The story I am commenting on can be found here:

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

The Supreme Court has recently declared that local governments may directly seize land from private owners and then give it to developers without negotiating prices, declaring it a blight, or even without reason. This stems from a case in Connecticut where developers want to place a office complex (or something similar) in a suburb.

Normally I am for the increased economic development of a city, but this decision seems wrong for a multitude of reasons.

1) The inner city poor. "Gentrification" as it has been called, is the revitalization of an inner city where slums and low-income housing are located (generally populated by minorities) by city government. This process involves uprooting the local population from its homes and replacing it with parks, malls, and condos. In the past, this was only legal if the area was declared blighted. Now this process has become far easier, and many minorities risk losing their homes and being unable to find inexpensive housing elsewhere if the local government decides to put a mall there. The outrageous thing is that the government can hand the land directly to private developers. No longer must the upgrades be for the public good. This is a dangerous prospect for the working poor in the core of cities.

2) The middle class. Apparently, the neighborhood in Connecticut isn't blighted, and it isn't even poor. It is merely a good locale for this new development, and the city government wants to turn it commercial. Before, the middle class only had to worry about eminent domain if a freeway or park was coming through. Now if a big developer wants a mall where you live, the city can force you out and only have to pay tax appraisal value of the land. This can leave you at a serious disadvantage, since most houses sell for a bit higher than the appraisal tax rate.

3) It's for the wrong reasons. The 5-4 split in the court makes this very clear. 5-4 decisions are never a good thing, as it means that there is no compromise, no comfortable majority, and no clear finale. 5-4 decisions mean the court is ideologically split and that the decision can be easily reversed in the future by changing just one judge. Another reason this is bad is that it's simply for profit. Cities want more tax revenue, developers want more money, and companies want higher profits. It's all about greed, and not about what's good for the residents.

I realize that cities need more money in the times of economic downturn, and some people believe that more jobs will be created--but what good is all of this if a city becomes all commercialized and people are forced further and further into the suburbs? No one will want to live there, at least I wouldn't. The consequences of having your family uprooted for someone else's gain are enormous. My basic stance is that this decision is bad for American cities and bad for American families. The only good it does is for the pockets of local officials and developers.

locked

This is one of those rulings I strongly oppose. If you can think of some (lawful and ethical) way to pressure the powers that be into either revoking this change or simply not using this new power, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, I don't think whining and complaining will do anything at all.

The only options I can think of are a petition, raising a new lawsuit or writing Congress to pass a law that restricts eminent domain.

locked

Bush shud be bent over, fukd in the ass infront of his family, then make his daughters stick a fucking gun up his asshole and blow the fucking tossers brains out....ha

Bush shud be bent over, fukd in the ass infront of his family, then make his daughters stick a fucking gun up his asshole and blow the fucking tossers brains out....ha


OMG THATS HORRIBLE!!!!!










not that you wrote that..but that I mostly agree. Im terrible.

hehehe, a fellow bush hater :D , you are not horrible (i tell myself ths everyday lol), it is tht bastrd bush thts horrible, when that feeling of venom enters your heart, just swear, punch something and count to 10, works every time ;) :m:

The story I am commenting on can be found here:

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

Normally I am for the increased economic development of a city, but this decision seems wrong for a multitude of reasons.

My basic stance is that this decision is bad for American cities and bad for American families. The only good it does is for the pockets of local officials and developers.

Another aspect lost to land owners with this decision: My parents were involved in a land deal back in the early 70s that increased the size of a state park by more than 1,000 acres. Three siblings had farmed a piece of property for over 50 years and they were nearing a point of being unable to care for any aspects of the property anymore. A developer wanted the high ground that bordered my parents place, and the state wanted the lower pieces, to increase the park size. Funding wasnt there for the park to purchase the whole piece. Anyways, the developer needed 2 acres of our property to put in the road, or his development would be land locked. At that time, my parents had the upper hand and got a very nice price for that two acres even though they did not want houses overlooking our farm.

