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.

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.

Yep, and it's horrendous. I guess there goes Naples Village by the Ritz
Carlton.

wrote in message
oups.com...


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.

Yep, and it's horrendous. I guess there goes Naples Village by the Ritz
Carlton.

What is Naples Village?

wrote in message
oups.com...


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.

Yep, and it's horrendous.



Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice
Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097

Except for Kennedy, it's the same 4 idiots who sided with Gore in 2000.
"It Takes a Village" to steal your home.

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 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. :-)

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.





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!

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
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.





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!




The vote was 5-4. The liberals do not have a 5-4 majority.

Kennedy jumped ship and joined the rest of the rats.

Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Conner dissented.

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

wrote in message
oups.com...


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.

Yep, and it's horrendous.



Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by
Justice Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen
Breyer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097

Except for Kennedy, it's the same 4 idiots who sided with Gore in 2000.
"It Takes a Village" to steal your home.





Yep. They decided to rewrite the Constitution. Too bad we can't vote they
clowns out of office.

"Ignoramus26555" wrote in message
...
Remember that the power of federal government is limited.

It is not allowed, for example, to pass laws restricting the freedom
of speech, and it is not granted any powers beyond the powers
specifically enumerated. It also is not allowed to infringe on the
right to keep and bear arms.

In this instance, the federal government has no power to intervene in
such state matters as the use of the eminent domain (takings) power.

What this means is that if we do not like these laws that permit
taking private property to benefit private businesses, we should take
the matter with the state governments, not the federal government.

i


The US Supreme Court ruled on a States case

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

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

wrote in message
oups.com...


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.

Yep, and it's horrendous.



Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by
Justice Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen
Breyer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097

Except for Kennedy, it's the same 4 idiots who sided with Gore in 2000.
"It Takes a Village" to steal your home.





Yep. They decided to rewrite the Constitution. Too bad we can't vote
they clowns out of office.

Sure you can. Continue voting for Republican Presidents. Ginsburg, Breyer,
Souter, and Stevens can't live forever.