High Court OKs Personal Property Seizures

[Arrow]

Thanks Doc...

Couldn't agree more!

What Chas assumes is there was no alternative to the expansion of TU but to bulldoze exisiting business some that have been here for over forty years. Tulsawould remind you ofa California city only with some wide open spaces and plenty of room for expansion. TU might have done whatTulsa's largest Methodist Church did. They went south. Another campus in South Tulsa to augment the existing campus would have been an option to consider and may have encouraged enrollment as South Tulsa is easier access than the exisiting campus.

They opted instead to flex their political muscle and run over the constitutional rights of private property owners. An interview with one of the planners had him complaining that there were also too many suburban type lawns in Tulsa that could be put to better use! That would be his idea of better use of course!

So now Doc we not only have the food nazis but we've got the lawn nazis! Their everywhere! Their everywhere! Fill you hands boys! Their comin' soon to a city near you!

Arrow>>>>>>

[Chas H]

I didn't assume a thing Arrow. My comments were based on the facts you posted.

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by 82Rigger Thursday, June 23, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Well, this is all very iontersting, and , as always, so are the rsponses. I have sort of avoided making political comments but as long as this is spilling over into the General Posts, I might as well get my 2 cts in.
I'll start by saying I am against it generally but see the need for the concept of eminent domain in an urban society.
Its intersting to see liberals get blamed for this when 3 out of 5 of the justices voting for it (Kennedy, Souter and Stevens) and were appointed--against strong liberal resistance-- by Republicans. What this does actually when combined with Breyer and Ginsburg is put their concept in the middle of the road.
Its also amazing to see this blamed on liberals when the beneficiaries of emninent domain are ALWAYS corporate intersts. Theyre not taking this land away and giving it to George Clooney, theyre taking it away so it can bedeveloped by corporate intersts--which overwhelmiongly favor conservative interests and are favored by conservative politicians.
Are you not aware that this will be developed by private corporate intersts and that private corporate interests almost to a man (or woman) support the Republican side and for just such reason as this? Some pretty selective outrage if you don't!
Private business interests--and not liberal ones!-- are the ones who created the whole concept of emininent domain during the Industrial Revolution and its always been the tool that business intersts use to grab private property. This was mostly concerning the Railroads--hardly liberals-- who needed right of ways to expand. This go into outrageous trickery andcorruption. Example: the Central Pacific "proving" to the Supreme Court that the Sierra mountains started in Sacramento instead of the the 28 miles further dthsan it actually was. This was so they could get a bigger slice of the pie EmDomwise and grab off more valuable suburban acreage. And the Supreme Court--again dominated by Republicans--supported it fully
Anybody ever been to Sacto? If youre 6' higher on one side of the town than the other its because youre standing on a ladder!
And are you also not aware that a much more famous case than this occurred severall years ago when eminient domain took over private property to enable the Texas Ranger Stadium to be built--for private corporate interests and that the principal with his famous name all over that was George W Bush? Who was part owner of the TX Rangers?(still is!) He was hired for his name and made miliions (approximately $15 million for a few hundreds of thousands of investment!)
So the right of emininent domain put a whole lot more money into George BUsh's pockets than anything else he ever did!
How was that different from this?
It looks to me like private corporate intersts gets away with private property (AGAIN!) while the liberals get blamed for it (AGAIN!)
I Think the business intersts ought to fess up to who really butters their bread: the Republicans, who dominate the Supreme Court, who appointed 3 out of 5 of the justices on the eminent domain side, and whose president supports it fully!
Stay good
James

[Arrow]

Ok Chas...

Let me restate. You assumed Icould think of noalternative but to have TU move to cow country.

[Advisor]

