the value in a contract such as a franchise agreement (which is why many franchise agreements will stipulate that in condemnation proceedings, the franchise itself has no value).

In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public purpose" of the property be demonstrated. Over the years the definition of "public purpose" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. Critics contend (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/public_use_corporate_abuse.php) this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights.

In 1981, in Michigan, the Supreme Court of Michigan, building on the precedent set by Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) [1] (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=348&invol=26), permitted the neighborhood of Poletown to be taken in order to build a General Motors plant. Courts in other states relied on this decision, which was overturned in 2004 [2] (http://michiganimc.org/feature/display/6334/index.php), as precedent. This expansion of the definition was argued before the United States Supreme Court in February of 2005 [3] (http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/092904-a_new_take_on_eminen.php), in Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. [4] (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-108.htm).A decision is expected by July of 2005.

In other cases eminent domain has been used by communities to take control of planning and development. Such is the case of the Dudley Street Initiative [5] (http://www.dsni.org/), a community group in Boston which attained the right to eminent domain and have used it to reclaim vacant properties in the purpose of positive community development.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/posting.php?mode=reply&t=54190

Free duck, the justification (if any) is that it will improve economic conditions, and thus will benefit everyone. That, of course, is a typical ploy.

Here's another example of "bad" on both sides. Jeb Bush is now trying to get Michael Schivo based on the observation that he waited too long to call 911. How would any one of you here like to be standing in a court that says:

John/Jane Doe vs. the governor of Florida.

Ok, my rant is over. Thanks again, Bob was starting this thread.

Unlike a previous article I used eminent domain rather than the incorrect imminent domain.

Eminent domain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the owner's consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale.

In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.

The term "expropriation" is often seen as synonymous with "eminent domain" and may especially be used with regard to jurisdictions that do not pay compensation for the confiscated property. A noted example is the 1960 Cuban expropriation of property held by U.S. citizens, following a breakdown in economic and diplomatic relations between the Eisenhower administration and the Castro regime.

The term "condemnation" is used to describe the act of a government exercising its authority of eminent domain. It is not to be confused with the term of the same name that describes the legal process whereby real property, generally a building, is deemed legally unfit for habitation due to its physical defects. Condemnation via eminent domain indicates the government is taking the property; usually, the only thing that remains to be decided is the amount of just compensation. Condemnation of buildings usually occurs through health and safety hazards or gross zoning violation. In this case, the owner of the property does not lose the property, he or she merely needs to make corrections to the property to bring it up to health, safety and/or zoning codes.

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited merely to real property. Governments may also condemn the value in a contract such as a franchise agreement (which is why many franchise agreements will stipulate that in condemnation proceedings, the franchise itself has no value).

In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public purpose" of the property be demonstrated. Over the years the definition of "public purpose" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. Critics contend (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/public_use_corporate_abuse.php) this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights.

In 1981, in Michigan, the Supreme Court of Michigan, building on the precedent set by Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) [1] (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=348&invol=26), permitted the neighborhood of Poletown to be taken in order to build a General Motors plant. Courts in other states relied on this decision, which was overturned in 2004 [2] (http://michiganimc.org/feature/display/6334/index.php), as precedent. This expansion of the definition was argued before the United States Supreme Court in February of 2005 [3] (http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/092904-a_new_take_on_eminen.php), in Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. [4] (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-108.htm).A decision is expected by July of 2005.

In other cases eminent domain has been used by communities to take control of planning and development. Such is the case of the Dudley Street Initiative [5] (http://www.dsni.org/), a community group in Boston which attained the right to eminent domain and have used it to reclaim vacant properties in the purpose of positive community development.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/posting.php?mode=reply&t=54190

Sorry for the double post. My computer locked up and I was no longer able to reach the a2k site.

Letty, economic development "benefits everyone" in the same way tax cuts benefit even those who have no taxable income, by overlooking hidden costs like interest on the national debt, in the case of tax cuts, or the inconvenience and indignity of being forcibly relocated, in the case of eminent domain abuse.

and that should have been "was" . Hey, Bob. I looked it up to make certain, but I think we all understood the implications. Frankly, I didn't know there was a difference.

I mean, "for".

Yeah, but I thought the law said "public use" not "public benefit". To me there's a very big difference. But then, I'm no lawyer and certainly not a supreme court justice.

You're right, Yit. Gets kinda complicated doesn't it, and FreeDuck, you mean things like state parks and preserves, etc.

Well, it does take a lawyer to figure out the omissions, etc. but I just like to keep my brain alive.

Had to run kids around today and caught NPR talking about this. One point that was made was that by leaving it to city officials, thye don't expect this to be a widespread problem, like cities are gonna start grabbing up peoples property, due to the fact that they are elected to office.

Not sure that's a legitimate argument. If one is in office, grabs ome land, makes some major bucks/ corporate connections that financially set one up for life, one probablywouldn't care about re-election.

A few thoughts upon a quick skim through Kelo v. City of New London:

Justice Stevens, in his majority opinion, basically held that the government can take private property for a public purpose as long as there is some identifiable public benefit. What that "public benefit" might be is up to the government, not the courts, to decide. In this, Stevens was merely following a venerable line of supreme court precedents in which the court deferred to the legislative branch's rationales for taking private property.

Justice O'Connor, in her dissent, walked a fine line between paying deference to the prior precedents and arguing that this case didn't really involve a "public purpose." O'Connor, in effect, argued that the court couldn't abdicate its entire responsibility to the legislative branch, and that there is some basic requirement for public benefit that represents a constitutional minimum. What that constitutional minimum is, however, O'Connor did not explain.

Justice Thomas took the most perplexing position. He joined O'Connor's opinion, which attempted to distinguish Kelo from the contrary precedents. In his separate dissent, however, he argued that those precedents should be discarded (not an unusual position for Thomas -- he has a very little regard for stare decisis). I don't know how he can reconcile these two positions, and Thomas doesn't attempt to reconcile them.

Frankly, the majority makes a valid point: the court isn't in a position to second-guess the legislature when it makes decisions regarding what type of eminent domain or development project is best for the public. The supreme court, after all, shouldn't become a zoning board of appeals. In this respect, the majority's test (deferring to the legislative branch) is more workable than the minority's (a public use has to be minimally "public").

Undoubtedly, conservatives will argue that this is another example of liberal "judicial activism." But in this case, the "liberals" on the court are the ones who are upholding the legislature, whereas it is the "conservatives" on the court who want to replace their judgment for that of the people's elected representatives. Yet another reason why "judicial activism" is an empty, meaningless concept.