Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Amazing. The individual rights are being taken away nice and slow in this country. While everybody is wondering if MJ touched that boy, or where the missing girl is in Aruba, the real stories slipping right by us.

Today the Supreme court ruled that a private property can be "taken away" (given fair market value) if the local government finds that the space can be used for 'public good'. To break it down in simple terms: Your family has owned a home for 45 yrs, now a developer wants to put in a highrise condo (the local government gets more tax revenue for this) or shopping center, they can rule that you have to give it up. Yea, you'll get paid for it, but you have no choice in the matter. You'll be offered fair market value for your home and asked to start packing.

This is amazing to me that this can happen in this country. It comes down to dollars and cents. If the city feels they can receive more tax money from a shopping center or gym, then you lose your home and get to move. What in the fuck is this?!?!?

Where are our leaders when this is happening? I can't believe this is happening in America!  :o


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

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005WASHINGTON - 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 5-4 ruling ? assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O?Connor as handing ?disproportionate influence and power? to the well-heeled ? represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.

Those residents argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to ?just compensation? for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

?It?s a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,? said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. ?I won?t be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word

The government over here has been able to issue forced requisition orders for well - decades i imagine

I wouldn't worry too much about it, all governments have the power to do what they will - if they want to do it, then they can twist some existing rule or another to get there

They won't bulldoze housing because thats just bad PR....

As if that isn't bad enough, there's this story as well:

European Union Decision on Official Language


The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the"k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen ve vil tak over ze vorld!

The Supreme Court has been doing this for decades: writing in those rights that they think society should have, and taking away those that they dont think are necessary.  Most people like it until it hits home.  This case is a clear example of the flaws in the modern method of interpretation used by all of the liberal justices on the bench.  This is exactly why we need originalist judges.  This term has again showed the importance of the Supreme Court and the need to choose judges that will refrain from legislating from the bench.

Lol - don't even post jokes like that - the EU makes my blood boil, hideously corrupt at all levels and seemingly working for its agenda alone - the laws it brings in are just....well, baflfing

Its delightful to see it all falling to bits though - by pushing for Britain to drop its veto we will have to be forced out, horrah! Then we can have idiots in London ruin our lives instead of idiots in Brussels :D

oh what joy

isnt it funny how Belgium is famous for nothing except chocolate...

Haha........

"Liberal" = "Not as conservative".

Ginsberg and Bryer are the only Democrats on the SC.

I swear.....you're the archetype for liberalphobia
*************



Watch the American dream slip away...to make room for another walmart!!!

how the fuck can America get away with this? This is ridiculus, politics is so fucked up now.

I sure you dont follow the Supreme Court too much SLC.  However, if you did you would notice that the opinion was written by Stevens (liberal) and joined by Breyer (liberal), Ginsburg (liberal), Souther (liberal), and Kennedy (moderate at best.  Author of Lawrence v. Texas, and the recent Roper, the recent death penalty case).

This opinion was purely done by the liberals on the court.  I dont care who they were appointed by, it doesnt mean they are non-democrats.  Futhermore, those that were appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans were appointed at a time when the Senate did not do the same questioning that is present today.  It doesnt matter who appointed the people, but simply how they decide their cases and what philosphies they use.

can't let piffling things like houses get in the way of progress.

PROGRESS RULES ALL.

Why do you lie so?

Like I said "Liberalphobia".........

I said your definition of liberal = not as conservative.

You need to have your head checked.

The same liberal supreme court that threw the election to Bush?

The same one that gave the nod for the Paula Jones investigation?

That liberal SC?

Kennedy is a republican who was appointed by Reagan

Stevens is a Republican

Souter is Republican who was appointed by Bush

Just for starters............

**********

Bottom line is that this country is headed in the wrong direction when this kind of shit happens. I only see two Dems on that Supreme court. If you want to lie, or redefine what a liberal is to suit your argument, do it with somebody else. I won't accept that nutty argument.

This is coming from the same guy who said the left wing media was protecting Clinton by focusing on the BJ......? ::) ::)

Must have been that damn liberal republican media machine going after Clinton huh?

*********

When the government, with a conservative white house and supreme court, decides that corporations are more important than people, we are headed down the tubes. No suprise, since we are killing our kids overseas for corporate interests, lets bulldoze them down for the same reason: MONEY.

Glad I didn't buy any bugalows near downtown!!!

I have a unique perspective on this case because I happen to LIVE in the state in which it's taking place.? I've had the opportunity to follow it from the very begining and it's been very interesting to watch the courts dance around this issue.

Here's the problem:? The 5th ammendment of our constitution allows for eminent domain....and it does so without giving specific definition of what "public use" is.? Up until this decision, most people have taken public use to mean some sort of project that would contribute to the public good and use (schools, roads, even prisons or the elimination of urban blight).? All the lower courts, without specific direction, were pretty unwilling to actually make a definitive ruling one way or the other.? Even the ones that did acknowledged that, given the lack of specific definition of "public use", their decisions were tentative at best.? This case seemed destined for the Supremes since it's inception.? So, it was left up to the Supremes to define, as has been the case so many time, a term in our constitution that was broadly used but never defined.? And they chose to side with "big government/business", right along party lines.

Giving governement the ability to annex personal property simply because the resultant structure might provide a better/larger source of tax revenue is absurd.? Yet, that's exactly the reasoning behind the majority decision...that the citys and towns have the best idea of how to plan the development of their particular town or city.? The fact that it profits an independant developer actually did little to influence or factor into the majorities decision (it seemed to be largely ignored by them, and taken up by those supporting the dissenting opinion).? That, in and of itself, is quite telling.

