Thanks to our [b]Liberal[/b] Supreme Court...

[DrDetroit]

Why are you guys pretending this is some kind of new precedent?

Well the town of New Haven didn't have the Supreme Court telling them they were fuct. Now they do. Now every strip-mall developer has another bit of ammo against homeowners.

And business owners, too. All private property is threatened. Whether it be a small tool and die machine shop to restaurant/bars...

[DrDetroit]

Why are you guys pretending this is some kind of new precedent?

It is not.

Rack.

Sincerely,

the indians

(feather not dot)

^^Why I prefer not to use "indian" and use either "injun" or "dot-head."

[BSmack]

Because it is, dolt.

Even quasi-public agencies had to demonstrate a legitimate public use before the local government could exercise eminent domain.

You mean like putting a train station under the "World Trade Center"? Big fucking deal. All SCOTUS did was remove the veneer of public interest from the process. The process will remain the same.

This decision is not rooted in quasi-public agencies benefitting from eminent domain.

This ruling now permits local governments to take property for private use so long as it can make the case for a public benefit, not just use, and no matter how tangentially that "benefit" might be linked to the public.

The ruling has legitimized economic development as a proper role for local government and, hence, local governments can now take private property not only for public use, but also private no matter how narrow the public benefit might be.

Then I guess the strip mall that was dropped into the heart of my hometown's business district 30 years ago was a fucking mirage?

Again, this is nothing new.

[DrDetroit]

You mean like putting a train station under the "World Trade Center"? Big fucking deal. All SCOTUS did was remove the veneer of public interest from the process. The process will remain the same.

WTF are you talking about??

Can you make sense?

All SCOTUS did was destroy one of the foundational pillars of our democracy.

Then I guess the strip mall that was dropped into the heart of my hometown's business district 30 years ago was a fucking mirage?

Huh?

Make sense, please.

[BSmack]

You mean like putting a train station under the "World Trade Center"? Big fucking deal. All SCOTUS did was remove the veneer of public interest from the process. The process will remain the same.

WTF are you talking about??

Can you make sense?

All SCOTUS did was destroy one of the foundational pillars of our democracy.

Then I guess the strip mall that was dropped into the heart of my hometown's business district 30 years ago was a fucking mirage?

Huh?

Make sense, please.

The mall was built by a quasi public corp and then sold to a private business. Tell me, who owns the WTC? Is that a public holding? Or is it a private corporation?

They did not destroy a "fundemental pillar". That pillar was destroyed a long time ago. The only difference is now the developers can own the building instead of just raping the taxpayers for the cost overruns.

[BSmack]

What this decision did was confirm the Consitutionality of these takings before the Supreme Court. I can't say that I'm in the least bit surprised that you don't know fuck you're talking about again.

Ah, you've stepped in it again.

Traditionally, the "public use" requirement in eminent domain cases allowed the local government to condemn property to build railroads, or bridges, or highways. But in a 1954 case, Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court found that "public use" could include condemning blighted neighborhoods to build better ones. Fort Trumbull isn't blighted, but since the Michigan Supreme Court decided its famous Poletown case in 1981—razing hundreds of homes to build a GM plant—many jurisdictions have insisted that increased tax revenues and the prospect of new jobs was "public use" enough to justify nabbing land that subsequently became Costcos, shopping malls, and fancy office buildings. New York used eminent domain to improve Times Square and build the World Trade Center. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London that seizing homes for purposes of private economic development was permissible. The homeowners appealed.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2113868/

Like I said, this is an incremental change, not a paradigm shift.

[DrDetroit]

The mall was built by a quasi public corp and then sold to a private business. Tell me, who owns the WTC? Is that a public holding? Or is it a private corporation?[/quote

How the hell am I supposed to know?

Divert, much?

They did not destroy a "fundemental pillar". That pillar was destroyed a long time ago. The only difference is now the developers can own the building instead of just raping the taxpayers for the cost overruns.

Bullshit.

