Freedom Oppressed!!!
Judicial Activism unleashed in one of the worst examples of socialism to ever come to this nation. No longer will backroom deals have to be made in hopes of keeping secrete dirty dealings for profiet. It can be done in full view of those who are going to get screwed, and it is now legal.
washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 6:29 PM
WASHINGTON -- Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.
(OH SURE NOT AT FIRST THE RUSH WON'T HAPPEN BUT AS DEVELPOERS LEARN OF VALUABLE PROPERETY NOW CAN BE HAD WITH THE RIGHT ARGUMENT TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY LOOK OUT.)
The court's liberal wing _ David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.
At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
(THIS IS AMAZING. WHAT PROPERTY RIGHTS DO WE AS CITIZENS NOW HAVE. LETS FACE REALITY NOW. IF YOU OWN SOME PRIME REAL ESTATE AND HAVE TURNED DOWN OFFERS IN THE PAST WHAT IS TO STOP THE DEVELPERS NOW FROM HAVING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SIEZE YOUR LAND AND LET THEM TURN AROUND, ALL IN THE NAME OF IMPROVMENT DEVELOPE WHAT ONCE WAS YOUR PROPERTY AND POCKET THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS NOW FROM IT. WHILE YOU GET A SO CALLED FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR IT. NOW HOW FO THEY DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE? WHAT FORMULA WILL THEY USE, PRESENT TAX BASE, PROJECTED TAX BASE? WHAT THE LAND WILL BE WORTH WITH THE IMPROVMENT? OR WILL IT BE IN REALITY A VERY LOW PRICE THAT BARELY COVERS THE COST OF THE MOVERS WHO SHOW UP UNANNOUNCED KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR?)
For the whole articale copy and paste the following address:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301067_pf.html
washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 6:29 PM
WASHINGTON -- Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.
(OH SURE NOT AT FIRST THE RUSH WON'T HAPPEN BUT AS DEVELPOERS LEARN OF VALUABLE PROPERETY NOW CAN BE HAD WITH THE RIGHT ARGUMENT TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY LOOK OUT.)
The court's liberal wing _ David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.
At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
(THIS IS AMAZING. WHAT PROPERTY RIGHTS DO WE AS CITIZENS NOW HAVE. LETS FACE REALITY NOW. IF YOU OWN SOME PRIME REAL ESTATE AND HAVE TURNED DOWN OFFERS IN THE PAST WHAT IS TO STOP THE DEVELPERS NOW FROM HAVING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SIEZE YOUR LAND AND LET THEM TURN AROUND, ALL IN THE NAME OF IMPROVMENT DEVELOPE WHAT ONCE WAS YOUR PROPERTY AND POCKET THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS NOW FROM IT. WHILE YOU GET A SO CALLED FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR IT. NOW HOW FO THEY DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE? WHAT FORMULA WILL THEY USE, PRESENT TAX BASE, PROJECTED TAX BASE? WHAT THE LAND WILL BE WORTH WITH THE IMPROVMENT? OR WILL IT BE IN REALITY A VERY LOW PRICE THAT BARELY COVERS THE COST OF THE MOVERS WHO SHOW UP UNANNOUNCED KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR?)
For the whole articale copy and paste the following address:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301067_pf.html
