PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Voids Private Property Rights


Kestryll
06-23-2005, 8:31 AM
So basically anyone, private or .gov who has more money or influence can take your home whenever they want it.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html

soopafly
06-23-2005, 8:49 AM
Thats bull*****. What were those justices that voted yes thinking? This hits close to home cuz I live near the Long Beach airport. What if they decide to expand?

Charliegone
06-23-2005, 5:04 PM
"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," Stevens(Ford) wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy(Reagan), David H. Souter (Bush), Ruth Bader Ginsburg(Clinton) and Stephen G. Breyer(Clinton)"

These dudes voted in favor for the development

These did not.

O'Connor(Reagan) was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist(Reagan), as well as Justices Antonin Scalia(Reagan) and Clarence Thomas(Bush).

WOW. That blows for those people.

stillbigmac
06-23-2005, 5:20 PM
This type of thing is what the second amendment is all about. A government gets too big for it's britches and the people need to be able to stand up to them.

dwtt
06-23-2005, 7:07 PM
Originally posted by soopafly:
Thats bull*****. What were those justices that voted yes thinking? This hits close to home cuz I live near the Long Beach airport. What if they decide to expand?

If the airport decides to expand, they will take your home away from you. It's legal for them to do it now. I heard about this decision on the radio today while coming home and I was shocked that the US is heading closer to Communism. In China, the government takes people's homes and land every day to sell to developers and large companies. The local government officials usually get paid a bribe and/or kickbacks by the developer or company. It's really sad that there are corrupt politicians here in the US who want to take our guns and our homes from us, and move the US towards Communism's ideals.

bwiese
06-23-2005, 9:53 PM
There's always been the concept of 'eminent domain' and 'easements' since country was founded.

In the past it's been used (and its goal) was for key major civic improvments in worst case when nothing else would suffice - dams, waterways, reservoirs, easements for sewers, etc. These were fundamental key systems that everyone used and everyone paid taxes/fees for.

But then 'redevelopment' concepts took over. For example, the evil bastard Justin Herman took down the thriving Fillmore District in SF. Primarily occupied by blacks who moved to SF before/during WWII, it was populated by a mix of homeowners, small businessess, restaurants, music venues and wasn't too bad of a place to live - it "worked". I saw the pictures. Crime was relatively low and better than par for lower/mid income areas of other cities. The strong small business concentration helped that.
But in the 60s Herman's solution was to rip this functional core out and replace it with tracts of subsidized welfare 'tower' housing, and HUD's predecessor dept paid pennies on the dollar to business owners, who didn't get enough to relocate and reestablish their businesses. (Nor were 'civic' lawyers interested in suing at that time: these 'public interest' lawyers weren't 'into' property rights: property = white capitalist oppressor.)

Many of these former biz owners had to go on welfare and into rapidly-decaying public housing built on the shards of their destroyed homes and businesses.

Now, civic improvments as minor as a strip mall or casino that bring in revenue can cause your home to be destroyed and bought out for what SOMEONE ELSE determines to be fair market value.

This is esp dangerous in CA. Home prices are rising because few homes are being built (relative to necessity) since homes do not generate sales tax revenue, unlike stores. So there's always a chance - "follow the money" - that homes will be razed for more 'big box' strip malls in the guise of 'economic development'.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

dave3006
06-24-2005, 6:45 AM
This should not surprize any California. The corrupt US gov't does not recognize the 2nd ammendment. What should they recognize the rest?

America is dead. It has been for a while.

50 Shooter
06-24-2005, 6:52 AM
Hmmm, I feel sorry for all those in the way of the 710 Fwy. I'm sure this will be of great interest to the state and the developers that have been chomping at the bit to finish it.

Sorry but you have 30 days to GET OUT! If not the JBT's will be here to evict you forceably. To bad, so sad, good-bye.

06-24-2005, 8:42 AM
Originally posted by bwiese:
But then 'redevelopment' concepts took over. For example, the evil bastard Justin Herman took down the thriving Fillmore District in SF. Primarily occupied by blacks who moved to SF before/during WWII, it was populated by a mix of homeowners, small businessess, restaurants, music venues and wasn't too bad of a place to live - it "worked". I saw the pictures. Crime was relatively low and better than par for lower/mid income areas of other cities. The strong small business concentration helped that.
But in the 60s Herman's solution was to rip this functional core out and replace it with tracts of subsidized welfare 'tower' housing, and HUD's predecessor dept paid pennies on the dollar to business owners, who didn't get enough to relocate and reestablish their businesses. (Nor were 'civic' lawyers interested in suing at that time: these 'public interest' lawyers weren't 'into' property rights: property = white capitalist oppressor.)