Until now local governments had to demonstrate a public use in order to use eminent domain to "take" private property.

Private property is a fundamental institution of a democracy. It was bad enough, as Thomas indicated in his decent, that the government could "take" property solely for public purposes until now. Now that "constraint" has been swept aside for a national policy that Peter may be robbed for nothing more than the benefit of Paul.

[BSmack]

Bullshit. Until now local governments had to demonstrate a public use in order to use eminent domain to "take" private property.

The same applies to the New London case. They simply streched the definition of public use a little bit. Had SCOTUS ruled against New London, they would have simply needed to include a port, light rail station, bus depot in the package and it would have passed muster. Or, they would have been forced to show that the neighborhood was not viable in its current state and that said neighborhood decline was adversely impacting the overal population.

Either way, they would have gotten what they wanted. SCOTUS simply made it a bit easier.

[Rushville]

SCOTUS simply made it a bit easier.

True. And now it's all over the media so developers who didn't have the smarts or the connections to get around the system before now have the precedent to back them up as well as encourage them.

Liberal, Conservative, who fucking cares? Spend less time blaming and more time fighting for your rights. Get a hold of your city council members and find out how they feel about this. If they don't feel like this is a bad deal, let them know you're going to vote them out next time around.

[Dinsdale]

Liberal, Conservative, who fucking cares? Spend less time blaming and more time fighting for your rights. Get a hold of your city council members and find out how they feel about this. If they don't feel like this is a bad deal, let them know you're going to vote them out next time around.

I see nobody told Rush that common sense is strictly forbidden in this forum.

Not a chance, dude. If they spend less time blaming, then they can't hitch that wagon on the "winners," and can't stroke themselves with "those damn liberals are ruining the country." It's not about right and wrong, it's about "those damn liberals."

Try and keep up.

[Dinsdale]

If they don't feel like this is a bad deal, let them know you're going to vote them out next time around.

And therein lies the catch -- most of the people complaining about it in this thread didn't vote against the party that nominated MOST of those justices, and as a matter of fact, give themselves BODE for being associated with that party.

Ponderous, eh?

[DrDetroit]

Rushville raises a good point that hasn't been purused in this thread.

It seems that the SCOTUS ruling leaves open the door for the states to be more restrictive in defining public use. Hence, it's time to use the political process...

[Dinsdale]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I like the idea --

The "greater good" will definitely be better served by leveling any plant that produces toxic waste, and is replaced by a golf course.

The "greater good" will be served if logging companies are stripped of their land holdings, in favor of wildlife habitat.

I'm starting to dig this idea.....

[BSmack]

Rushville raises a good point that hasn't been purused in this thread.

It seems that the SCOTUS ruling leaves open the door for the states to be more restrictive in defining public use. Hence, it's time to use the political process...

Duh!

That's the way it has always been.

:roll:

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I've noticed that aside from the socialist fucks running New London, no public officials are openly supporting the Supreme Court's anti-American decision. In fact, local news has been easily finding town and village poobahs eager to denounce the ruling in interviews and (at least publicly) pushing for state laws limiting eminent domain. I'll believe it's real when I see it get passed through the legislature and signed by the governor.

The five senile morons who ruled in the majority should really spend more time reading Madison and Jefferson and a lot less Marx.

And as far as why many of us are outraged....it's one thing for municipalities and states to pull this crap and another to have SCOTUS enshrine it. As cynical as I am toward government, even I thought that the Supreme Court would defend one of the primary, hallowed, pre-Revolutionary War traditions of America.

[Dr_Phibes]

Strangely enough, my copy of 'Kapital' doesn't include the bit where it defines or advocates Government seizing private land and turning it over to private business as being 'for the benefit of the people' - you imbecile.

You must be using the 'teachers edition'.

