Eminent Domain ruling
- Thread starter queenlives
- Start date
The United States has now become closer to Communism than the Capitalist Republic which the Founding Fathers foresaw and established. Nikita Kruschev predicted that Communism would defeat the US from within. Was he right? Looks like it ................
it's an amazing and very disapppointing ruling, that's for sure.NSXLNT said:
I can't believe they did this. Sure, eminent domain has been around for a long time. I see it everyday. The area I live in is developing very fast. I see houses get torn down pretty much on a daily basis. But it's always to widen a road or something. I can't believe eminent domain covers commercial purposes as well. Very disapointing.
Yeah.. the moment I read that I couldn't believe how that passed. Obviously there are some very happy (greedy) people who probably can't wait to jump on this... 
sad... just sad.
sad... just sad.
time to move to Australia. 
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:White92 said:
Those of us that aren't going to NSXPO can go over there and do it while he's here. He'll be in for quite a surprise when he gets home! If their government is anything like ours, he won't be able to do anything about it. Just think, for the cost of a plane ticket, we tricked him into making us rich! :biggrin:
Neo: "Dude, where's my house?" or is it "Mate, where's my house?"
Neo: "Dude, where's my house?" or is it "Mate, where's my house?"
White, your quote from wbush fits perfectly in this situation. James Madison wrote, and this is my paraphrase, that the only thing that seperates a good govt from a bad govt is the willingness of the govt to "allow" it's citizens to keep what they have aquired.
yes, without a doubt (to me, anyway), the best there is in soooo many ways.White92 said:
reflecting on this topic a bit, i'm not sure that although it passed muster this time (through the supreme court), there won't be many flavors of "interpretation" to the issue as its tested over the years.
so, probably not so black and white as it appears on the surface.
any attys here to add "substance" to this discussion?
hal
Call me pessimistic, but I see this as opening the floodgates to many more similar decisions all across the country. Let's not forget, this case was about a local Govt. desiring to increase it's tax base by being in the back pocket of a private developer. It had nothing to do with the common good of the community. No homes will be taken for a road, a school or a hospital. Homes that have been in familys for generations are being taken so a private developer can build a marina, a hotel and shopping/etc. 
My understanding is that the Supreme court has basically pushed the case back to the State Supreme Court level to decide the outcomes of these cases. A similar thing happened in this city a few years ago when the city condemned some buildings to build a new public and commercial project on a river that winds through downtown. While I could see the financial reasoning of the city, I strongly felt (and still feel) that the owner of those properties should have the final say, and if even one says they will not sell, then it should be their right to hold onto their land.
Starting already:
" Play the video (06/24/05) NORWALK - The road may now be paved for the city of Norwalk in its eminent domain battle with a local car dealership.
The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday sided with the city of New London in its plan to seize homes for private development. Norwalk's Mayor says that could set a precedent for the city's case with Maritime Motors.
Both sides are awaiting a decision by the state Supreme Court after Norwalk won two lower court decisions. The city says it needs the property to complete its plans to build offices and an access road in the area.
The owner of Maritime Motors has not returned News 12 Connecticut’s phone call."
Note that Norwalk wants the land to build offices ( not town offices ). More private development.
" Play the video (06/24/05) NORWALK - The road may now be paved for the city of Norwalk in its eminent domain battle with a local car dealership.
The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday sided with the city of New London in its plan to seize homes for private development. Norwalk's Mayor says that could set a precedent for the city's case with Maritime Motors.
Both sides are awaiting a decision by the state Supreme Court after Norwalk won two lower court decisions. The city says it needs the property to complete its plans to build offices and an access road in the area.
The owner of Maritime Motors has not returned News 12 Connecticut’s phone call."
Note that Norwalk wants the land to build offices ( not town offices ). More private development.
You're joking, right? Either that, or you have no understanding of the principles of Communism (which are the precise opposite of facilitating private enterprise).NSXLNT said:
Sheesh, people have been saying silly things like that for years - at least since Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932, and probably even before that. Hasn't happpened yet...
no Ken, I'm not joking. When the Govt can seize private property at will, private property will cease to exist as we have known it. The rejection of private property is one of the tenets of communism. If you re-read my post, I did not say we are now a communist state, but that we are now closer to communism then the Founding Fathers would ever have dreamed. Yes, there are seeming contradictions here, what with private enterprise being involved, but once the Govt is in bed with those enterprises, and making decisions favorable to both themselves and that private enterprise, at the expense of ordinary citizens, I would dare say that the "private" enterprise has now become an arm of the Govt. Govt ownership of industry is also a tenet of communism, isn't it? Unless overturned, this decision has opened the door to serious abuse of property ownership. Look at the post about Maritime Motors. That dealership has a choice piece of property on a busy corner along main routes in the Town Of Norwalk. Norwalk has now gotten the ok, through the precedent set in New London, to seize this property and do with it what they will. I doubt that the current owner can be fairly compensated for the property, and even if he could, why should tax payers have to fund something that is not for the tax payers? A new school? ok. A city funded hospital, no problem. Not a privately owned business office building.
