American homeowners should read this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623...CVuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

It appears that American homeowners are actually not homeowners at all. It appears that the government owns our homes and decides what will happen with them. Please read this article adn tell me what you think...

 

That's pretty rough.

Further proof that poor people aren't welcome in America.

 

Aren't welcome? First off it is pretty hard to be poor and own a house. Second, you could be wealthy and have them take your house. Unless you have more money than the wealthy developers - you are out of luck. It is just further proof that our government is filled with a bunch of morons that have forgotten that government is in place for the people.

 

It has nothing to do with rich or poor. It has to do with one's right to one's belongings, real estate or otherwise. All I want to know is: What on earth were the justices thinking on this one?

 

This has been a controversy in my state of CT now for at least a couple years ... one area in question Fort Trumbull in New London which is basically a run down area of old shuttered military buildings and just a few run down homes.

The Connecticut Supreme Court last March ruled 4-3 that the Fort Trumbull project has "the public benefits of creating new jobs, increasing tax and other revenues and contributing to urban revitalization" - thereby satisfying the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The high courts of five other states have also held that government may condemn property for economic development, if there is a public benefit involved.

 

The unfortunate thing about the tax "advantages" to having a shopping mall is quite seldom do people do the proper math to realize how much it will cost the town to support such a mall. In my town we just voted out a development company that wanted to build a mall because someone actually did the math. We were promised $1.6 mill in taxes, but it would have cost us $2.5 mill in services and resources for allof teh traffic and different municipalities it would require.

 

Just another unfortunate step down a very slippery slope. The most worrysome part of this to me is there need be no actual reason given for the razing other than the city officials feel it is in the, very loosely defined, "public good". The area need not be an urban blight, there need be no real public project going in at the site such as a freeway, school etc. A few politicians just need to be convinced it's "in the public interest". I live in San Diego, and we are learning first hand here just how easily local and city officials are bought, with both our mayor and most of our city council either under investigation or indictment for corruption, taking bribes, kickbacks or other questionable practices. The scarriest part is they were'nt even all bought off by the same people. In a couple cases, they weren't even bought off by just one group! So long as the big devleopment corps can grease the right people, our rights as a property owner (and as citizens) mean zip. So, in a hundred years should we count on having no property rights at all? Will everything be corporate owned and every citizen be their tennant while government officials merrily dance to their tune? Sounds rediculous now, but we seem to be drawing ever closer this grim reality. I don't know about you, but I'm not at all comforted by any of this.

 

Judicial jerks

I hope that if this awful power... er... when this awful power is misused, the public outcry makes the decision-makers sorry. That's all I can hope for.
I don't have a lot of faith in the supreme court. The 2000 election made sure of that.

 

Wow, this just expands my distrust in anything government invloved. Where are our real conservatives, you know, ones that would stop govt expansion?

 

Moved to Off Topic.

 

The poor? Say again? Only in American can the "poor" have a house, color telivisions, hot tubs, cars and be fat bags of lard. Boo hoo hoo, the poor in America. Better to be poor in America than king of East Frootloopistan.

Yeah, it's rough, maybe that's why tens upon tens of millions of the poor come here, some in homemade rafts. Now, about the radicals in black robes:

This decision impacts every property owner regardless of economic status. There are now no restrictions on the circumstances under which government may take your property for "public use." Now "economic develpment or tax bases are acceptable rationales. Soon--"quality of life", environmental concerns, or any other inane reason that a board of zoning appeals attorney can think of.

The Bill of Rights is now no longer about invidual rights; it is now about "community rights." God-given rights must be sacrificed for the "greater good". Geez, we went through this rubbish in 1776.

The government now protects animals, via the endangered critters act, more than people. The government must be "altered or abolished" as that red-headed firebrand declared so many years ago!

 

Higest court

This is the kind of thing that should be appealed to the Higest Court in the Land™. If it weren't coming from there.

Man, they're smokin' dope.

 

*sigh*

Amazing. The most liberal members of the court are ok with eminent domain and city rights when they see a possible benefit, but hate state's rights when they don't see any benefit. The conservatives love state's rights when it oppresses someone, hate it if it means more rights to someone. And good old Sandra Day O'Connor, flip flopping as usual.

I do find it a tad disturbing that these homes weren't condemned, however.

Well, here's the opinion if anyone wants to read it:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

 

So is this another 'amendment' to your constitution?

 

More like an erosion of our Bill of Rights.

 

Not an Amendment. Article V of the US Constitution. Part of the "original" document.

 

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

But the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10):
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

oops. guess I overslept the day in law school when it was explained that the Amendment extended from criminal law to "taking for public use" *shrug* oh well. can't be right all the time

 

Details

The nasty leagalese aside, this is the kind of thing that can be used for good and ill.

Next to my sister's house is a rat-infested slum house that has been (aside from the rats) vacant for years. She'd love to tear it down and extend her back yard or just leave it as a plot of weed-choked land. As it stands, it drives down property values and is a health hazard. I can see using this new ruling for good here.

If Ma and Pa Johnson are told to leave the home they'd passed down over the course of 4 generations so that a new Kwikie-Mart can be built... well, that smacks of evil.

I'd love it if my city would use this ruling to remove a country club that's been blocking the production of a much-needed road through town. It would make getting to the other side of town much quicker and relieve much of the congestion on either side of the club.

 

But the country club generates income and pays all the poor schleps who congest the rods to either side while Ma and Pa Kettle only contribute to the local farmer's market!

I kinda have to agree, that ruling smacks of blatant classism. It makes me ill.