[Bizzarofelice]

This isn't just a CT issue, either. They're planning to widen the 101-hwy in the future and there are two hundred houses in the way. Eminent domain anyone? The only reason it hasn't been done yet is that there are a handfull of old fogies that for some reason actually like living next to a congested, smog-spewing freeway and have fought it so far. Ultimately though, the needs of 1 million commuters will outweigh the desire of a few blue hairs to people watch.

Rack the old fogies. If douchbags move 40 miles out of the city and expect to get to and from work in ten minutes, they are idiots. As they move further out, they should learn to love sitting in traffic. Gas taxes should also be raised for the fact that they are a burden on the transportation departments. Infrastructure is steched thin as old roads can't get repaired because new roads have to be built for the urban sprawl dwellers.

Fuck' em. They knew they were going to be sitting in their car for an hour when they moved out there.

[Mikey]

I've noticed that aside from the socialist fucks running New London, no public officials are openly supporting the Supreme Court's anti-American decision. In fact, local news has been easily finding town and village poobahs eager to denounce the ruling in interviews and (at least publicly) pushing for state laws limiting eminent domain. I'll believe it's real when I see it get passed through the legislature and signed by the governor.

The five senile morons who ruled in the majority should really spend more time reading Madison and Jefferson and a lot less Marx.

And as far as why many of us are outraged....it's one thing for municipalities and states to pull this crap and another to have SCOTUS enshrine it. As cynical as I am toward government, even I thought that the Supreme Court would defend one of the primary, hallowed, pre-Revolutionary War traditions of America.

From the original Washington Post article:

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who serves as president of the National League of Cities, issued a statement praising the court for upholding "one of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods."

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Strangely enough, my copy of 'Kapital' doesn't include the bit where it defines or advocates Government seizing private land and turning it over to private business as being 'for the benefit of the people' - you imbecile.

You must be using the 'teachers edition'.

I'm referring to the entire concept of redistributing wealth, including property, in the name of "public good."

Feel free to keep your poorly-informed, half-assed takes to yourself.

[Dr_Phibes]

Sorry, but you're not.

You're trying to pass off the transfer of private property to private business in the interest of generating Capital and profit as Socialism. Generating Capital for profit is anti-Social and anti-Marxist and YOU should be jumping for joy.

When Government becomes the physical tool used to remove Capital from small owners and place it into the hands of larger outfits, you're into the Monopoly Capitalism phase.

Ahh, Capitalism! What's it like eh? The lies, the contradictions?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I'm opposed to government forceably taking property from ANY private landowner and giving it to ANYONE - private developers, the "state" for "common use", etc. The concept of redistributing wealth in the name of the childish, schoolyard concept of "fair" is puerile and dangerous.

One of the sacred rights for which America's Founders fought was for property ownership. Private entities having that right deprived them by government -whether that government is capitalist, communist, or socialist (the latter two being fundamentally wrongheaded to begin with...) is unAmerican and just plain ....evil ( "wrong" seems insufficient to describe the depth of the moral outrage).

[Dr_Phibes]

I'm opposed to government forceably taking property from ANY private landowner and giving it to ANYONE - private developers, the "state" for "common use", etc. The concept of redistributing wealth in the name of the childish, schoolyard concept of "fair" is puerile and dangerous.

One of the sacred rights for which America's Founders fought was for property ownership. Private entities having that right deprived them by government -whether that government is capitalist, communist, or socialist (the latter two being fundamentally wrongheaded to begin with...) is unAmerican and just plain ....evil ( "wrong" seems insufficient to describe the depth of the moral outrage).

Well that's all well and good, I disagree with everything you stand for, as long as you have private property, you don't have true freedom. But that's a seperate arguement.

But rest assured, the New London propety will remain private and you would be better served looking into the failings and shortcomings of your own system rather than lie and pin the blame on Socialism.

[Diego in Seattle]

I've noticed that aside from the socialist fucks running New London, no public officials are openly supporting the Supreme Court's anti-American decision.

Do you really expect politicians are going to publicly embrace this decision? It'd be political suicide to do so (or pure stupidity.....'sup Mayor Williams).

