you dont own anything

[george]

today the supreme court decided that LOCAL governments have the right to sieze your property (land) and turn it over for use as commercial space.

wonder how many small communities are going to be hurt by this crock of shit decision.

[AChimp]

You could start a home business and say that it's already commercial.

[mburbank]

See, now, I don't have a problem with not owning anything. Jesus said we don't own anything. So did Buddah.

My problem is with the Government owning everything and running it as a for profit business.

Say, could me local government now take over the coal burning power plnt and shut it down? That would be cool.

[ziggytrix]

fucking bullshit. real americans should not stand for such tyranny.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's a good thing the news isn't wasting our time with this. Hey, Tom Cruise is in love everybody!!!!

[El Blanco]

The case in question is New London, Connecticut. And this power has been around for a long time. The railroad barons used it in the 19th century.

I disagree with the descision, but I see where they are coming from.

NL is going down the economic crapper. The descision is meant to let bussinesses build factories and such (hopefully) in order to bring jobs and economic growth to a town that desperatly needs both.

To call this tyranny or some sort of government bowing to corporations is just a little too simplistic.

This is screwing over a group of people in order to save a larger group of people.


And, kids, do we all know what this is called?

Thats right. Democracy.

[kahljorn]

that's how they work, though. They simply find an injustice to "Alleviate", get people all worked up by it and show them why it needs to be done, then create laws that allow them to abuse anybody they please. Patriot act. That one tax thing

[ItalianStereotype]

this has been around FOREVER. it's a leftover from the old British Imperial system. my family used to own the land around Wall Street, but the government seized the property early on. I'm not sure if it was the British or the early American government that did it though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's refreshing to see that the so-called conservatives of the board have such great faith in the entrepreneurial capabilities of government.

Taking land from people with the hope of helping lots of people isn't called democracy, it's called speculation, and it's being done at the expense of real people, as oppsed to the hypothetical ones who might benefit from the factory that gets built there (and we ALL know that a company with tax breaks out their asses will save New London, I mean, look at upstate NY! ).

[kahljorn]

YEA!

[El Blanco]

I said I disagreed with the descicion. But, I also realized why it was made.

So, you think because it can be abused, NL should be left to rot away? Don't the people of the town have the right to try and save themselves? How else does that happen without a bussiness coming and expanding, bringing jobs with it?

[ziggytrix]

Don't the people in those houses have a right to own property? I guess the bit that bugs me most is are these people really getting what they would need to cover moving expenses, an equitable home elsewhere, or are they getting screwed over because the houses won't appraise for shit anyway?

The 5th Amendment says they get "just compensation" but some of these land use "purchases" aren't just, and there is no appeal, no negotiation, and it just makes me mad.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

What exactly are you trying to save? Isn't it counter-productive to make the very people you hope to help homeless?

The policy is a perversion of the 5th amendment, among other things. Is that spot the absolute only location that such a factory might go? Furthermore, on a bit of a tangent, couldn't policy makers use this crap as a way to kick people out of their homes and build sporting arenas?? I mean, regardless of the fact that most studies show arenas provide very little for the community, couldn't the "public good" be left open to horrid interpretation by this ruling....?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And in response to this.....

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

this has been around FOREVER.

Right, and it had previously been challenged, hence the case going to the highest appellate court in the land. This ruling has given the policy a legal leg to stand on, thus you'll probably see it utilized a lot more often now. Which, btw, sort of sucks.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Don't the people in those houses have a right to own property?

Yes, which is the primary reason I disagree with SCOTUS.

I guess the bit that bugs me most is are these people really getting what they would need to cover moving expenses, an equitable home elsewhere, or are they getting screwed over because the houses won't appraise for shit anyway?

Thats the other reason

What exactly are you trying to save? Isn't it counter-productive to make the very people you hope to help homeless?

7 homes vs the whole area. Many vs the few. Democracy at its best.

[The One and Only...]

Just another peg against government if you ask me.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Again with the terrible comparison.

1. This ruling isn't going to hurt just 7 homes.

2. I'm not sure what definition of "democracy" you're working with, but I'm pretty sure having the SCOTUS play with the bill of rights in order to justify screwing 7 families out of their homes isn't democracy. Again, we're talking about real people getting really screwed for the sake of hypothetical people who might get a job at this factory, which might stay there for more than ten years if the tax breaks are right.

[El Blanco]

How was the desicion made before ity got to SCOTUS? Did the city council(elected officials) decide it?

1. This ruling isn't going to hurt just 7 homes.

Actually, ya. This ruling has been stated to be for this specific case only. Its not going to be used as precedent to increased ED. The notes of the Justices state this.

Again, we're talking about real people getting really screwed for the sake of hypothetical people who might get a job at this factory, which might stay there for more than ten years if the tax breaks are right.

We are also talking about a real town with more than 7 real people that is going down the shitter.

[Emu]

Am I the only one who finds SCOTUS to be an hilarious word?

[Rez]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

I said I disagreed with the descicion. But, I also realized why it was made.

So, you think because it can be abused, NL should be left to rot away? Don't the people of the town have the right to try and save themselves? How else does that happen without a bussiness coming and expanding, bringing jobs with it?

the supreme court should have refused point blank to even take the case. the connecticut court already ruled in favor of the local governement, why bring it to the US supreme court for them to make it a NATIONAL PRECEDENT? something that now all local governments can point to to justify why a Target is needed?

i think this is the first time i ever agreed with rhenquist, thomas, AND scalia.

wierd.

EDIT:

Actually, ya. This ruling has been stated to be for this specific case only. Its not going to be used as precedent to increased ED. The notes of the Justices state this.

oh.
out of curiosity where did you find it? i actually slogged through a lot of that shit because i couldn't believe myself, but i didnt see anywhere that this was not meant to set a precedent.

[Big Papa Goat]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

This is screwing over a group of people in order to save a larger group of people.


And, kids, do we all know what this is called?

Thats right. Democracy.

Isn't liberal democracy about safeguarding individual rights? A towns prosperity isn't an issue of individual rights by any reasonable extent, so according to what I thought the American conception of democracy was, the government shouldn't be limiting the rights of any individuals for that purpose.
Not that I really agree with that kind of liberal stance on this kind of issue, in principle I think it's alright for a government to limit individual rights for the good of the community.

[Zhukov]

Maybe a better law would be to take unused land from corporations and give it to the local community??

[Emu]

I finally get your sig, Zhukov.

[hammered_soul]

Originally Posted by george

today the supreme court decided that LOCAL governments have the right to sieze your property (land) and turn it over for use as commercial space

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...


We're getting closer

[ziggytrix]

http://www.trinityrivervision.org/index.asp

Their doing a similar thing in Ft. Worth, but so they can move a river and sell the seized land to developers. A family owned foundry that is run by some friends of ours is one of the businesses being moved out to make room for this. An 80 year old family business is just being written off and 20 people are gonna lose their jobs, unless you know a construction agency that will build a new iron foundry for $10,000 (fed guidelines limit compensation to this amount for a business).

It's disgusting. And they do it all under the pretense of developing the city, but if you follow the money, you'll find most of it going to a few people or businesses.