Thursday, June 23, 2005

Outrage.

100 PERCENT GARBAGE

I am outraged by this. It is pure and utter abuse of power, and a flagrant violation of the rights of property owners. I am calling out President Bush, if you do anything else the rest of your term, overturn this decision. (edit: have Congress do it, they have the power)


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



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.



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


Update:
Michelle Malkin is on top of this as well.

11 Comments:

Blogger Citizen Grim said...

O'Connor sided with the conservatives? I'm impressed.

The Supreme Court sucks, tho. For sure...

June 23, 2005 12:47 PM  
Blogger Citizen Grim said...

I should move to Australia.

June 23, 2005 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Mugs said...

The abuse of eminent domain pisses me off to no end. I heard about one woman who wanted to sell her large property to a developer to build houses. The town tried to use eminent domain to take it away and build a park (which the town's own parks department DID NOT WANT), and the "fair market value" they offered her was $2 million less than she had already agreed to accept from the developer. I believe she had a case pending when I heard that story, but it's ridiculous that she should even have to deal with courts and delay the sale is absurd. If the town doesn't want a new housing development, at very least they ought to give her as much as she could get for the property from the developer.

Suppose I live in a house on a very busy road, and businesses are popping up all along the road. I know that as the land starts to run out, my property value will skyrocket. But someone wants to build a McDonald's where my house is. Should they be able to force me to sell when I could hold out for a couple of years and get twice as much?

This pisses me off to no end.

June 23, 2005 3:55 PM  
Blogger Patriot Xeno said...

I hear you Mugs. I'm so pissed off about this it's not even funny. Or, as an old roommate used to say "I almost crapped my pants in anger."

June 23, 2005 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Mugs said...

Here's the story I was referring to

June 23, 2005 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Mugs said...

Another one In that one, the government wanted to take one business's property away to build another business. Hmmmm...

June 23, 2005 4:25 PM  
Blogger Citizen Grim said...

I'm still pissed. I suppose people can defend their properties with force of arms if need be... they'll probably get taken out by the police, but it'll get attention.

Bloody @#%$@% activist judges... Our Constitution took another bruising today.

Bloody #$%@$% Republicans... did we put them in office so they could fart around with a flag-burning amendment?!? GET HONEST JUDGES CONFIRMED! GET BOLTON CONFIRMED! STOP SCREWING AROUND, OR LOSE MY VOTE!


We need a stronger third party...

June 23, 2005 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Mugs said...

And another one I saw in the paper today

Blatant case of class discrimination. Poor people live in trailers, and towns would rather have rich people than poor people. "Underutilized?" Load of crap. I'd say at 28 units per acre, it's pretty well utilized. It's not underutilized, it's underTAXED. If they think it looks so bad, plant some pine trees along the road, you won't be able to see it!

Poor people need a place to live too.

June 23, 2005 8:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, this law is beyond th epoint of sucking. Doesn't the constitution specifically state that the government has no right to impede on a citizen's private land and housing?

But, everyone keeps saying how pissed off they are. Get as mad as you want, don't vote for whoever, tell those b!@#$ to screw themselves. Just remember it won't do any good. I may just be insane (well I am), but I have a feeling that if this whole corporate run government thing keeps going, were gonna have a revolution on our hands. Before you knock it, just look back at history.

August 25, 2005 12:49 AM  
Blogger Citizen Grim said...

Corporate-run government?

What, because the government decides not to restrict business, and instead promote competition by farming out its work to private companies, suddenly it's "corporate-run?"

Whatever dude.

August 25, 2005 7:41 AM  
Blogger Patriot Xeno said...

Yeah, except the ones in favor of the corporations (conservatives) are the ones that voted against this.

August 25, 2005 7:47 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home