This ruling would have allowed the state to eminent domain our entire farm for the developer and the price recieved would have been peanuts compared to what they were able to negociate (in addition to the money, they had the park make walk in access points in several spots, for all the people who live close to the park and these access points will exist as long as the park exists) Why the access points? To allow people who live in the area to access the park from many points and not have to funnel thru the main gate (around a 10 mile drive from the far side). Trust me, the park HATED the idea of the access points.

This ruling takes away this potential also. While local officials may have a good idea of what brings in money, they do not always have an idea of "we the people" when implementing such ideas. If my parents would not have had this kind of land rights, there would be no access points for people whos lands are on/near the far side of the park, and these access points are not "private property, No Tresspassing" points. They all border roads. The one I used has its own road sign. A road that goes no where. The road is about 100 feet long. No one can put up a "no tresspassing" sign there.

These kinds of land deals occured in california, and that was where my parents got the idea for the access points from. In california, there were a few old timers who sold out to developers along the ocean. These old timers had amendments to the land sales for "public access" points along the properties, to ensure their children and grandchildren would have access to these beautiful places along the coast. Now there are some people who are fighting these ammendments to their lands and are putting gates up and such, trying to prevent persons from using these access points, but they lose in court because the deal is in writting. Madonna was one celeb who lost the battle If I remember right. I am sure this piece of negociating powers will be gone because of this ruling.

.

And yet, for all of the complaints, don't most people here at sciforums think that we should give of ourselves to help the less fortunate? And isn't that about the same thing? If so, how can you complain about this ruling when that's almost exactly what you've been preaching about all along? ...that we should be forced to help the poor in Africa? ...that we should be forced to help the uninsured? ...etc?

I think the ruling sucks big donkey dicks ....but it's soooooo liberal that it seems as tho' most people here would be cheering. Why not?

Baron Max

This is one of those rulings I strongly oppose. If you can think of some (lawful and ethical) way to pressure the powers that be into either revoking this change or simply not using this new power, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, I don't think whining and complaining will do anything at all.


Make an Amendment to the US Constitution that would not allow the government to taking of private property for uses other than for governmental needs IE roads, hospitals, bridges etc..

Instead of making a Constitutional Amendment disallowing the destruction of the American flag for protesting anything.

Bush shud be bent over, ....

What did President Bush have to do with this ruling? Please tell me. Not one of the justices was appointed by him and I daresay that he is probably against this ruling as much as anyone. Please tell me ....what does he have to do with this?

Baron Max

He casted a dark republican spell over your country.

I wonder if y'all would feel differently about this ruling if it was for taking property from the rich and giving to the poor? Would the law then seem easier for y'all to accept? 'Cause so far, it seems that most people are upset about the idea that it's taking property from the poor and middle class ...no one has mention how terrible it would be to take property from the rich, right?

Baron Max

This ruling is a huge irony. Liberal justices have presented a ruling that coincides beautifully with the republican corporate mentality. I seriously doubt if relief will be seen on the national level. If we see a correction, I suspect it will be on the state level and at a slow pace.

IMO, abuse will be rampant for five or ten years until the public demands relief.

Two comments from Justice Sandra O'Connors dissent which I agree with entirely:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

and

"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."

IMO, abuse will be rampant for five or ten years until the public demands relief.

You mean that cities will be robbing property from the rich and giving it to the poor? Abused how?

And what is it about "for the greater good"? I.e., if a section of a city slowly turns into a plight, does the city have no responsibility to correct it if they can? Isn't this something like a city putting up "the projects" for the poor? How could they do that if they didn't have the land to do it?

As a former architect, I've seen many property owners stand in the way of progress only to find in a few years that they're homes were worthless, that the progress of the city passed them by ...and they lost everything. Is that what you'd like to see happen?

Don't forget, there's a good side to this "horror story", too. Y'all need to look closely at that side, too, BEFORE you make your final judgement.

