Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court examines limits of city's eminent domain powers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
JoeMemphis Donating Member (469 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:00 PM
Original message
Supreme Court examines limits of city's eminent domain powers
Striking an unusual populist tone, the Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday over whether city officials in Connecticut have the authority to seize homes in a working-class neighborhood and turn the property over to private developers.

The court heard arguments on the limits of eminent domain, the legal principle under which a government can condemn and seize a person's property and convert it to a greater "public use."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.eminent.domain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Eminem rocks!
Oh.

Never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeMemphis Donating Member (469 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Dems should be front and center on this court case ...
... and on Susette Kelo's side. This will determine the future of private property rights in this country.

I can only wonder if * is hoping the court will side with New London.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. This is abuse, and I hope they slap these towns down
Eminent domain was created for things that really were in the public's interest, like roads, schools, and municipal buildings. There's no way the laws were intended to deprive people of their homes to fatten corporations.

It will be very interesting to read the ruling and the dissent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. either way I hope they also address the "fair price" issue
If someone purchased and paid off a piece of property 30 years ago, let's just say, a four bedroom, 2.5 bath house on an acre of land, then they need more than just a "fair price" on the value of the property.

To replace that property in today's market in a similar neighborhood at "fair value" would have a considerable deterrant effect. Addressing the concept of fair value means talking about replacement value of the property.

If someone merely reimburses me for the cost of the property but not the equal cost of relocating and I absorb the difference in the form of a new mortgage and other expenses, I am in effect paying a highly regressive tax to the city so that they can have their public works project.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. pardon my language...
Edited on Wed Feb-23-05 12:15 PM by ProdigalJunkMail
but how the fuck can they (the Supremes) be divided??? And just how the hell did this get out of the STATE Supreme court? Does this mean that states don't have to honor property rights? Then fuck 'em...if they don't honor your rights to your property you should not have to pay taxes on them because you don't OWN it...you are only renting it...

This isn't about building a road or a school...this is about kicking people off of their property so that the city can get a better tax return...

theProdigal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. Kiss your rights to land goodbye...The Supremes will side with
BushCo and the corporations as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. The town I live in is dealing with this right now
They want to take some private land, including the local VFW hall, and sell it to a developer who will put in a Home Depot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC