SCOTUS: Land Snatching Approved
If it’s war they want, it’s war they’ll get. The right to have your own land and home is basic to freedom. If we surrender this right, we might as well pack it in. This act by the liberals on SCOTUS is the ultimate socialist advance into democracy. They basically said that the needs of the many (the city) outweigh the needs of the few (individual citizens) and your land and mine can be seized and turned over to local government for redistribution to businesses that will enhance the tax base and make the city richer and they could care less if you are homeless.
BULLSHIT!
I don’t even think the flaming libs I know would stand for this if it happened to them! Who the hell do these “justices” (as if the libs on the court have ever served up justice) think they are?
I am saddened by this decision. What Frank says in comment #5 is right. There is absolutlely no recourse for this absolutely insane and unjust decision. You can’t exactly APPEAL a Supreme Court Decision. Looks like our faithful conservatives on the bench, Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas and yes, even O’Connor on this one (she actually wrote the dissenting opinion), dissented, and rightly so.
This ruling is so unbelievably fucked up I am beside myself. You know what, though? Stupid moonbat commie libs, who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground, will view this through their left-wing colored glasses as “the man” gettin’ one over on “the people.” Yes, it’s “the man” but it’s the socialist, Lenin-loving, Marxist man, not the GWB “man” Scary. Liberalism is very scary.
God help us. I am an armed citizen.
Well, this has already been tried with family land once. For a proposed second golf course, no less! The county already had an excellent 18 holer but decided a second one would fill the cofers even more. We were approached with the “offer” of purchace, much below the “fair market value”. That being secondary to the fact that the land was just not for sale at any price at that point and time. I had a county commissioner or two approach me for their persuasions and talking points of “good for the community” and all that b.s. One happened to bring up “imminent domain”. Well, i’ve always been a very civil kinna gal, and my tone remained civil to this “subtle” threat, whereas i proceeded to tell the jerk that if they tried they might wanna be sure to bring the coroner as it would be more certain than not, his services would be needed. Then something about a “terroristic threat” was mentioned. I calmly explained that i made no “terroristic threat”, but what i did make was a promise! Well after a lil bit more debate with my reiterations, the commissioners decided to nab some other suckers land. Fine by me!
Whew, i get shakin’ angry when i think of this. Yes, methinks i do see a revolt in the making over this issue.
Posted by imp
06/23/2005 at 01:44 PM
The worst part is that there is no immediate possibility of replacing any of those five socialist “justices” any time soon. Your home is no longer your castle if some local government can be bribed into taking it away from you.
This is an successful attack on the very fundament of the Constitution and this court has abrogated its responsibility to protect it. I am outraged!!!
While I think the decision is crap there is a remedy. State law can be changed to prohibit these activities. And I hope states do so.
There is a further implication to the decision. If localities can take private homes to stimulate economic growth then they can also take the property of businesses and churches. So apartment buildings, office buildings, retail stores, etc. can be taken and given to others using the excuse that the present owner is not creating enough jobs or tax revenue or the right image for the community.
The person losing the property still has the right to be paid for the loss. But government has no obligation whatever to make the new owner pay anything for it. The clear result will be to give the property to political insiders.
Posted by KenS
06/23/2005 at 03:52 PM
The blogs are a grabben hold of this.....(not so subtle plug for my own)...Eric at “Eric’s Grumbles Before the Grave” has started a list of those who are more then a tad upset with this ruling. Kinda surprising that the Fifth Amendment may be the one to provide the push needed to turn our battered Republic around.
Time to form a real ‘minuteman’ militia. The kind that drills with firearms. The kind that will, on a minute’s notice muster to stop the improper taking of private property. The SCOTUS decision is unconstitutional. All five justices who voted for this should be impeached.
>Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.<
I don’t know about local officials in large cities, but those in small towns seem to be in their positions to satisfy some ego need. The local officials in my town are morons who revel in their positions of control. The only thing good about this is that they would be very easy to intimidate. Local newspapers would be so all over any attempt to steal land that it would cause a riot. FOX could send Sean Hannity down to broadcast live as the dispossessed family stands around wailing. Little Junior could hold his kitty and cry.
I don’t mean to make fun of this, but as Guy said, this kind of move could really raise some hell, and people just won’t stand for it. Breaking point....
Posted by Phoenix
06/23/2005 at 04:57 PM
A precedent set will be a precedent followed. Make no mistake about it. Any number of greedy bastards are going to see this as an open door.
The minute governments began holding our property for ransom at gunpoint (they call it property taxes), we lost our actual right to own property. We could no longer actually buy it. We could buy only the right to use it and dispose of it--that is, so long as we paid the local City Hall mob’s protection money. And now, even that right has been voided.