So, the question is, given this decision, what's to stop the government from bulldozing that section of tract housing (ie: affordable housing) to make way for a group of luxury condos?? Or to allow a large retailer or factory to take over the tract.? The answer is, now, nothing.? And that's scary.? ?Because those that will get taken advantage of will be those that can least afford to defend themselves, legally.? The SC has struck an unbelievable blow to personal rights, freedom, and the ability to own property.? They've also now given the local governments a VERY direct way to control and increase their tax revenue, with no real checks and balances attached to it.? Essentially, they've given them free reign to do as they please when it comes to lining their own pockets.? And that, too, is very scary.

So, the question is, given this decision, what's to stop the government from bulldozing that section of tract housing (ie: affordable housing) to make way for a group of luxury condos?  Or to allow a large retailer or factory to take over the tract.  The answer is, now, nothing.  And that's scary.   Because those that will get taken advantage of will be those that can least afford to defend themselves, legally.  The SC has struck an unbelievable blow to personal rights, freedom, and the ability to own property.  They've also now given the local governments a VERY direct way to control and increase their tax revenue, with no real checks and balances attached to it.  Essentially, they've given them free reign to do as they please when it comes to lining their own pockets.  And that, too, is very scary.

I saw an article about this a while back. They were older homes (nice bungalow styles, well kept) that the city (North Carolina I think) wanted to tear down to build high end condos. The people beat the city back then, but now, they are out in the wind.

In Tampa there is a huge amount of luxury townhomes going up. They are going up everywhere around the trendy area, mostly filled with older homes. I like the new townhomes with the tile roofs among the older homes. It looks great. You often will see big signs sitting in front of homes the are going to demo for these new Townhomes to go up "Future site of X Luxury THs". This is different because the owner has been offered a price and the owner has accepted. Probably making a decent chunk of change.

Now, these corporate builders can come in and just claim the land. Tax cap on property is something around 2% a year. So the property may be worth 350k, owner paying on 120k since they have been there so long. Now the new luxury TH goes in and they have four units each worth 350k each. New tax asessed at 7-9k per unit (just for example). Hmmmm....who is the city going to side with?

It is a damn shame for America. You can try to blame liberals, conservatives, whatever, but the bottom line is BOTH PARTIES are whores of the big corporations.

It's all about money.

I dont know why Im responding to this, you obviously have ZERO knowledge on the Supreme Court.  There are very few things I know a lot about, but this is one of them.

I notice how you never directly respond to quotes that I make.  It sure makes much harder to address your "lie" accusations directly.  I have noticed for sometime that this is one of your tactics.

Call it what you want, I refer to them as liberals because that is basically how people understand things: liberal vs. conservative.  If you would like I could call them "living constitutionalists."  If you ask anyone they would call them liberals.

No, it means those that interpret the Constitution by liberal jurisprudence philosophy.

OK :confused:  I think it is easier to refer to things on the political spectrum from liberal to conservative.  What exactly is a Democrat and what exactly is a Republican?  I think referring to them on the political scale is much more accurate.

I dont think they threw it to him.  Besides that is misleading.  I doubt you have actually ever read Bush v. Gore, so starting in on a conversation on it is a waste of time.

You think President's should be absolutely immune from suit for acts they did before their presidency?  Besides, a unanimous court, consisting of half of Nixon appointees, blocked his attempt to prevent handing over the WH tapes.  You examples prove my point that you have no knowledge in this area.

Well, I dont know if I would say it is liberal.  I would say it is split: 3 conservatives, 4 liberals, and 2 moderates.  Whatever side the moderates choose decides the case.  Both moderates interpret the Constitution all over the board, and in some of the big decisions have taken the liberal stance of re-writing the Constitution.

Of course you didnt address my point about how judicial confirmations have changed.  Of course, you never address my points.  He was the third pick by Reagan against a Senate that rejected one nominee, and destroyed another.  The liberal senate would not let anyone even remotely conservative in.

This is the most ridiculous of them all.  Just because someone was appointed by a Republican does not make them one.  He is not, nor ever was a Republican.  In fact, he is probably the most liberal member of the Court.  Do your homework.

Again, appointed by a Republican, but clearly not a Repubublican.  His judicial philosophy is also way out to the left.  He was an uknown when appointed, and Bush has considered him his biggest mistake in office.  If you knew anything about the confirmation process you would know that most of these appointments are of people where little is known about them.  Therefore, they are big question marks.  Otherwise they get ridiculed in the senate.


You are correct in that there are two members of the Supreme Court appointed by Dems, but that means nothing.  They are all seen as liberals, and even you could figure this out if you did a quick google search.

???????Not sure where this comes from?



I suggest you read the opinion.  You will see that the big Conservatives all opposed this.  The big liberals were the ones that voted for it.

No, it means those that interpret the Constitution by liberal jurisprudence philosophy.

Right, so you can spin anything the way you see fit. You don't like something then you label it "liberal", even if the person making the choice is Republican and appointed by Reagan or Bush.

Well, I dont know if I would say it is liberal.  I would say it is split: 3 conservatives, 4 liberals, and 2 moderates.  Whatever side the moderates choose decides the case.  Both moderates interpret the Constitution all over the board, and in some of the big decisions have taken the liberal stance of re-writing the Constitution.

2 Dems..........

The remainder of your post is just a spoke on the wheel of your bullshit and will be disregarded.

Do you ever get tired of being so full of shit?

Facts are facts area facts. You can take somebody who is a Conservative and then twist it around "Well what is a conservative anyway...lets look at that." It's all hogwash...and so is most of the crap you say.

You have to look no further than Iraq to see that.

Good luck in life, you are going to need it.

You continue to respond to nothing directly.  Is it that hard for you to figure out that just because one is appointed by a Republican doesnt mean that they are conservative?  You cant understand the most basic things.  Would you call William Brennan a Conservative?  You sit and criticize the opinion, yet you have no understanding of the judicial reasoning that is used to get to those decisions.  Like most of America, you are ignorant about the Supreme Court.  You look at the result instead of the reasoning they use to get to their opinions.  Its kind of hard to bitch then when they give you decisions that you dont like.


CODE FOR: I have no knowledge in this area, and I am out of my safety zone.  Thus, I wont try to respond to anything directly.

Pot . . . meet black


for someone that is against labels, you would think that you would rather someone be labeled in a narrower way (liberal, conservative) versus a broader way (republican, conservative).

For someone that constantly bitches against people talk shit about those that against the war, you sure arent too tolerant of different view points.

Thanks, Im doing fine.  If Im like you are at your age, then Ill need some help.  I have a girlfriend I love, a job I love, a dog I love, and I live in what I think is the nicest part of the United States.  If that is luck that got me here, then give me more of it.

Here is where your argument is flawed and why I am tired of talking to you.

In the first post you claim it's the liberal judges fault.

Then in the next post (after pointing out that there are only two Democrats on the Supreme court), you start blurring the lines where one become the other, in order to back up your point.

Now if you claim that it's a liberal judge that did this on one hand, you are a hypocrite to turn around and claim that we must now define them on a "political scale" (rather then what they are registered) when it's time to get down to facts.

Sounds like big pile of poo if you ask me. The ones appointed by Republicans are registered Republicans. So you can try to muddy the argument and speak down to me, but it does take away from the fact that you are full of shit. Period.

********

The rest of your last post was not suprise and the usual of how you operate. When somebody gets tired of listening to your immature and ludicrious posts, you try to draw them back in by childish attacks. Try it with somebody else.

Give me somebody who is honest (with themselves more than anything) and I'll talk shop all day long. If you really look at Supreme court with only two Dems and claim it's the liberals who passed this bill, you are not a rational person.

As far as your attacking my knowledge, you know zero about me. Nada, zip, zilch. I notice that is the theme of your posts, they are usually full of insults and low blows. If you must know I have a brother who is a judge, another who is a lawyer and family that has worked in foreign embassys around the world. I grew up with a strong understanding of military, law, and politics, and continue to learn more everyday.

You think because you are in (are you?) in Law school, you can talk to me in such a way to try and degrade me? This is a sign of a boy who wears his insecurities on his sleave and knows of no other way to attack his opponent. I have friends in all walks of life: I know carpenters, doctors, real estate investors, lawyers, teachers, judges...a bit of everybody really. And none of them would talk to anybody in such a way that they disagreed with. They understand that it would only make them look like an ass to speak down to another person like that. My friend who is a lawyer hates shit like that. She is down to earth, no ego, and works hard. She worked hard to get where she is, and doesn't think she can talk to anybody like that.

So while you sit in school (still not a lawyer or anything other than a student) you should remember that you only show like a snot-nosed kid to speak down to others in such a way. Cocky, stubborn, and no class is what comes off.

Anyway, go study, and don't think you have any reason to speak to me, or anybody else in such a rude manner.

Im sorry SLC, but if you take a look at how the process works it is evident that who someone was appointed by isnt the clearest indication of where they stand on the political scale.? Besids, judicial philosophy and political philosophy arent always the same thing.? Im not blurring lines at all, Im simply trying the explain how it works.? If it is unclear, then Im sorry.? But not everything is dem vs. rep.

Talk about personal attacks.? This is about the 5th post in a row where you have said this.

I only attack in tesponse to the attacks by others.? In this case, you have been attacking me for quite sometime.? "You are full of shit," "good luck in life you are going to need it."

Im sorry SLC, but if you look at the supreme court and dont call souter, beyer, ginsberg, and stevens liberals then you have no clue what you are talking about.? Google it, its that easy.? Ask your lawyer friends.

Playing the victim after you attack me first.? Funny.

Not trying to degrade you, just saying that this is one area where it is clear that you know nothing about based on your posts.? I can say that objectively.? I dont know what you achieved in your life, nor how happy you are.? But I was referring to the fact that you seem bitter.? I sure hope Im not as bitter at your age.

Thats great.? SLC you do exactly what you complain of me doing.? Before you sit and complain about somemone being condescending, talking to people that disagree with them, ego, etc, I suggest you look in the mirror.? Every attack I ever use at you is in response to something you say.? THis thread is no different.? You at least used to respond to quotes directly.? Now you have resorted to little paragraphs where you say that Im full of shit, and I dont know what Im talking about.? Then you throw in a few other attacks.? Im not sure how else to respond to that.? When you quit posting about substance, it results in this crap.? Your right though, I shouldnt have lowered myself.

Again, you know nothing about me.? So I suggest you read your whole leture about not presuming you know about the other person.? It is clear from this post that you know nothing about me.? Anyway, I would call you just as stubborn and cocky.

Haha.? I suggest walk the walk.? Dont sit here and lecture me about things that you do yourself.? You are extremely rude on this board to anyone that disagrees with you.? Im sorry, but you are no victim.

Back to the original topic...Does anyone actually agree with this decision.  The only winners here are the city who gets more property tax revenue and the builders of the office building.  It's not like tearing down these homes is greater good for the population.  If they planned to put in some kind of mass transporation system I could see tearing down private property, but this is ridiculous and is against every America supposely stands for.

No, the decision is a fatal blow to America IMHO.

Nothing gets solved if the argument is taken down to the level of finger pointing. That is what government prefers us to do anyway. I believe both sides are whores for? big coporations anyway. (Some posters want to stir the pot and sidetrack the discussion too).


It really is scary, because owning a home, means something totally different now. You could really get left holding the bag. Who defines "fair market"?

If I buy land as an investment to sell 10 yrs down the road, and a developer sees that he wants it, I would get what I paid for it at that time. Not the appraised value through appreciation. Same with a home. If my home balloons up to have 150k equity and a builder wants the land, guess who just lost 150k ?

A shame for the USA is damn right.

People are too busy watching MJ, and sports to really understand the impact of all this.

Tearing down these homes is for the greater good of the local governments and big busineses. That is it. The people get brushed aside with this.

Very very upsetting.

One thing: Fair market value is actually a very well defined term, more commonly referred to as CMV.  I've known 2 people who have gone through the process of having a house "grabbed" via eminent domain (in their cases, though, it WAS for public use...a highway extension and a new public school).  In both cases, an independant appraiser (agreed upon by the homeowner, the city/town, and the homeowners mortgage holder, if any) was hired to determine fair market value/CMV.  And in both cases, the city actually paid a bit more than the CMV the appraiser turned in.  The CMV was, in both cases, comparable to what houses in their area had sold for prior to the announcement of annexation.

Not that that makes this decision any easier to swallow, but I did want to point that out.

Well this is good, I guess......it's better than nothing.

 I just have to wonder if the city will pay up if the owner fights it (I'm sure he/she is allowed some sort of pseudo-appeal process, much like appealing with your insurance company). Or if it is really just a luxury condo going up rather than a school. Would they still get full appraisal?

I remember about 10 yrs (or more) back when they put these high end apartments in the swanky part of Tampa. One lady would not sell her home. All the others were bought up, but she refused to go. She was a widow and her husband had built the home for the two of them. She said she would die in that home. It had an emotional attachment. At the time, she agreed to free paint job to match the complex. Today, this can't happen, no matter how much the home would mean, she would get swept aside.

So what will happen to those people where you live? Will they stand in front of the bulldozers, or what?

I don't know what they'll do....but I'll keep an eye on the case, as I have from the begining when it hit the local news.

The sad thing is that most cases of eminent domain cost lots of money in litigation expenses because the government always undervalues the land on the first go around.? If you are having to take your case to appeal everytime, let alone the supreme court, that is going to cost you quite a bit of money.

Hmmm, I guess it must depend on the particular situation and government.? As I said, from purely anecdotal information, the people I know who went through the process both had quite different experiences than you cite above.? Maybe the situation you describe is far more normal...or maybe the situation you describe above are the ones we hear about more often.? I'm not sure.? I know that it was explained to both people I know (different, but close proximity, towns) that the town governent was requried to offer Fair market value (CMV) as it has been defined, legally.? Maybe that's a town ordinance or state law (in CT).

Again, in both cases I have personal knowledge of (friends who went through the process), the value wasn't provided by the government, but by an independant appraiser.? The town/city PAID for the appraisal, but the appraiser was agreed upon by the homeowner, their mortgage holder (in one case...in the other the house was not mortgaged..it had been paid off already by the homeowner), and the town/city.? In both cases, the appraised value was viewed as fair by the homeowner (closely matching what homes had sold for in the area prior to the announced annexation), and the town offered just a bit more than the appraised value (like 2% - 3%-ish, if memory serves).? It wouldn't be right to call the process painless...but they certainly didn't have any desire or grounds to appeal the appraisal.? Again, maybe they were just dealing with more "scrupulous" towns, or some sort of ordinance or state law. Or maybe, as you state above, they recognize the increased legal costs of a "lowball" offer and just choose not to even bother with the attempt.

Now, if the government came in and offered what was on the tax roles as CMV (and it wouldn't surprise me to see less "scrupulous" towns/cities do that even though it has been argued, in court, thousands of times, that CMV does not equal taxable property value) THEN I could see a whole huge number of appeals.

I know a lot of people in CA that have farm land that has been taken for schools.  I think some cases are easier than others.  The problem that I most often see is the government try to undercut people on what the land is actually zoned for.  Thus, if someone is currently using it for farm land, but the land is zoned for residential use, they try and give them the smaller farm land value than the residential use value.  I know a bunch of people that had to litigate these.

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

wow that came back to bite him in the ass? :rofl:

The 'Just Desserts Cafe' - I like that  ;D

States Trying to Blunt Property Ruling

By MAURA KELLY LANNAN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 13 minutes ago

CHICAGO - Alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes and turning the property over to developers, lawmakers in at least half the states are rushing to blunt last month's
U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain.


In Texas and California, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments to bar government from taking private property for economic development. Politicians in Alabama, South Dakota and Virginia likewise hope to curtail government's ability to condemn land.

Even in states like Illinois ? one of at least eight that already forbid eminent domain for economic development unless the purpose is to eliminate blight ? lawmakers are proposing to make it even tougher to use the procedure.

"People I've never heard from before came out of the woodwork and were just so agitated," said Illinois state Sen. Susan Garrett, a Democrat. "People feel that it's a threat to their personal property, and that has hit a chord."

The Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Connecticut case that was decided by the Supreme Court, said at least 25 states are considering changes to eminent domain laws.

The Constitution says governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Governments have traditionally used their eminent domain authority to build roads, reservoirs and other public projects. But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., had the authority to take homes for a private development project. But in its ruling, the court noted that states are free to ban that practice ? an invitation lawmakers are accepting in response to a flood of e-mails, phone calls and letters from anxious constituents.

"The Supreme Court's decision told homeowners and business owners everywhere that there's now a big `Up for Grabs' sign on their front lawn," said Dana Berliner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. "Before this, people just didn't realize that they could lose their home or their family's business because some other person would pay more taxes on the same land. People are unbelievably upset."

Don Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, which backed New London in its appeal to the high court, said government's eminent domain power is important for revitalizing neighborhoods. He said any changes to state law should be done after careful reflection.

"There's a rush to respond to the emotional impact. Our view is, step back, let's look at the issue in the broadest sense and if there are changes that are reflected upon, that's appropriate," he said.

In Alabama, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is drawing up a bill that would prohibit city and county governments from using eminent domain to take property for retail, office or residential development. It would still allow property to be taken for industrial development, such as new factories, and for roads and schools.

In Connecticut, politicians want to slap a moratorium on the use of eminent domain by municipalities until the Legislature can act.

One critic of the ruling has suggested local officials take over Supreme Court Justice
David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel. Souter voted with the majority in the Connecticut case.

Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the taking of private property for economic development except to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly on the question.

Illinois state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger, a Republican who is considering a run for governor, said the state's blight laws need to be more restrictive.

"The statutory definition of blight in Illinois is broader than the Mississippi River at its mouth," he said. "They have taken everything from underdeveloped lakefront property to open green-grass farmfields as being defined as blighted."

Action also is taking place at the federal level, where a proposal would ban the use of federal funds for any project moving forward because of the Supreme Court decision. And the Institute for Justice said it will ask the Supreme Court to rehear the New London case, but acknowledged that the prospects of that happening are dim.

"One of the things, I think, that is elemental to American freedom is the right to have and hold private property and not to interfere with that right," Rauschenberger said. "For Americans, it's like the boot on the door. You can't kick in the door and come in my house unless I invite you."

what's with the supreme court anyway ?
are they all republicans now ?
the president just chose a new guy to replace that old lady ... don't people think it's wierd that the president just choose people that have so much power ...

As they mention, the CT Legislature is actually taking steps to try to prevent towns from doing what New London has done.  They will probably not be able to stop THIS actual instance, but the "loop hole" the city found looks to be getting closed in the near future, with much stronger restrictions on the use of emminent domain, with the possible inclusion of state approval and due process by the legislature for towns to invoke it.

Almost:

Rehnquist=Republican   

Stevens=Republican   

O'Connor=Republican   

Scalia=Republican   

Kennedy=Republican   

Souter=Republican   

Thomas=Republican   

Ginsberg=Democrat   

Breyer=Democrat   


Although 7 out of 9 are Right Wing (appointed by Reagan, Bush etc), some people will still call them Liberal Judges..... :hihi:

This is nice to see.

People really got upset over this ruling. I am still appalled.

the liberals on the SC lead the push for this legislation. they actually voted FOR land siezures. (and against legalized marijuana).  ::)

I would hardly call Justice Stevens, or Justice Souter right-wing.  Republicans, Yes.  Right-wing, no.

So much for American freedom. I dunno about you but a society where you can be forcably removed from your home because theres more money to be made if big business own the land - is not 'free' its like living under a dictorship.

Republican = right wing

I see know difference. Very seldom do the seperate themselves verbally from the rest of the pack. Wanna get picky, ok, but 7 of them are republicans who were appointed by republican presidents.
There you go again.....

The ruling really does undermine what this country stands for IMO. Owning your own home/land is part of the "American Dream"; it was anyway.

what's your point? the five that voted for it are the ones who lean to the left based on their voting history....

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Stevens, Kennedy, David H. Souter.

it was a 5-4 vote. if any of the liberals had dissented, it would have been shot down.

instead it was o'connor that summed it up best in her dissent....

"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.
(Source: cnn.com)

I saw the funniest thing on the news yesterday, of course I was half asleep when I saw it.

I guess some of the people in New Hampshire are trying to get the town council or local lawmakers to eminent domain Justice Souter's home there.  This would be classic.  I try to find a link to an article talking about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8406056/

WEARE, N.H. - Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments more power to seize private property, someone has made what appears to be a tongue-in-cheek pitch to take over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.



The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

I hope it the hotel goes up.

SLC Punk you really need to pull your head out of your ass.  I can tell that you're not very well educated in political philosophy at all.  I'd further speculate that you've never taken a college level American or Constitutional law class as well.  The supreme Court is essentially Consisted of 3 Conservatives and 4 Liberals with two moderates.  The degree of liberal and conservative bias varies by each member and because of the moderates is not controlled by either liberals or conservatives.  Thankfully, our justices interpret the constitution that way it was written and leave their personal opinions out most of the time, but on the important decsions you can see them vote right down their party lines.  While legal experts view the court as I mentioned earlier, many argue (as do I) that the court is split 4-4 with one true moderate.  However I digress, this ruling stems from a modern liberal outlook in which a collective outlook is the goal.  Democrats or Republicans aren't black and white, and your obvious small understanding of legal and political philosophy screams ignorance.  Before you dub me a republican or conservative, let me inform you that I am a libertarian - the only true party that can claim personal freedom as their objective.  If you advocate welfare, socialized medicine, gun control or anti-abortion and prayer in schools you are not for Freedom, but the enforcement of your vision of how society should be.  I don't know if you hold any of these ideals, but I'd bet my bottom dollar you're a staunch liberal and that's anything but freedom oriented.  How can you condemn the government for taking property in one breath, and presumably advocate the collection of tax dollars for social programs in the other?  Your only possible answer is that you think people should have a high standard of living and medicine at the expsense and cost of others.  Without debating that issue, that is theft of their property.  I'm glad to see issues like this coming up, because people should think about them.  However, it seems that many want to bash the Republican party and champion the Democrats.  While I dislike both parties, the modern Democratic party is the enemy of the working man and middle class and if you can't see this or understand why I'd argue that, you have no business criticizing others and spouting your inane political rhetoric. :rant:

The supreme Court is essentially Consisted of 3 Conservatives and 4 Liberals with two moderates.

Nighttrain is that you?

First of all the question was "How many republicans", which I answered, correctly. Period.

All personal insults or ASSumptions will be ignored.


I don't know if you hold any of these ideals, but I'd bet my bottom dollar you're a staunch liberal and that's anything but freedom oriented.

That's right, you don't know what I think...

  How can you condemn the government for taking property in one breath, and presumably advocate the collection of tax dollars for social programs in the other?

I don't remember advocating (you assume again) any social programs lately. However the government taking property away  in order to make more money and social programs are two different subjects.

  Your only possible answer is that you think people should have a high standard of living and medicine at the expsense and cost of others.

This seems to be you answering  for me.  ::) 

  While I dislike both parties, the modern Democratic party is the enemy of the working man and middle class and if you can't see this or understand why I'd argue that, you have no business criticizing others and spouting your inane political rhetoric. :rant:

Wow, you sound like Bill O'reilly. He claims he has no bias either, but rambles endlessly about the evil liberals too.

You give no examples of how the Dems are the enemy of the "working man". Although I do see Republicans who raise taxes for the middle class, while giving the upper crust tax breaks.

Good book for you: What happened to Kansas?

Anyway, as usual, another Republican disguised as a "Libertarian" coming here to bash away. So let me get this straight: You ask a question, then answer for me, then tell me how I have no business to criticize others, and that the Dems are the enemy of the working man. All while giving no examples, links, articles, anything to back your point. And you are calling me "inane?"
 
Hmmm....go fuck yourself.

Rather than ignore my assumptions, why don't you refute them?  Are you sir a liberal ( I already know the answer, but please answer that question anyway?



The fact that you don't understand the correlation demonstates my point of how ignorant you truly are on the issue.  Nothing is free in this world and social programs are paid through tax payes via the government.  Any tax revenue gained from the new buildings thtough this upsetting ruling will be used to fund the government and its programs.  If you can't make that simple connection, you should have a disclaimer before all post warning people that "A fuckign idiot is about to speak" as a courtesy to all those who don't wish to lower their IQ or get a headache.



Again, you truly show your lack of knowledge.  Liberals demand bigger government with bigger control and more spending.  The government spends OUR dollars when they do this.  The Democrats are the ones who champion more spending and since the Evil corporations either find a loop hole around taxes or just pass it on to the consumer, it is the working class who gets fucked in this matter.  I'll say it again since you obvioulsy don't understand, nothing is free in this world and the cost for new peograms and corporate taxes is the burden of the working class.  The Republican party (at least traditionally) and the Libertarian party advocate free markets and little to no social programs which takes the burden away from the tax payer.

I'm no Republican disguised as a Libertarian.  I've placed my basic views here for all to see (something you have yet to do) and I most certainly am a staunch libertarian.  Rather than read conspiracy theory.com and talk politics with other undeducated uninformed liberals, try reading some books yourself.  I have a degree in Political Theory and am working on my Master's, so at least I have some credibility in my arguments.  I actually read all sides of the argument before I formulate an opinion, but I am the true political minority because I truly stand for individual autonomy and diversity; I don't goto Marx or the Bible to get my opinion.  Rather than telling me to fuck off, answer my questions.  Anyone with an IQ over 90 will realize you're full of shit and just repeating the same old tired rhetoric again and again.  I highly suggest you read the books "Free to Choose" and "Cost of Rights".  At least then you'll have some perspective.  To finish this post, I'll be more than happy to answer and debate any political stance you can ponder.  Pull your head out of your ass and analyze the issue before you let the shit pour out. 

Rather than ignore my assumptions, why don't you refute them?  Are you sir a liberal ( I already know the answer, but please answer that question anyway?

Because they are off topic. They are used to distract from the point of what was being discussed.

  Nothing is free in this world and social programs are paid through tax payes via the government.  Any tax revenue gained from the new buildings thtough this upsetting ruling will be used to fund the government and its programs. 

You are creating a strawman to tear down here.....

The issue (being discussed) is not what happens with the tax money, but rather the fact that homes can be taken away from a citizen to create more tax revenue. You are stretching this very thin to try and discredit me. It is thin, and your childish personal insults only show that you have little to fight with. It's what happens when somebody does not have a leg to stand on.

Not to mention, if you find the ruling "upsetting" and so do I...then what is the problem? I said there are 7 REGISTERED republicans on the Supreme Court and you have a problem with that? Sorry, but that is...what it is.



  Liberals demand bigger government with bigger control and more spending.

I don't think you understand. I said to give me something other than you "expert opinion" to back your claims.

  The Republican party (at least traditionally) and the Libertarian party advocate free markets and little to no social programs which takes the burden away from the tax payer.

BOTH parties roll over for the large corporations and the people get stuck with the bill. The burden on the tax payer is because huge corporations DON'T pay taxes and often times get returns.

 BILLIONS are being spent on a war in Iraq...According to Bush that is a social program, is it not? He CLAIMS to be rebuilding Iraq with it. Building infrastructure, providing medical care...shit! Those aren't even Americans.... :hihi: And you can sit there and tell me the Democrats are wasting all the tax money on social programs....You are truly "inane"!!!  :hihi:

Not to mention all the overbilling Haliburton has been found guilty of...to the tune of BILLIONS. Guess who picked that one up? The taxpayers! And who contracted them out? Hmmmm....The republican pukes in office! NOT the Democrats.

Did you go to a public school growing up?


LOL, and you think social programs are the only thing tax money goes to? Ever driven down a road?  :hihi:

I have a degree in Political Theory and am working on my Master's, so at least I have some credibility in my arguments.

An appeal by Authority.....

Ahhh...I see the logical fallacy strikes again!  :hihi:

Using your same logic I can say that "Yea, but look at your tatoo, there is no way somebody with a tatoo like that can know anything about politics..."

Get it?

  Rather than telling me to fuck off, answer my questions.

Your questions have no relevance and are way off topic. You are using logical fallacies (Attacking the person, False Dilemma, Complex question, Prejudicial Language, Hasty Generalization,  and Appeal to Authority are all being used here) one after the other. An intelligent person can see you are flawwed and would tell you to fuck yourself, sorry.

 To finish this post, I'll be more than happy to answer and debate any political stance you can ponder.  Pull your head out of your ass and analyze the issue before you let the shit pour out. 

Start a thread then, and stay on topic when you do.

I will say that I am impressed in your knowledge of logic.? I too have studied logic and you present a valid point in your claims.? True, we both agree that this court ruling is a stain on the Constitution and American legal system.? However, I was responding to your claims that this ruling stemmed from a conservative outlook or view on jurisprudence, which is simply not the case.? Truth be told, I was against the war in Iraq and believe it to be a waste of my tax dollars, but as a member of the armed forces, I believe that since we're there the war must be fought properly and thus merits the budget it receives.? I do state again that you are correct in the logical fallacies in which you presented, but I was never trying to discredit your argument by discredting you.? There are people with PhDs who command much more authority than my meaningless BA ( see Chomsky) who argue many of the same points as you.? My argument was to defend against your accusation that Conservatives or Republicans are to blame for this ruling when in my opinion is stems entirely from the liberal, collectivist or socialist outlook that stands to destroy our freedoms.? However, I will also concede that many of the Bush administartion's policy proposals and ideas pose an equal threat to individual liberty.? The discussion we've had is something I always enjoy having as I appreciate anyone's comments who correct or show error in my own.? For that I am greatful.

Fair enough, agreed.

Thanks.

EDIT: Is it ok to take my head out of my ass now?  :hihi:

As an off topic aside:

Eminent domain is largely used by municipalities, not the federal government, or even state governments.  Thats not to say that it isn't used by those agencies, just used less frequently.

In the case in question, it is a town.  The town government will be the ones garnering the increased tax revenue.  As I'm sure you know, having some knowledge of government, town budgets don't fund, as a general rule, much in the way of "social programs".  They fund infrastructure, road maintenance, school systems (usually 50%+ of any town budget), etc.  As SLC correctly pointed out, the whole arguement is a strawman, anyway.  However, the assumption that the use of eminent domain simply to increase tax revenue has any bearing on the funding of "social programs" is a tenous assumption at best and, at worst, a logical fallacy.

i love when people talk about the government as foreign, alien entity.
like there is " US (the people) " and there is "the govermenent" spending OUR dollar.
a government is YOU.
a government is spending dollars FOR you. they're not buying ferraris with your tax money.


i got a question: who nominates the "democract" persons on the supreme court , does g w bush chooses freely or does he go by what the democracts tells him to do ?

Wow ! We agree ! I kept wondering why taxes were so bad if with them we get free education and health care.

Um...a past president nominated/appointed them.  GW certainly didn't.  Supreme's are appointed for "life" (ie, they stay until they retire or die), regardless of administration changes.  That means, a president only gets to appoint a new member of the court IF someone currently on the court elects to retire or passes away.  This will be GW's first SC nomination/appointment....and he's appointing a republican (again, his right...not saying it isn't).

This is the exact problem I was referencing in comparison to eminent domain.  You want free education and free health, so you have no problem contributing a large percentage of your income to these programs.  I however don't want these programs and prefer the free market system where corporations (most corporations are mom and pop shops, not Enron) can offer medical insurance as an incentive to attract quality employees.  Taking my tax money for exspenses you desire is no different than some judge taking my home to bring in increased revenue for the community.  Both instances show just how powerful we've let the government become.  The Government is its own entity.  While you and I have a vote, the government machine has its own interest to sustain its own longevity and increase its power.  Everytime a new program is instituted or more power granted, our society becomes less and less free. 

For the record, I'm not against all taxes, we need roads, defense and other cost to maintain the lifestyle we Americans enjoy.  However, the more authority and control we turn over to the government out of convenience is power we won't get back.  To delude ourselves into thinking we can reclaim that power when we want is naieve at best.  When social security was first instituted in the 1930s, it was advertised as a temporary and optional program.  Now it's required by law to join.  I'm not saying that arguments for these programs don't have merit, but they are not in accordance with a capitalist and free society.  I know I've kind of gone off topic, but I think this is pertinent to this conversation.  Many of you believe that America is on its way to a police state or maybe is already there, yet you desire to hand over more control to that same institution.  Explain to me the logical thought process in that.  The only way to make sure the government doesn't overstep its limits is the 2nd Amendment and unfortunately many of you want to re-write that one as well. 

The name of this topic (New America) is 100% correct and its only going to get worse if many of us don't follow the outcomes from some of the ideas we have.

I'm glad to disagree w/ you on that matter. I hope we never get to see your dreamed society here. I live in a country in which for the time being the system still works. I didn't pay for my scholarship. I graduated from university (A master Degree) and I only paid 400 dollars a year for one of the best university in the field I wanted to study. When I'm sick I go see a doctor - I pay 20 euros (more or less 20 bucks) and the social security gives 14 euros back to me. Now that I work it's only fair I pay taxes to get the system working. I still have enough to live well.


And when I read you're not against all taxes, that you need roads and an army well I see our priorities are not the same ... I prefer taking care of people to roads and education to defense.

And it don't feel like not being free because I pay taxes ...?

exactly rain ! you go girl !

and Guns N RockMusic, you think the governement is an evil entity and just want more power and money ?? .... i'd love to see how your dream world ruled by corporations will take care of you ...... if you are not a quality employee.


question more: if a suprem court guy dies and he was a democrat, the current president must choose a new guy who is a democrat too ? how do they define democrat ? republican ? by the political parties ? the president just takes any new democrat he *likes* ?

No, if a supreme court justice dies, the president can  appoint anyone, of any political party.  The court is not, necessarily, made up of any given number of any particular party.   There is no mandate that says there must be 4 republicans, 4 democrats and one independant.   Thus, a democrat does not need to be replaced with a democrat.  They can be replaced by a republican, democrat, or independant as the current president sees fit.  That's why so many democtrats are unhappy that O'Conner decided to retire.  They know that she was an important swing vote, as a moderate, that a Republican president now gets to replace with a hand picked candidate (and thus, someone who is more likely to vote along his lines of thinking).  With the Chief Justice also in ailing health, and an aging court overall, there is a decent chance that this president will get to choose another justice during his term...at least one more....as well.  If that were to happen, the Republicans would have long term influence (for arguements sake) on the court since they would be left with a good sized majority and a large majority of the younger justices on the bench.  That thought gives the democrats heart palpatations.

man. so thats why GWB picked a young, handsome man as jon stewart said :)

Just a couple of points, some on topic, some off, but all relevant to the post above:

1) I see a fundamental difference in paying taxes that MIGHT fund programs I don't use, or don't want funded, as vastly different than pulling a person's property out from under them. ?I see the similarity you're proposing, but the vast difference in scale makes the two utterly incomparable. ?

2) While you're correct in saying that most corporations are small businesses, the picture that information paints in incomlete. ?The top 10% of all corporations, combined, in the US make more revenue than the bottom 90%, combined...yet the bottom 90%, combined, pay more taxes, by an astronomical amount, than do the top 10%, combined. ?It's all well and good to want a free market society, and to believe we should allow businesses to use tools they can afford to attract quality workers. ?The problem is, those corporations have much too much influence in not just the way business is done, but in the way life is lived. To take your example: ?If health care were only provided by corporations that could afford to pay for it, up front, to attract quality workers, it would ensure "the best and brightest" only go to those corporations with BIG pocketbooks, stifling competition and the growth of small business (we've seen some of this with the "Wal Mart-ization" of Main Street). ?Not, I think, the ideal solution. ?While I agree, "free" health care isn't the answer either (the "controlled" costs of health care causes issues in quality and quantity in those scenarios), I think there is a happy medium to be found....though I also think the current system is not it.

3) ?Big Government is a problem. ?So is Big Business. ?The two are so completely intertwined that nothing short of political hari kari is going to seperate the two. ?That's a problem. ?But I don't think forming a local militia to overthrow our bloated system is the answer, either. ?The answer, actually, is very simple: ?Get educated and get involved. ?Even if it's at your local level. ?It sounds like a cliche, I know. ?But it really is the answer. ?The problem is: ?Too many Americans just go in and pull a party lever (if they vote at all) and pay zero attention to what their elected officials actually DO. ?They listen to the media and party rhetoric, villify the opposing party, and bury their heads in the sand on a day to day basis. ?While I disagree with lots of what GunsnRock says, I do respect that he's at least educated himself on the politics of the day....and that, too, is part of the problem. ?People seem to be unable, for the most part, to respectfully disagree with a viewpoint, and turn that disagreement into productive use (ie: compromise). ?The political system has become one of black and white, if you listen to the rhetoric from the party lines...and what ends up happening is a LOT of fingerpointing, and no problem solving.

OK...rant over. :)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784368

 In one of many development plans that got a boost from the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, Long Branch, N.J., plans to condemn dozens of modest bungalows along the shore so a developer can put up condos. The mayor think this would be great for tax revenue. Longtime residents -- and some lawmakers -- wonder about the limits of "public interest."

(http://tinypic.com/9zyo3a.jpg)

A New (London) Low
A refrigerator box under the bridge: The Kelo Seven prepares for the worst

by Jonathan O'Connell - July 14, 2005
Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000 .

The hard rains started falling that year, when Matt Dery and his neighbors in Fort Trumbull learned that the city planned to replace their homes with a hotel, a conference center, offices and upscale housing that would complement the adjoining Pfizer Inc. research facility.

The city, citing eminent domain, condemned their homes, told them to move and began leveling surrounding houses. Dery and six of his neighbors fought the takeover, but five years later, on June 23, the downpour of misfortune continued as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city could claim the property for economic development.

Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home and the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother, Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep his land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning for the worst.

And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would be in a position to cash in, especially since they're being forced from their homes. But that's not the case.

The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low."

And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenantssome residents' only form of incomewould also have to be paid to the city.

With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies , NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.

A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low."

"It seems like it is simply a desperate attempt by a nearly broke organization to try to come up with more funds to perpetuate its own existence," Bullock wrote. He vowed to respond to any lawsuit with another.

With the case nearly closed, the NLDC may soon make good on its promise to sue. Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, says it's not clear who might prevail in a legal battle over rent. "From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," he says.

An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

That's one way to get out of the rain.

I`d like to see what would happen if a city wanted to put a freeway thru Judge Rhenquist`s property, what would happen then?

The thing is horrible.

1. They loose their home.

2. Then offered the market price in 2000 for their home, thus losing thousands upon thousands of dollars in appreciation money.

3. Threatened to pay back rent....wtf!!!!???

How much more heartless can people get?

Rehnquist was part of the dissent, he voted against the ridiculous decision.  He is one of the biggest supporters of property rights on the court.

Now don't come out and say that.  How could a conservative do the right thing for the common man?  You're destroying the illusion that many hold that conservatives are out to fuck the common man.  ::) Don't throw facts their way. 

This has been all over the news in CT.  From the sounds of the reports, the CT state legislature is going to step in to try to present some of the "vengance" tactics the city is taking.  Blumenthal has also pledged support of his office to the homeowners to make sure they're treated as fairly as possible, given the SC decision.

In addition, it sounds very likely that CT will be passing legislation this upcoming session preventing municipalities from doing stuff like this (the unbridled use of ED) in the future.

Despite the decision, it does seem that it will be difficult for the legislatures to actually pursue such land transfers without political suicide in many places.

It would be difficult for a career politician to do without committing career suicide, that's true.  But many ED executions are not done by the state, but by municipalites/towns/cites.  In that setting, there are far fewer "career politicians" and lots more "moonlighters".   And those are the types of people that "did" the New London deal, on the city side of things.  They could care less if they get re-elected as long as they push their agenda through before they're ousted.  It's quite common in small town politics...

They are all out to fuck the common man. Liberals just use lubrication.