But your simplistic interpretation blithely ignores a whole bunch of things: (1) Government has ALWAYS had jurisdiction over private ("free") enterprise in many different ways. Look at zoning regulations, building codes, etc. These have existed for many many years. That hardly means that government is "in bed with" private enterprises. (2) Such cases have always been adjudicated with fair compensation for the property owners (who can still litigate if they believe that the settlement is not just). Your doubt that compensation will be fair flies in the face of the facts. (3) This case was decided to be applicable only under the specific, narrow grounds that a public interest is served - while you approve of property being condemned and purchased in order to build public facilities to serve the public interest, you ignore the fact that property may be condemned and purchased in order to achieve other public objectives, such as clearing slums, making the community more desirable, adding to the tax base, etc - all of which do serve the public interest. This narrow decision highly circumscribes the situations in which it is applicable, and is NOT the carte blanche for government to assist any private enterprise, anywhere, as you seem to be falsely trying to interpret it as.
Also, I doubt that the Founding Fathers had any concerns, one way or another, about our country moving towards an economic and political system that wasn't even imagined until a full century after the country began.
Also, I doubt that the Founding Fathers had any concerns, one way or another, about our country moving towards an economic and political system that wasn't even imagined until a full century after the country began.
Well, I guess it had to happen. Slippery slope indeed!
It’s surprising to me that people get so excited over a few pieces of property when 30% to 50% of their pay is taken every payday. This is all done by elected officials who can be removed through a recall or just not get re-elected.
hahahahaha, great one, bp!bodypainter said:Well, I guess it had to happen. Slippery slope indeed!
no argument here... my perception on this is that the tax rates have been baked into our society, while this latest interpretation of eminent domain is new.Briank said:
This still doesn't feel right to me, maybe because it happened right here in my back yard in CT. These were not eyesores or slums or unkempt properties. These are well maintained Victorian-style homes in a neighborhood where families have lived for generations. This neighborhood just happens to be along waterfront property that a developer decided he could make a fortune on if he could convince the local Govt. to go along with his plans. No amount of compensation is enough to force people out of their homes when greed is the only motive. These people did not want to leave, and fought all the way to the supreme court, hoping the court would rule in favor of citizens of the united states, not in favor of greedy developers and crooked politicians. Shows you where priorities are heading. The public interest has not been served here. The only thing being served is the bank acounts of the developers and the politicians who are on their payrolls. Just like the oj trial and the MJ trial, this goes to show that justice in this country belongs to those with the deepest pockets.
a shame....NSXLNT said:This still doesn't feel right to me, maybe because it happened right here in my back yard in CT. These were not eyesores or slums or unkempt properties. These are well maintained Victorian-style homes in a neighborhood where families have lived for generations. This neighborhood just happens to be along waterfront property that a developer decided he could make a fortune on if he could convince the local Govt. to go along with his plans. No amount of compensation is enough to force people out of their homes when greed is the only motive. These people did not want to leave, and fought all the way to the supreme court, hoping the court would rule in favor of citizens of the united states, not in favor of greedy developers and crooked politicians. Shows you where priorities are heading. The public interest has not been served here. The only thing being served is the bank acounts of the developers and the politicians who are on their payrolls. Just like the oj trial and the MJ trial, this goes to show that justice in this country belongs to those with the deepest pockets.
This just seems to be a shame- another way the country seems to be going downhill. NSXLNT says it all.
I can definitely understand if it is for the city residents' good for land to be reclaimed, and that it is the last resort, such as a new highway in a rapidly developing area. However, it is wrong for the land to be used for private business, even if it increases the tax base. I've personally seen a private commercial building in my hometown get bought out by force and taken over by the city government. It caused a lot of problems between city members and the residents. I've heard of other personal accounts of similar actions. The fair price has been 60-75% typically. I think the law should be changed, especially when it comes to a person's home. They should be compensated 200% of the value if a person's home is reclaimed, or 125% for regular property. It might make officials consider other ideas more thoroughly...
I can definitely understand if it is for the city residents' good for land to be reclaimed, and that it is the last resort, such as a new highway in a rapidly developing area. However, it is wrong for the land to be used for private business, even if it increases the tax base. I've personally seen a private commercial building in my hometown get bought out by force and taken over by the city government. It caused a lot of problems between city members and the residents. I've heard of other personal accounts of similar actions. The fair price has been 60-75% typically. I think the law should be changed, especially when it comes to a person's home. They should be compensated 200% of the value if a person's home is reclaimed, or 125% for regular property. It might make officials consider other ideas more thoroughly...
Similar threads