Hell is on the wing.
And by the way, if the local City Hall mob can take property away from some owners and give it to others on one day, what is to keep them from turning around and taking it away from those others on another day? Particularly if their dark, deep-laid plans for increased tax revenue don’t pan out?
Tannenberg: EXACTLY! Was one of my points to the local commissioners. (and anyone else who would listen) Luckily i nabbed a few ears and held on.
Posted by imp
06/23/2005 at 07:09 PM
Good for you, Imp. I hope you don’t have to face such an ordeal again. Glad you are with us here, and kindest regards.
I move we give them the object lesson they so richly deserve and immediately begin condemnation proceedings on all of their property, for the public good of course.
Posted by Outrider
06/23/2005 at 07:24 PM
>Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.<
Looks like local graft and corruption just got better and more profitable!
THIS SUCKS BEYOND BELIEF!!!!!
Since high school, I’ve been taught that the Right of Emnient Domain relates to public projects, i.e. roads, docks, harbors, airports, libraries, and the like. When did it suddenly change to include private enterprise projects?
WHAT THE HELL GOES ON HERE?
If I understand this, if the City of San Antonio suddenly decides that my neighborhood would provide more tax revenue as a Wal-Mart mega-warehouse distribution center, it can condemn our houses, purchase the land and then sell it to Wal-Mart?
OK. I’m checking the ammo cache and sighting-in the shoot’n irons! To Hell with this!!
Posted by MAJ Mike
06/23/2005 at 08:21 PM
From time to time I go downtown by the scenic route rather than expressway, and travel through a gorgeous residential area full of magnificent mansions of the old money folks.
Along this busy street in the midst of this ultra desirable, built-out neighborhood there are a couple of huge, brick Flemish bond Williamsburg style churches, sitting on nicely treed multi-acre lots. They pay no taxes. The city, which is majority black, has high real estate taxes and a chronic shortage of money.
The city can now take those churches, give them to a developer to do a condo conversion in a very tony neighborhood, assess a very high value because of location, and reap substantial “benefits” for the city. Shouldn’t take long at all to amortize the cost of the fair value of the churches and land.
I wonder if Congress can stop this through Article III, Section 2, Clause 2?
I’ve been under the impression since childhood that our country and its laws, and the precedent English law before the founding sat upon the bedrock of private property.
This is very, very serious.
Think this qualifies as a “call to arms?” If it doesn’t, it doesn’t miss it by much.
At the risk of catching hell I would like to remind everyone that state government is the only vehicle to remedy this situation.
The state constitution and/or statutes control local governing bodies. I believe Utah fixed this ED situation about 5 years ago. But I defer to those familiar with Utah law.
I think the court was wrong. It appears that anything regarded as your property can be taken by local Connecticut officals so long as they “feel” society is bettered by the action.
Posted by KenS
06/23/2005 at 11:01 PM
I live 15 minutes from where all this went down and use to live in New London- The people running New London are the worst screw ups on the planet which if that isn’t bad enough the city is full of non-profit groups, welfare offices and churches that don’t pay a dime in taxes but expect services of course.
One survey indicated that New London only collects property taxes on HALF the property in the city, I would not be surprised in the least.
The long and short is Pfizer (the Viagra people) wanted to move into town and New London started whacking property owners wholesale and those that would not move started getting strong armed left and right “for the good of the community”.
My attitude is just because a private company wants the land and the tax revenue may increase that isn’t good enough to take someone’s home. Land needed for a public roads or public works projects is one thing, for a private commercial endeavor is bullsh*t.
Posted by gdonovan
06/23/2005 at 11:34 PM
Ken, I won’t trust our state government to fix broken faucets in their own bathrooms.
Shall Satan cast out Satan? Hah!!
re Tannenberg: I agree with your assessment. Most state governments are a mess.
But Kelo is not a legal change. The states have always had the power to limit ED by local governments. Kelo just says they still can.
So fix it at the state level or it won’t get fixed.
I live in Peoria, AZ. We have an ordinance which would have prevented the Kelo taking. That is sort of OK but not very strong. The city staff, of course, tries to undermine or circumvent any such limit and will eventually do so.
The state government has less interest in local land deals and that is why restrictions should be passed at that level. It just makes it harder for the scoundrels; they certainly will keep trying.
The history of the world shows the main activity of any government is harnassing person A to serve B - it is only a matter of degree and transparancy. But sometimes it can be stopped for a while in one place or another.
Posted by KenS
06/24/2005 at 12:22 PM
Right enough, Ken, about the main activity of any government, and anyone who robs Peter to pay Paul can always rely on the support of Paul. But I hardly think I am the only one who is fed up to the teeth with being Peter and “Person A.”
GRRRRRR!