Now, civic improvments as minor as a strip mall or casino that bring in revenue can cause your home to be destroyed and bought out for what SOMEONE ELSE determines to be fair market value.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Interesting history. While the concept of eminent domain has been around since the founding of our country as you point out, but I agree that this is a dangerous precedent. I seem to remember, however that the RR's used eminent domain in the 1800's to shaft land owners to get rights-of-way for their tracks. So, if my memory serves, this is not the first time something like this has happened. Nevertheless, as a property owner is CA it makes me nervous, very nervous.

50 Freak
06-24-2005, 9:02 AM
This is going to fail in the long run. The people will keep city/state politicians in check. As more and more people lose their homes, they will in return vote out the politicians that approve such measures. Or the fecal matter can hit the oscilating wind machine and you will see more body bags of LEs that try to come and evict people from their homes. It will fail.

Ducati748r
06-24-2005, 9:38 AM
Ya know 50 Freak..I finally figured out why your screen name is 50 Freak by looking at your avatar..at first I thought your name had something to do with ammunition caliber..I was so very wrong http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

amd64
06-24-2005, 10:04 AM
50 Freak
This is going to fail in the long run. The people will keep city/state politicians in check. As more and more people lose their homes, they will in return vote out the politicians that approve such measures. Or the fecal matter can hit the oscilating wind machine and you will see more body bags of LEs that try to come and evict people from their homes. It will fail.

yep, I wouldn't want to be tagged as someone responsible for taking away people's homes. That's a real easy way to make a lot of potential enemies who feel they have nothing left to lose. The homeowners may move out peacefully, but I doubt there will be any forgiving and forgetting.

06-24-2005, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by 50 Freak:
This is going to fail in the long run. The people will keep city/state politicians in check. As more and more people lose their homes, they will in return vote out the politicians that approve such measures. Or the fecal matter can hit the oscilating wind machine and you will see more body bags of LEs that try to come and evict people from their homes. It will fail.

Likewise I agree that it will fail in the long run. I don't know if any violence will be necessary, but it will fail.

bwiese
06-24-2005, 1:38 PM
Y'all should read about Carl Drega (lookup on web).



Bill W.
San Jose

delloro
06-24-2005, 2:59 PM
finally. the revolution I have been waiting so long for.

shecky
06-24-2005, 9:38 PM
The concept of eminent domain has always bothered me. Precisely because the outcome of this case is the logical conclusion. If the govt can grab land for a freeway or other public work, why can't they grab land for a development that will actually generate revenue?

Interestingly, the dissenting opinion seem to be the "activist" judges in this case. Perhaps all the whiners about "activist judges" should be careful what they (don't) wish for.

Also interesting is that the court seemed to throw such decisions back to state/local governments. Perhaps this is a victory for states rights after all.

dave3006
06-25-2005, 8:02 AM
With all due respect .50 Cal, people will comply with these unconstitutional land grabs just like we comply with their unconstitutional gun laws.

People will whine. Nothing will happen.

Again, we should not be surprized. We have to pay tax to to live in the homes we "own". That makes us renters effectively. The landlord is just kicking the tenants out.

America is dead. The sooner you realize that, the better off you are.

delloro
06-25-2005, 10:01 AM
Interestingly, the dissenting opinion seem to be the "activist" judges in this case. Perhaps all the whiners about "activist judges" should be careful what they (don't) wish for.

funny, stephen reinhardt said the other day at lunch that an activist judge is nothing more than a judge whose decision you disagree with.

C.G.
06-25-2005, 5:28 PM
Originally posted by bwiese:
Y'all should read about Carl Drega (lookup on web).



Bill W.
San Jose
Carl Drega link (http://www.iresist.com/cbg/dregas.html)

shooterx10
06-25-2005, 10:50 PM
Each and every one of us must decide for him or herself when the day has come to stand fast, raise our weapons to our shoulders, and (quoting PRESIDENT Jefferson, this time) water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, and of tyrants. Give up the right to make that decision, and we become nothing better than the beasts in the field, waiting to be milked until we can give no more, and then shuffling off without objection, heads bowed, to the soap factory. -Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

Do you not agree that this damn Commie State is leading this country in the direction that we all have feared all along?

A good read that falls along similar lines:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1888118040.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

dave3006
06-26-2005, 6:17 AM
I like the idea of using our economic strength before violence. If we had decent leadership (which we don't) we could target gov't groups to boycott to get our way. No one dies and we get their attention.

Example: Refuse service to any gov't agency or official regarding any gun related product or service nationwide until we restore the 2nd ammendment nationwide.

Have a list of demands (are you listening NRA clowns?)

Dave

The anti's have a list of their goals. What are ours? Answer - no one knows. Poor leadership.