"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

There is no more private property in the US. You just get to occupy it
until someone else wants it.

Buy near a dump...then noone will want it.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Good heavens!

Could it be that the current government thinks that individual
liberties, personal and property rights, and even constitutional rights
like due process can and should be suppressed in favor of the "public
good"?

Could it be that 4 of the 5 justices who supported this opinion are
liberals
who supported Gore in in 2000?

Could it be that liberals don't believe in private property, and the
rights
of the individual? Of course, that's what happens in a socialistic
society...so this ruling makes sense considering who voted for it.

It comes down to the morons on the court that think guvmint knows
best.....not the market place.







Could it be that private developers who own enough politicians (or
select politicians) can pressure the government to condemn your house,
land, or business and turn the property over to their development
cartel so they can put up a shopping mall or build some condos? That's
awful. We should look into this, and repudiate any politicians so
blatantly pro-business.

Thanks for posting this. I always suspected you were a patriot. :-)


And thanks for falling into my trap. ;-)

I knew I could count on the lefties on the forum to be the first ones
condemning the ruling.

And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Good heavens!

Could it be that the current government thinks that individual
liberties, personal and property rights, and even constitutional rights
like due process can and should be suppressed in favor of the "public
good"?

Could it be that 4 of the 5 justices who supported this opinion are
liberals who supported Gore in in 2000?

Could it be that liberals don't believe in private property, and the
rights of the individual? Of course, that's what happens in a socialistic
society...so this ruling makes sense considering who voted for it.

This "ruling" by a 5-4 majority of the court means that there is no such
thing as personal property in the US.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005


WASHINGTON - 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.

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



Been that way for years. Eminent Domain. But they have to pay the market
value. And you can even bring in your own appraiser. And then the
government and the appraiser have hammer out an agreement.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005


WASHINGTON - 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.

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



Been that way for years. Eminent Domain.

Nope. Read the ruling once again.

Bill McKee wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005


WASHINGTON - 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.

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



Been that way for years. Eminent Domain. But they have to pay the market
value. And you can even bring in your own appraiser. And then the
government and the appraiser have hammer out an agreement.

The trouble is, that if it's known that they are going to take your
house, the value sinks faster than the Titanic.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:30:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005


WASHINGTON - 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.

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

The interesting thing about this case is that ANY town, city or state
can now take your property and assign any value they wish to the
property - everybody seems to have missed that little clause in the
decision. The case in New London is not only about individual
property rights, but also included is the value assigned to the
property. Implicit in the ruling is that if you want, and the market
demands, that your property is worth $100,000, the city can take it
for $70000 and you can't do anything about it.

Even more interesting is that the New London City Council is largely
Democrat, the region votes Democrat (with one notable exception).

And consider this - the "city" can take over other business properties
for "improvement" which is going to create all sorts of interesting
problems.

The people have to wake up and understand that this constant
legislating from the bench had got to stop.