Baron Max

locked

And yet, for all of the complaints, don't most people here at sciforums think that we should give of ourselves to help the less fortunate? And isn't that about the same thing? If so, how can you complain about this ruling when that's almost exactly what you've been preaching about all along? ...that we should be forced to help the poor in Africa? ...that we should be forced to help the uninsured? ...etc?

I think the ruling sucks big donkey dicks ....but it's soooooo liberal that it seems as tho' most people here would be cheering. Why not?

Baron Max
I do agree with this ruling. It allows cities more power to revitalize themselves. When peak oil becomes more of an issue, we will realize that a vital city is a better use of energy than a spread-out suburbia.

Instead of making a Constitutional Amendment disallowing the destruction of the American flag for protesting anything.
You are correct. We should just have flags made that release a poisonous gas when burned. ;)

Proper flag disposal ceremonies can be supplied with a chemical to prevent this release.

I do agree with this ruling. It allows cities more power to revitalize themselves. When peak oil becomes more of an issue, we will realize that a vital city is a better use of energy than a spread-out suburbia.
I'm no proponent of urban sprawl, but this is mild fascism by the Supreme Court.

Marriage of corporation and state + exaltation of both over the people = Mussolini's dead thumbs now protrude enthusiastically through his coffin's cover

I don't like it at all. I'd rather deal with an energy crisis than a dystopia. Of course, at this rate, we'll all be dealing with both...

This isn't a power that governments haven't had before. They can't just take land and hand it over to developers. But you can't develop any land for any purpose without development corporations. This law is intended to provide land as a part of a comprehensive development scheme.

Unfortunately this is not a law, it's a court ruling. As such, it has far broader implications than a well-crafted law would, and cities can give private property to developers, be it private or public use.

Fortunately, the city I am living in now is considering an ordinance banning the use of that power for private developers.

I do agree with this ruling. It allows cities more power to revitalize themselves. When peak oil becomes more of an issue, we will realize that a vital city is a better use of energy than a spread-out suburbia.

Yeah, but all this is being used for is to build more sprawling nonsense that only works in the context of cheap oil and the easy motoring public and not actually freeing up some open space, making walkable communities, access to agriculture land, or anything like that which we'll be needing.

They'll bulldoze the area, you'll get to see what the dirt looks like beneath it for a whole minute, then they'll pave the thing right back over and build more of that lovely sprawl we've become so fond of.

And if they wanted to do something besides sprawl, they would need this emminent domain power as well. Soon, sprawl will no longer be economical.

To make walkable communities, not just exclusive communities, cities need more higher density housing that incorporates shopping and industry.

Would y'all feel the same about this new ruling if the city took the land and erected low-income housing for the city's poor? ...or for some other use to assist the poor and the underprivileged?

Baron Max

As long as the land goes to a private company, it's the same deal as now. On the other hand, if the state is turning it into a public land and merely hiring a contractor to build on it, that's normal eminent domain.

I was never happy with the concept of eminent domain to begin with, but I'm an anarchist. *shrug*

locked

Dwayne, what the hell are you talking about? Could you please explain your post a bit more indepth for me? I don't think, as it is, that it makes much sense.

Baron Max

Would y'all feel the same about this new ruling if the city took the land and erected low-income housing for the city's poor? ...or for some other use to assist the poor and the underprivileged?

Baron Max
hell yeah, dawg

Low income housing would be a public service sponsored by the city and covered under the old eminent domain rules. I'm referring to taking the land of the poor (or middle class) and turning it into something for upscale elites, like an office complex or shopping mall. Worse yet, big box retailers can move in practically anywhere they desire and clog up traffic in once-safe residential neighborhoods.

I can just smell Walmart, McDonalds', Target, Circuit City, Blockbusters, Best Buy, Lowe's, Costco and all those other entities dripping saliva out there.

Boy will they be going to town on those small businesses and homes.

GOING TO TOWN. Get it? Ahahahahahhhhhaa.

