What's new

Sure am glad I don't own property in the US (1 Viewer)

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582
It used to be that when you paid good money for a piece of land it was yours until you wanted to sell, assuming you kept up with your taxes and so forth. Now, the federal US courts have ruled that local governments can sieze your land for whatever reason they want, not just the public good as it used to be. That means that when WalMart or any other developer with lots of cash wants your property, out you go. There is no provision for negotiating a decent buyout either from what I can see, your land is simply taken, your house bulldozed and your family uprooted, for whatever the local area deems appropriate.

Sure am glad I live n Canada where that few hundred grand actually allows me to own my property, and if someone wants it, they pay my price.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/2....ap/index.html
 

Mort Corey

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
981
It's even better than that (eminent domain) in some instances. Should you rent your property to someone that uses it for illegal purposes, it can be seized and sold without any compensation at all. Is this a great country or what?

Mort
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the law of eminent domain or the new S. Ct. ruling.

M.
 

SteveA

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 25, 2000
Messages
700
Most of the justices who voted in favor of this ruling are Clinton appointees. Clinton is from Arkansas. Wal-Mart is based in Arkansas. Coincidence? Hmmmm.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
I vehemently oppose this decision. The majority showed classic anti-individualist thinking here.
 

Mort Corey

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
981


The point I was making is that the concept of private property has largely become an illusion. SCOTUS has upheld this type of travesty as well.

Mort
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Unlike forfeiture laws, the law of eminent domain goes back to the founding of the United States. One may feel (as the dissenters obviously did) that this latest ruling represents an unwarranted extension of states' power to seize private land, but the power itself is nothing new.

M.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Untrue. Only two of the five votes were Clinton nominees (Ginsburg and Breyer). The opinion was written by Stevens, a Ford nominee, and the other two votes were Kennedy (nominated by Reagan) and Souter (nominated by the first Pres. Bush).

M.
 

Mort Corey

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
981


It's the court(s) that have expanded the notion of "public use" that is the problem. (Not relevant, but the "commerce clause" has been bastardized much in the same way). Agreed, the concept is not new, it's the implementation.

Mort
 
E

Eric Kahn

write your congress member (if you are a US citizen) and complain about this ruling, I already did, congress can enact a law to prevent this typr of eminant domain land grab
 

Moe Maishlish

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 30, 1999
Messages
992
:thumbsdown:

Three situations come to mind:

1)What if say, Hilton Hotels comes along and says to the local government "You know, we'd really like to build a brand new luxury resort on that plot of land that the local Wal-Mart is sitting on."... what then?

2)What if, say, Walmart or Hilton Hotels comes along and says to the local government "You know, we'd REALLY like to build a new luxury resort/Wal-Mart at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in DC."... what then?

3)What if, say, Walmart or Hilton Hotels or Huge Corporation B comes along and says to the local government "You know, we'd REALLY REALLY like to build a new luxury resort/Wal-Mart/Sewage Treatment Plant at the 5 locations where these (approving) Supreme Court Justices live."... what then?

Personally, someone shows up at my home in a bulldozer ready to kick me out of my house, they'd find me sitting on the lawn, chained to the house, reading a copy of Hitchhikers Guide... out LOUD!

Moe.
 

Matt Stieg

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 26, 2003
Messages
228
In my town of Carmel, IN, we've got a jerk of a mayor that's kicking people out of homes right and left to build town houses, condos, and office buildings.
 

Paul_Medenwaldt

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
650


I think instead of saying who appointed the judges, it shuld of been referred to as which way those judges lean. Now most everyone knows which way each justice leans when it may come to their philosiphies.

My suprise in the decision was that the more conservative judges voted the way they did and the more liberal judges voted the way they did. I believe Kennedy and O'Connor are the justice's that always teeter in the middle.

I disagree with the decision myself. Congress can always go back and fiddle with the law so that this judgement may no longer be valid, but then we'll have another case to fight that.

Just to add to my statement, we had an issue locally here in the cities where Best Buy wanted to relocate their headquarters in Richfield. The same land they wanted was occupied by a car dealership that had been there for many years and was also the location of where scenes from Fargo was filmed. The city of Richfield bascially condemed the site, forcing the dealership to move out. There were many court cases battling this. Now on that location sits 2 large buildings which consist of the new Best Buy campus.

Paul
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
That would get us into politics, which would get this thread closed.

I was responding to a specific factual assertion, nothing more.

M.
 

Paul_Medenwaldt

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
650


Your correct Michael. My concern was about president bashing and who appointed who and I wanted to focus more on the judges then the presidents who appointed them, or actually the main focus should be the decision itself.

Paul
 

David Brown Eyes

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 6, 1999
Messages
262
HA HA HA HA.

As a Native American.

Welcome to my existence.

On a more serious note, this is not out of the ordinary when it comes to land the individual is outright screwed if the government wants your land bad enough.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Absolutely. One of the problems with reactions to Supreme Court decisions is that they're usually formed on the basis of news reports that have to be written under time constraints, without any opportunity for the reporters to read and digest the opinion(s) thoroughly.

For example, many of the reports don't even mention Justice Kennedy's concurrence, which could be seen (and I too haven't had time to study it) as substantially limiting the impact of the majority opinion.

M.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,582
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top