Originally posted by exlrrp

Well, this is all very iontersting, and , as always, so are the rsponses. I have sort of avoided making political comments but as long as this is spilling over into the General Posts, I might as well get my 2 cts in.
I'll start by saying I am against it generally but see the need for the concept of eminent domain in an urban society.
Its intersting to see liberals get blamed for this when 3 out of 5 of the justices voting for it (Kennedy, Souter and Stevens) and were appointed--against strong liberal resistance-- by Republicans. What this does actually when combined with Breyer and Ginsburg is put their concept in the middle of the road.
Its also amazing to see this blamed on liberals when the beneficiaries of emninent domain are ALWAYS corporate intersts. Theyre not taking this land away and giving it to George Clooney, theyre taking it away so it can bedeveloped by corporate intersts--which overwhelmiongly favor conservative interests and are favored by conservative politicians.
Are you not aware that this will be developed by private corporate intersts and that private corporate interests almost to a man (or woman) support the Republican side and for just such reason as this? Some pretty selective outrage if you don't!
Private business interests--and not liberal ones!-- are the ones who created the whole concept of emininent domain during the Industrial Revolution and its always been the tool that business intersts use to grab private property. This was mostly concerning the Railroads--hardly liberals-- who needed right of ways to expand. This go into outrageous trickery andcorruption. Example: the Central Pacific "proving" to the Supreme Court that the Sierra mountains started in Sacramento instead of the the 28 miles further dthsan it actually was. This was so they could get a bigger slice of the pie EmDomwise and grab off more valuable suburban acreage. And the Supreme Court--again dominated by Republicans--supported it fully
Anybody ever been to Sacto? If youre 6' higher on one side of the town than the other its because youre standing on a ladder!
And are you also not aware that a much more famous case than this occurred severall years ago when eminient domain took over private property to enable the Texas Ranger Stadium to be built--for private corporate interests and that the principal with his famous name all over that was George W Bush? Who was part owner of the TX Rangers?(still is!) He was hired for his name and made miliions (approximately $15 million for a few hundreds of thousands of investment!)
So the right of emininent domain put a whole lot more money into George BUsh's pockets than anything else he ever did!
How was that different from this?
It looks to me like private corporate intersts gets away with private property (AGAIN!) while the liberals get blamed for it (AGAIN!)
I Think the business intersts ought to fess up to who really butters their bread: the Republicans, who dominate the Supreme Court, who appointed 3 out of 5 of the justices on the eminent domain side, and whose president supports it fully!
Stay good
James

James

Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives...they are all whores who sell themselves to the same johns..corporate/money interests. Libs/Dems just a little more circumspect about it. GOP/Cons sell themselves on the street..Libs/Dems sell their wares on an outcall basis. People be damned they all say.

[SuperScout]

To try to paint all private corporate interests as bad boogie men of the conservative stripe is as bogus as the original poster - anybody ever heard of what Sen. Corzine, D-NJ, did before he purchased.... er, obtained his US Senate seat? Anybody bother to check what corporate fat cats supported John "Did I ever tell you I was a Vietnam veteran" Kerry? And just because a Republican president appoints a judge to the SC doesn't automatically lock in any future votes on that political viewpoint. Classic case in point: Earl Warren (Chief overseer of the Japanese internment camps under FDR) was appointed by Eisenhower, and turned out to be one of the most liberal chief justices in the history of the SC. What is at issue is a perversion of the 5th Amendment, an overreaching decision by an overreaching Court. And it was the liberals on the SC that just ruled against the mere presence of the 10 Commandments on public property. Next, we'll have to do some serious remodeling of the SC building, as it is fraught with religious words.

[Advisor]

I'll volunteer to do the remodeling..LOL but guess I'll have to stand in line..don't have connections, ya know.

[39mto39g]

You know, Giving then a little taste of there own judgment might not be a bad idea. Send Your request to Hanidy or Oriley.




QM3steve---- Correct spelling-- Bite me


Ron

[Packo]

"Public Good" has always meant "Public Use". It had NOTHING, NADA, to do with "economic good" or private industry. It's a TAX thing. A town decides it's "Public Good" to take my house and the homes around me so a developer can put in multi-million dollar homes to attract rich people so the taxes on the homes and people will bring in more bucks than my lower-middle class home and the others in my neighborhood. THIS IS NOT WHAT EMININENT DOMAIN has been about. It was for roads, schools, or "public use" land. This is nothing more than the confiscation of our personal property, PERIOD! It is an outrage. On the "political" part of this...... well, when the other 4 judges and one of these idiots voted on the 2000 election, it was ALL about those "conservative" judges STEALING the election. Now that the less than conservative judges vote to literally STEAL OUR PROPERTY AND END OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS FOREVER, no real outcry. My highly LIBERAL sister-in-law, who I love dearly and we get along just fine, came to the house last night and was almost in tears of disbelief talking about how those idiots could do this and she's a County Planner. She knows what's coming next, especially around here. Just today a Coastal Texas Town announced that they are, my words, going to comfiscate two businesses, one a shrimp company, and sell them to Hiram Walker somebody, forgot the last name, to put in a PRIVATE MARINA. The Shrimp Co has been there for 50 years! Keep your bags packed people.....you could ALL be leaving soon.

Pack

PS Emininent Domain was aroung way before the Industrial Revolution.......the Founding Fathers had this concept because they knew sometimes this would be necessary. Oh, and without Industry.....most Americans would not have jobs. If industry wanted your property, they had to negotiate with you. Now the Liberals on the SC have decided to have the city "negotiate" for you. Kinda like Communisim. Thank you Liberals....tax me to death, now take my property.

[Chas H]

Who were the "liberal" justices that voted to uphold the New London case? Remember the vote was 5-4.