But, the people in control of development plans can be voted out quite easily if the people don't like what they are doing. They need to be able to justify their use of the land.

It's too late to get your land back if you have to wait until after they kick you off to vote them out of office.

Maybe that's why it is good to be involved in local politics.

Never said it wasn't, but being involved in local politics (unless you're actually a politician) won't stop a city council from razing your home for the next Best Buy if they think it will give them more money.

The city of Arlington, Texas is planning to exercise eminent domain against some homeowners this very night ....so they can build a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys football team. As I understand it, the stadium will be owned by BOTH the Dallas Cowboys and the city of Arlington.

The homeowners don't want to leave, but ...well, tough shit, huh?

Baron Max

locked

I had a nice six or eight month period where I was able to think of Bush as a simple variable instead of as a human being. I felt less threatened.
This ruling is the first thing that made me feel unable to rely on this simple strategy, it is shit.
And it has everything to do with the political climate in the country, and the "mandate" we have for business interests to take precedence over human interests - don't say Bush isn't a huge proponent of this mindset or you are retarded.

Anyone who is forced to leave their home for anything other than justifiable security interests should be paid double the value, for incidental damages to the person's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
If the developer can't pay, and take the hit out of their profits, no deal.
Plase, Spidergoat, you know that this power won't be used for the public welfare. Maybe once in a while, but not enough to justify this.

This is utterly corrupt. Now you can see that the Supreme Court is corrupt, too. If you think it's not, you have too god-damned much money or are too god-damned greedy. This puts the interests of big business, corporate America and the extremely wealthy ahead of the individual human rights of Americans, just like every god-damned thing this President and Congress have passed since Bush's second term started. This includes tort "reform" (your ability to sue if you are abused), bankruptcy "reform," death tax "repeal" and others I can't even remember off the top of my head. I promised my mom this kind of shit would happen if this moron Bush got re-elected. Republicans Rock!!! (Fuck the Poor and Disenfranchised!!!!!!!!)

As an architect, I once designed a 4-story apartment project right AROUND a homeowner who refused to sell his property (and it was a run-down mess!). When the project was completed, the homeowner's property had about 2 hours of sunlight in a whole day. He also had hundreds of people staring down on his property at any time of day or night. Within three months of completion, he begged us to buy the property ....and we declined. The city actually stepped in and helped him out - buying the home and turning the property into a mini-park.

He could have made about three times the value of his property, but he was stubborn and greedy. So we built the project anyway ......and virtually ruined his property value and he lost everything. Progress is difficult to stop!

Baron Max

locked

As an architect, I once designed a 4-story apartment project right AROUND a homeowner who refused to sell his property (and it was a run-down mess!). When the project was completed, the homeowner's property had about 2 hours of sunlight in a whole day. He also had hundreds of people staring down on his property at any time of day or night. Within three months of completion, he begged us to buy the property ....and we declined. The city actually stepped in and helped him out - buying the home and turning the property into a mini-park.

He could have made about three times the value of his property, but he was stubborn and greedy. So we built the project anyway ......and virtually ruined his property value and he lost everything. Progress is difficult to stop!

Baron Max

What about the rights of the individual? Property companies have no such ethics. Here in the UK, green land is being snapped up by greedy developers from farmers who no longer till their lands, they build large, breeze block "luxury" apartments and sell them on for ridiculous prices which people are now finding impossible to get mortgages for.

I have three children - all grown up, all still at home. All have good jobs, son is in IT with the Ministry of Defence; daughter is in a large internation legal firm on a lot more than me and second daughter is a Vet Nurse (to be). None of them can afford a mortgage. Houses here are commonly in 6 figure sums; my "legal" daughter has been told she can have a mortgage up to £89k! The value of my own house has more than doubled in the past 12 years but it means nothing to me as I need "somewhere" to live.

I am coming to the conclusion that I will have to leave my house to them as a secure base for their futures.

