Government's Right to Seize Homes

[sifer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

Supreme Court Expands Government's Right to Seize Homes

 

[LowPlainsDrifter]

Scary stuff indeed...
You don't want crap like this happening? Vote for Libertarians...
Oh, Libertarians are a weak third party, and it's "throwing away my vote"
Well, that's why they can't get anywhere - if no one's wiling to "throw away their vote" (I thought the idea behind voting is that you vote for the candidate you want to win, not the "lesser of two evils.") third parties will never get any traction.

Beware guys, political threads get shut down quickly...

 

[Vincent]

Just for the record they've been able to do this for YEARS. The supreme court just said it was right now.

This will be closed soon.

 

[penkitten]

no!!!!

my house = mine !!!

 

[penkitten]

Originally posted by GodsGiftToWomen
I don't think so.

It's Gio's house.

ok i will share with gio.
our house = ours!

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

Eminent domain is a byatch.

This country no longer respects any of the principles it was built upon....

Hey drifter, if you vote anything other than republican in GA ur vote doesnt really count. BTW do you listen to neal boortz he's a quasi-libertarian talk show host.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by Vincent
Just for the record they've been able to do this for YEARS. The supreme court just said it was right now.

Not exactly. The fifth amendment has always allowed it for PUBLIC use (such as building roads, hospitals, etc.)

The issue here is where your house gets taken away so your property can be given to a developer who will turn it into million dollar condos or a shopping mall or whatever. That's a private use, but the government is basically saying that "public use" means whatever they say it does.

The government has to pay fair market value for the property they take... but here's the problem:

One of the guys in this case... the house was built by his great grandfather. His elderly parents live there. There is a rich history of tradition and heritage in this home. Also on the property is a house that his grandmother gave him and his wife as a wedding gift. He gardens the same soil that his grandmother did.

So what is the fair market value of tradition, family heritage, sentiment, and history?

 

[Page]

The governement is going to fvck you over good if you let them ( its a HUGE conflict of interest for them to take your house and then decide how much it's worth, since they have most of the leverage and they have every incentive to offer you a lower ammount of compensation) , so I would suggest getting a good attorney who specializes in eminent domain disputes and getting an independent third-party appraisal of your home if your house is slated for demolition.

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

So what is the fair market value of tradition, family heritage, sentiment, and history?

Doesn't matter I'm still angry about the government using this to take private property from citizens to sale to developers. Fair markert value is the least important issue of this problem........

Welcome to the Plutocracy :cuss: :moon:

My county was trying to do a deal with walmart this past year, Thankfully homeowners and other concerns citizens were able to fight off this attempt of theft.
Love how they try to sell walmart as a beneficial member of society: they claim that they provide quality jobs and all this other bs. Everyone by now knows the truth about walmart and how awful they are...

 

[DrMetallica]

I'm a Libertarian through and through but they'll never be anything but a weak third party. It's basically the way our elections are set up favors a majority two candidate system and in the United States it will never be anything but. There is a theory of why this happens but I can't remember it. Look up a first-past-the-post electoral system on wikipedia.

On another note, I can't believe that this ruling happened. What a bunch of swine. The goddamn thing that makes this country what it is is strong property rights, and the government and their p*ssy lawyers and judges can't just remove that without a fight. If I were on of the ones being evicted I'd put up a goddamn fight and reck havok on the community because I absolutely would not let them take my property.

 

[DrMetallica]

Originally posted by GodsGiftToWomen
Hopefully we can steer this more towards a history lesson about real estate than a political thread.

Real = royal (old word for government in England..maybe Spain also)
Estate = house

The "royal's house".

The government has always owned the house. That's why you pay property taxes.

The United States of America has never been ruled by a king

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by SELF-MASTERY
Doesn't matter I'm still angry about the government using this to take private property from citizens to sale to developers. Fair markert value is the least important issue of this problem........

That's what I was saying. The question was rhetorical/sarcastic. I am also angry about private property being basically stolen to enrich people who are already rich so that they can build condos to sell to more rich people.

 

[sifer]

Unfortunately, people out there accept this!

There should be riots! There should be demands!

I just spoke to someone who I told about this, first was "impossible, our government would never do this!"

Then after showing the paper "the government means good for us. They'll create job, afterall that's what their budgets and our tax that we paid are for, right?"

Too bad really.

 

[sifer]

Government's Right to Seize Homes part 1

The story I posted is the second part.

Part 1 is here,
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/5581993p-5552999c.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Monday that people who lose state lawsuits claiming the government improperly took their property cannot count on federal courts for help.

Land rights is a major issue at the high court this year, and so far the justices have made it tougher for people to win lawsuits claiming that local and state laws amount to an unconstitutional "taking."

The biggest of three cases dealing with government authority to seize properties will be decided in the next week, before the Supreme Court begins a three-month break.

In Monday's decision, the justices ruled against a historic San Francisco hotel that wanted to convert rooms - previously designated for permanent residents - to accommodate tourists.

The city had restrictions on hotel changes, as part of an ordinance intended to preserve housing for the poor, disabled and elderly.

When the San Remo Hotel was ordered to pay $567,000, it sued in state court and narrowly lost at the California Supreme Court in 2002. Then-California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown supported the hotel and wrote a strongly worded dissent, used by some senators in opposing her recent elevation to a federal appeals court.

"Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery," she wrote. "Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves, it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government."

 

[Vincent]

This happened in my city about 20 years ago. They were planning on expanding the highway and their were some houses by it. Well of course the only houses there were sh*tty ones owned by poor people, so their house values was not very much. Of course I feel bad for them, but still the highway at the time was 2 lanes, now it's 8. It helped the city a ton.

Benefit the whole, while concern for the minority. That's democracy.

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

This happened in my city about 20 years ago. They were planning on expanding the highway and their were some houses by it. Well of course the only houses there were sh*tty ones owned by poor people, so their house values was not very much. Of course I feel bad for them, but still the highway at the time was 2 lanes, now it's 8. It helped the city a ton.

THat is how eminent domain and to a much lesser extent escheat is suppose to work............ What we're talking about is government stealing land from the citizenry to sale to developers, whose plans are not about helping the common good.......That's not how democracy nor America is suppose to work.

Benefit the whole, while concern for the minority. That's democracy.

The constitution actually protects the individual (minority) from the masses.

 

[Coolage]

What are we communists?

Why can't private companies purchase the land? everyone has a price

 

[sifer]

Originally posted by Coolage
What are we communists?

Why can't private companies purchase the land? everyone has a price

No, it's socialism.

Communism is gov't control over properties and distribution of it. I have described this phenomenon in my other thread.

As for the above posts, yes I concur. I "throw away" my vote on the Libertarian party too.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by sifer
No, it's socialism.

No, it's corporatism.

 

[sifer]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
No, it's corporatism.

Haha, I'd like to say it's both, socialism as it is manipulating the laws (from an economic viewpoint) so it "provides job and... etc" for the economy and it's also corporatism (or neo-corporatism) as it is the lawmakers influenced in the interests of business (more money).

Either way there goes our Constitution.