Legal Affairs Development Trumps Property, Says High Court by Nina Totenberg
All Things Considered, June 23, 2005 · A divided Supreme Court rules that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for economic development. The 5-4 decision was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes were due to be demolished to make way for an office complex.
Does he still post here? I thought he moved to Northeastern Oregon in search of his true Sasquatch home. Which will soon be seized by government thugs.
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Catholics
Imminent domain pisses me off. It's pretty much the ultimate screwing over of private citizens for the benefit of the government. It's certainly nothing new, but the fact that it's only getting worse doesn't exactly thrill me.
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied.
This is one of the scariest news items to come across in a while. I love love love that someone posted this here. (still getting a sense of things here)
'Those who find themselves ridiculous, sit down next to me'
That is a horrific decision. It will by definition create a redistribution of wealth from ordinary citizens to the well-connected EVERY single time it is invoked. Reverse Robin Hood. This is the left wing of the Supreme Court at its worst.
D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) said that the ruling should give the city apowerful hand during negotiations with the 33 property owners at the ballpark site.
"It puts to rest the issue of whether the city has legal rights to take the properties," Evans said. "This strengthens our hand to get control of the property. Hopefully, it will encourage owners to settle with the District and accept a fair price and move on."
FU DC councilman Evans. Citizens should not have to 'move on' when you are stealing their property.
Supreme Court OK's gov't right to seize homes
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 20:09:18