People in the UK cannot afford to get on rung one of the property ladder, the developers are becoming greedy, building where houses can not fit in, if you get my drift, green belt is slowly vanishing, parks being encroached upon, and the council, left wing, does nothing as a green field does not generate revenue to their also greedy hands.

...they build large, breeze block "luxury" apartments and sell them on for ridiculous prices which people are now finding impossible to get mortgages for.

Well, someone is buying them or they wouldn't be building them! And you said yourself that the farmers are no longer tilling that land, so...?


None of them can afford a mortgage.

So I guess they have to go somewhere that they can afford, huh? What other choice is there? ...or are you saying that they can't afford anything anywhere in all of the UK?


...the developers are becoming greedy, building where houses can not fit in,...

Apparently the developers are building things that people want and are buying or they wouldn't build them. So it's not JUST the greedy developers, it's ALSO the consumers ...so put the blame where it belongs. No developer would build something that wouldn't make him a profit.


...green belt is slowly vanishing, parks being encroached upon, and the council, left wing, does nothing as a green field does not generate revenue to their also greedy hands.

Well, to my view, humans are just breeding too fast! It ain't the developers, it's the sheer volume of people ...they have to live somewhere, just like your children, right?

Baron Max

Greetings Baron. Why should my children have to uproot to another part of the country when their life and work is here? Secondly, I obviously refer to "first time buyers" in my reference to getting onto the first rung of the ladder. People who already have mortgages etc are not in the same situation. I beg to differ on developers, they are greed personified. Build a house for, example, £40k, and sell for £120k to my way of thinking is greed. And don't even pretend to tell me the throw up houses we build are not costing £120k to build, not a chance in hell. I actually think its cheaper than the estimated £40k as well.

Why should my children have to uproot to another part of the country when their life and work is here?

Well, strangely, it's called "progress"! I understand your situation, but it's no different to many times in the past. Do you suppose all of the people of, say London, were able to stay in the city? ...including their children?

Look on some maps of old and check out the urban crawl. Here in America, it won't be too much longer until the east coast is nothing but sprawling city from Miami to Boston. And do you suppose that all of the people who live in those areas will be able to afford to stay in their present homes?


I beg to differ on developers, they are greed personified.

Well, if you could get a 25% return on your investment in a year or so, would you do it? And if you wouldn't, how many other people would also refuse it? Capitalism is about making money. But you might have noticed that for some to make money, it's usually the case that others must lose some. Another thing that you seem to forget is that while many of those homes might not be worth $x.xx, people are still buying them. So it's NOT just the developers who are greedy. Think about it.

I do understand your plight, but it's also the same plight that's been overtaking mankind since we started walking upright on the African plains. But you must also remember that many farmers, for example, are no longer farming their land ....because big co-op farms are taking over and can do it much cheaper and easier and better. Ditto for beef ranching. You can't hold back "progress", even if it ain't really progress!

Baron Max

I do not argue against you, but looking at it from the other side. Its the whole of life in general I suppose. Things just keep on getting more and more expensive, there is now reaching a time, especially in the housing market in the UK, were people are saying NO - can't afford it anymore, when that becomes more generalised, prices will begin to crash through inability to "con" the consumer into continuous buying cycles.

Its the whole of life in general I suppose.

And you and I agree wholeheartedly on THAT issue! ...LOL!

But, listen, you and I also agree on lots of things, no matter what I've been saying. At issue, however, is you and I want to take away some of the "freedoms" of the greedy developers (we don't want them sucking the nation dry). But then how can we reconcile doiing that when others want to take some "freedoms" from other people (like maybe you and I?)? See?

I often "argue" with myself just to help me realize that the world is just too fuckin' complex for me to understand!! What happened to raising your own garden, chickens and pigs and cows, and living ten miles from your nearest neighbor? That's what life should be like .....surely not what it is!?!?

I'm often thankful that I'm old and don't have to see what the hell this world is going to become. Perhaps that's heaven ...dying and not seeing or knowing what happens??! ...LOL!

Baron Max