Eminent domain has just become more imminent for some

[QTOFFER]

Here is yet another bit of disturbing news for the shrinking working middle class. The Supreme Court has ruled that local officials know what's best for their municipalities economically, and therefore have the right to sieze homes for use by private developers. 8O

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

This means that YOUR home or business could be taken from you and razed to make way for a stadium, luxury resort, or shopping mall - if your local elected officials decide that more tax revenue would be generated by doing so. This is extremely disturbing because guess who buys special access to your local elected officials...the wealthy developers who build stadiums, luxury resorts, and shopping malls!!!!

What's really surprising is that the left-leaning Justices ruled in favor of this travesty, while the right-leaning Justices formed the dissent. 8O

 

[talloulou]

What's really surprising is that the left-leaning Justices ruled in favor of this travesty, while the right-leaning Justices formed the dissent.

As a proud republican I must say that doesn't actually surprise me at all.

 

[Toirtis]

I am surprised....Patriot Act, this....your country scares me more each day.

 

[talloulou]

LOL Toirtis ......well to be quite honest the country scares the heck out of me sometimes too....But its the Michael Moore types that freak me out the most.

 

[Jermz79]

I figured I better edit what I had .... so as not to start a political flame war! sorry!



anyway .... this is very scary! VERY 8O

 

[zacdl]

Well I have a friend thats a lawyer I talk with him pretty often over IM.

I saw this earlier. He said it still has to go to a majority vote before it will be ammended.

If it does pass it will take a court to take your home, but it still sucks either way.

If a court desides it would benifit the city to have a mall rather than a neighborhood, they can sign away on all the homes and make way for the new mall.

 

[Jchillin]

A recent example of this idiocy is being perpretrated in lower Manhattan. An entire building is scheduled to be razed to make way for a new subway station. This building has housed some long term businesses for eons. I was surprised that the building was never given landmark status (The existing subway station is directly under it and the entrance is inside it).

In all 18 businesses will disappear, including a Pizza Shop, a sporting goods store, several clothing shops, a florist...the list goes on and on. Is a modernized station needed? Sure, but the building itself did not need to go away. The owner of the building stands to make a windfall (talk about investment property . But those businesses will never be replaced and most likely (a few are actual Mom & Pop's) are going to suffer severe losses.

 

[BrianNY]

Hmmmm. I read the article on the link provided Andy. I'm wary of any information given by CNN as I see them as biased in their reporting. What interests me is what is not said in the article rather than what is said.

The article focuses on New London, CT. What isn't stated is that since the closure of the submarine base in New London, that the town is probably facing an economic catastrophe. It is possible that New London is fighting the urban blight issue by addressing what they can do foster developement.

Thousands of people flock to the casinos in SE CT by ferry from LI, or by highway on Route 95. Either way they must travel through New London without stopping to spend a nickel there. Perhaps a resort complex and spa in that town makes perfect economic sense. Just a thought.

 

[severum mama]

I am surprised....Patriot Act, this....your country scares me more each day.

Me too.

LOL Toirtis ......well to be quite honest the country scares the heck out of me sometimes too....But its the Michael Moore types that freak me out the most.

I'd scare the living hell out of you then.

This doesn't surprise me at all. One of these days we'll look around and there will be nothing left but cookie cutter housing developments and strip malls.

 

[QTOFFER]

Hmmmm. I read the article on the link provided Andy. I'm wary of any information given by CNN as I see them as biased in their reporting.

Point taken. I think Ted Turner is a jerk too! Here are some other news links on the story.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050624-120942-4179r.htm

The article focuses on New London, CT. What isn't stated is that since the closure of the submarine base in New London, that the town is probably facing an economic catastrophe. It is possible that New London is fighting the urban blight issue by addressing what they can do foster developement.

Gee, then why not redevelop the site of the former naval base and leave these tax-paying working midde class people alone?

Also, the legal definition of 'urban blight' is not as clear as one might think. It does not necessarily mean that the property is run-down and neglected, or that the area is a haven for drug dealers and prostitutes.
ANY neighborhood can be slapped with the 'blighted' label if it lacks certain amenities like sidewalks and curbs - that's one of the criteria the officials used in the New London case. In Lakewood, Ohio (see CBS link), any home that does not have an attached two car garage or central AC is considered blighted!

Building a luxury condo, resort, or mall will only remove the perceived neighborhood blight by removing the neighborhood. It's a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Thousands of people flock to the casinos in SE CT by ferry from LI, or by highway on Route 95. Either way they must travel through New London without stopping to spend a nickel there. Perhaps a resort complex and spa in that town makes perfect economic sense. Just a thought.

Yor're absolutely right! This expansion of the legal principle of eminent domain could be applied to anyone living in any cash-strapped community near the I-95 corridor. That's precisely why it's so scary.

A lawyer for one of the New London families who will likely lose their home because of the Supreme Court ruling summed it up nicely:
"The court has sanctioned the use of eminent domain to take the home of one person and give it to another person because that other person is going to pay more in taxes."