Private Property? So what?

[AtomicLabMonkey]

The Supreme Court just decided that Government's power of Eminent Domain no longer only applies to "public use" projects, now it means they can steal your land for privately owned development projects too. Abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Nick Koan]

Wow. Just wow.

Since when is it okay for the government to come in and take your land to give to someone else? I don't care if it is under the guise of "economic development" taking private land isn't acceptible for non-public works projects. Hell, I don't even think its acceptible for public works projects, but thats another rant altogether.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by nKoan

Wow. Just wow.

Since when is it okay for the government to come in and take your land to give to someone else?

Since today, apparently.

All that has to happen is for a developer to think your neighborhood looks like a good location to build the next WalMart/Retail mall/Ball park, go to the city or county and bribe them with campaign contributions while whispering sweet nothings in their ears about increased tax revenues, and voila - your house is demolished.

[sperry]

I don't see the problem. I do that all the time... sometime, I bulldoze a whole neighborhood just for fun. Or to limit the spread of the fires from an alien attack.

[ScottyS]

I wonder how that ruling will be applied in the future to Federal Agency/Developer land swaps that are becoming ever more popular in Nevada (or the exponentially-increasing "Wilderness" creation/designation on mixed private/public lands).

Thomas Jefferson originally drafted "life, liberty, and property", but the final version came out as "pursuit of happiness". Why, Tom, why?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by ScottyS

I wonder how that ruling will be applied in the future to Federal Agency/Developer land swaps that are becoming ever more popular in Nevada (or the exponentially-increasing "Wilderness" creation/designation on mixed private/public lands).

Thomas Jefferson originally drafted "life, liberty, and property", but the final version came out as "pursuit of happiness". Why, Tom, why?

Maybe Jefferson realized that slavery was bullshit and figured he didn't want to end up having to furnish all his ex-slaves w/ property if slaves were emancipated within in his lifetime?

[Theo]

FYI - Old news for us in Nevada. Our Mining industry has the right of eminent domain and has used it on the Comstock (Virginia City) in the 1980's. The town of Silver City is currently threatened by a mining company that says they will strip mine the whole town if they can make a nickle.

By the way, a mining company can strip mine in the Comstock Historic District without so much as a permit but I can't build a 4ft x 4ft storage shed without a permit.

It seems we never realy own any land, the government rents it to us for the taxes.

Theo

[sp00ln]

You're hillarious, doink.

[ScottyS]

The mining industry's found a new master - teh EPA. I would imagine that has something to do with the continued absence of activity even though gold's run up like $100 from a couple years ago. The point of "economic" recovery went through the roof as soon as the EPA took command.

At least you don't have to file and comply with an EIS to do the shed.

It seems we never realy own any land, the government rents it to us for the taxes.

I agree with this - plus, I figure it extends to cars as well. The bill for renewing the Impreza's registration was $107 this year, not counting the mafia-style requisite smog check fees. Well, it was going to be $107 until I opted for the online renewal. For some reason their software calculated $92, effectively leaving out the SGS tax of $15. Either way, I think I'm getting screwed. That's practically a CA-level reg fee!

[Kevin M]

This is what happens when we put conservative presidents in the White House for 20 of 28 years. Way to go, America.

One glimmer of hope:

Originally Posted by Justice John Paul Stevens

States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

Hopefully, the lawyers of the side fighting this crap will get out there and get as many states as possible to pass laws preventing this kind of shenanigan.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by ScottyS

... not counting the mafia-style requisite smog check fees.

No smog check fees in Carson City, still, right?

[JoelK]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

This is what happens when we put conservative presidents in the White House for 20 of 28 years. Way to go, America.

Actually, it was the most conservative judges (plus O'Conner) that voted against the ruling. Be careful with that brush you're painting with... you may paint too broad a swath.

[Kevin M]

Yeah, I already found out about that. O'Connor was the only Justice that voted the way I would have expected on the issue. Simply amazing. This is probably the closest I've ever been to losing my faith that intelligent people who use their intellect before their own political perspective can make good law.. It's absolutely astounding to me that I find myself siding with Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas on an issue they were in the minority on. It's astounding how every part of our political spectrum is against this decision. When was the last time the Supreme Court managed that?

[JC]

Originally Posted by Theo

It seems we never realy own any land, the government rents it to us for the taxes.

Theo

You all seem to gloss over the fact they pay you very well. Plus if you don't like how much they pay you, you can take them to court. My parents have gone through eminent domain proceedings before, they would have made out pretty good had someone not raped the gov't on the price of his land.

That doesn't mean I agree with the ruling, I definitely do not but I don't think its nearly as bad as all you seem to think it is. Of course start looking at it in conjunction with the patriot act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2257, and even the war in Iraq and things look a little grimer.

[Kevin M]

Most of us are okay with Eminent Domain being used for things like Freeways and public use stuff, but this ruling says that local government can use it for PRIVATE development. That means that when a developer decides your land is undervalued if he can build a subdivision there, he can forcibly take it from you by greasing the wheels of the city and/or county planning comissions. That's horseshit.

[JC]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Most of us are okay with Eminent Domain being used for things like Freeways and public use stuff, but this ruling says that local government can use it for PRIVATE development. That means that when a developer decides your land is undervalued if he can build a subdivision there, he can forcibly take it from you by greasing the wheels of the city and/or county planning comissions. That's horseshit.

Yes Kevin I know how to read, thank you.

[MikeK]

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Haha!

[Kevin M]

Haha, why didn't any of us cynical assholes think of that?