Local cities can seize property

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ-of-E

Massive "fu** you" to the US Supreme Court for this morning's ruling.


Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize

It's a 5-4 decision, so there's still hope for a turn over.

But I REALLY REALLY do not want Justice O'Connor to retire before ending this debate completely. I mean President Bush has appointed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, knowing Bush's support for the wealthy, this may turn into a 6-3 decision in the future, making it even more screwed for the working class in the United States.

Real estate, for one that I know, Fair Market Value of the home in compensation DOES NOT compensate the value the family has spent on in hopes of having this "home" for themselves. First of all, homes are hella expensive nowadays, so property tax are extremely high (average around $7000 a year in Orange County for newly purchased homes). Second, the amount of investment into the home. You know the old saying "time is money".

If they offered $1,000,000 for a $350,000 home, that's considerable compensation since it will give the "poorer" families who owned the homes some buffer zone for a new home in the next 10 years. Now if they pay like $350,000 for a $350,000 home, what the hell is the point? If they move, they have to pay $350,000 to $400,000 for another home and get into even more indept. The working class are people too....

---

I hope you dont mind me quoting you DJ? You just said it so elequently.


So what do you guys think of this shit?? I think its just plain wrong. :thumbd: :thumbd:

Grumble Grumble Grumble

The thing is, cities, counties and states have always had the ability to force you to sell your property, but up until know, this was limited to the construction of freeways, airports and other public works projects. The recent Supreme Court ruling extend this powers for 'privately owned' business projects as a part of a cities redevelopment plans.

It is often the case that property owners have used the courts to hinder local development plans and avoid having to battle through the ballot box for control for the local goverment bodies. The Supreme Court ruling now puts greater importance on the election of local goverment and city redevelopment agencies. Policies for city redevelopment should be decided at the balot box and not through court lawsuits..

Most people have no idea who to vote for, mainly because many people are very stupid when it comes to politics, most people don't take a hard look at the parties platforms nor try to read the fine print of a persons agenda, people are just too stupid to realize who they are voting, though it should be decided at the ballot box. This ruling will have serious concequences as the years go by.

freestarmedia

Quote:

---

Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

...

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

...

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

...

---

Could be one of them will change their mind? ;)

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrianna

freestarmedia
Could be one of them will change their mind? ;)

---

This is nothing more the harassment, as it is unlikely they will be able to show monatary justification to spend city funds for a project designed more for political protest then serious city redevelopment...

I don't believe they're asking the city to pay for any of it. Fully paid by investors. And according to the way it's worded it falls completely under what Souter claimed was legitiamate use of imminante domain. If it doesn't fly it will be because either the local authoritites don't believe in the ruling or because Souter is well known and wealthy. Either way they'll have made their point.

now instead of buying a house you are renting it, the way it looks people will get screwed out of their homes for city development

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Katsuhito

the way it looks people will get screwed out of their homes for city development

---

This is not what anyone really wants to happen, but it very well could...