But their actions have shown time & again that they would love the power to take people's houses if they can generate more tax revenue by giving the land to private developers. There's no doubt in my mind that the local/state politicians are now gleeful that they can now, with the SCOTUS' blessing, take private citizen's homes with the flimsiest of excuses and give them to the developers who contribute to their campaigns.

Yeah, I bet they're all just heartbroken by the decision. :roll:

[DrDetroit]

Phibes...private property = liberty.

Now fuck off.

[Rushville]

Liberal, Conservative, who fucking cares?

Considering we're going to replace at two justices this year, you had better start caring, idiot.

Unless you want more of this shit.

mvscal,

I do care about the philosophy of the parties in power when it comes to things that need to be done. But now that this decision has been handed down, blaming a particular philosophy does not help solve the problem. We, as citizens, still have the power to do something about this and that's what I wanted to urge everyone to do. We can't go back to SCOTUS and convince them to change their minds. But we can work against the decision.

And yes, when it comes to new justices, their philosophy and decision trends should com into play.

[ChargerMike]

Liberal, Conservative, who fucking cares?

Considering we're going to replace at two justices this year, you had better start caring, idiot.

Unless you want more of this shit.

mvscal,

I do care about the philosophy of the parties in power when it comes to things that need to be done. But now that this decision has been handed down, blaming a particular philosophy does not help solve the problem. We, as citizens, still have the power to do something about this and that's what I wanted to urge everyone to do. We can't go back to SCOTUS and convince them to change their minds. But we can work against the decision.

And yes, when it comes to new justices, their philosophy and decision trends should com into play.

Unfortunately Rush we as citizens continue to have "our will" overturned by Liberal activist judges...i.e 477,000 Nebreska citizens.

"Liberal activst judges are a plague upon America. They care only for their personal agendas and thumb their collective noses at the peoples wishes." source....Liberalism is a mental disorder. Savage..Hello Bri!

[Rushville]

Unfortunately Rush we as citizens continue to have "our will" overturned by Liberal activist judges...i.e 477,000 Nebreska citizens.

It is true that they are attempting to overturn our will. But the more they do things like this, the more we need to look for the rights and the power we still have left and use that power to show those judges that we don't approve of their actions. Fortunately, as DrDetroit pointed out, the language in the decision still gives the ultimate power to the city and/or state which we can have a major effect on with just our voices. Even though this case gives the precedent for future raping of property rights, it didn't throw a blanket over all of us. We still can hold our ground against this decision if we try to.

Look at the Minutemen in Arizona. They found a way to defend their own rights when they believed the government wasn't doing it. They weren't crying about liberals. They were doing something. That's all I was trying to convey. Crying about one side doing this or the other side doing that doesn't solve anything. Look for a way that you can make a difference and act on it.

My wife's uncle is a Republican representative on the Rushville city council and we have a friend that is a Democratic rep on it as well. I've asked both of them since then about this and what could potentially happen in Rushville because of this. They both told me that the way the council currently does things, nobody in Rushville will ever get hurt by this. To which I responded to both of them, "Good, I'll be sure to vote for you again next time around."

[Dinsdale]

Don't confuse them with FACTS, BtH....

Something happened that they didn't like(can't say I blame them), and they're damn well going to take it out on those darn liberals.

These guys don't even know what a "liberal" is, bro. In their world, it's someone they disagree with.

[See You Next Wednesday]

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty1.html

Monday, June 27, 2005

Mr. Chip Meany
Code Enforcement Officer
Town of Weare, New Hampshire
Fax 603-529-4554


Dear Mr. Meany,

I am proposing to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in the Town of Weare. I would like to know the process your town has for allowing such a development.




Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.

As I understand it your town has five people serving on the Board of Selectmen. Therefore, since it will require only three people to vote in favor of the use of eminent domain I am quite confident that this hotel development is a viable project. I am currently seeking investors and hotel plans from an architect. Please let me know the proper steps to follow to proceed in accordance with the law in your town.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC