Supreme Court Ruling = New Amerika

[pilferk]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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?

[pilferk]

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.

[GnRNightrain]

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[GnRNightrain]

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.

[Walk]

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

 

[N.I.B]

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

 

wow that came back to bite him in the ass?

[Doc Emmett Brown]

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

 

The 'Just Desserts Cafe' - I like that 

[SLCPUNK]

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."

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

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 ...

[pilferk]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

what's with the supreme court anyway ?
are they all republicans now ?

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.....

[SLCPUNK]

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.

This is nice to see.

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

[sandman]

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

[Surfrider]

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

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

[Lineker10]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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

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

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.

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

There you go again.....

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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.

[sandman]

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

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

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.

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

There you go again.....

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)