BS: Write your congressional reps

Subject: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: dwditty
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 07:27 AM

The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens' homes may now be seize through eminent domain upon the decision of local politicians in order to allow for private, for-profit development projects. I can see no possible good coming from this decision - only an opportunity for politicians to become more corrupt. Please write your congressional representatives and let them know what you think.
YOUR REP HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 08:35 AM

If you haven't heard, the ruling means that your home, your neighborhood, can now be bulldozed (after you're paid "fair market value," of course) to make way for a new shopping mall if the private developer can persuade the state legislature that the development will be more "beneficial" to the community. Eminent domain has traditionally been applied to public works projects, like building highways. That it should be extended to *for-profit* projects dreamed up by entrepeneurs is incredible.

This decision is beyond my understanding. Since most of the Justices are conservatives, the Republican railing against liberal "activist" judges suddenly rings even more hollow than usual.

A Constitutional amendment may be the only way to neutralize this development.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 09:14 AM

The Supream Court has heard 4 cases involving the rights of private (homeowner) property rights in the last couple years.

They over ruled every one.

By now they are just saying DONT BOTHER US ANYMORE>

The eroded middle class are the new Injuns and can be run off their land by money and emminent domain which now includes not just for public use like rail, roads, hospitals, dams - but for private use - Starbucks, Walmart, Enron.


Exactly what will Congressmen do? They are owned by lobby $ which does not include middle class property owners.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 02:30 PM

This is a truly stunning decision. Made moreso by the side of the court IN FAVOR of the ruling. Potential tax revenue trumps revulsion toward business?

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: Troll
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 05:47 PM

Guest; Guy Who Thinks. Think before you go laying blame.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens who was joined by the other liberals on the court; to wit, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Justice Kennedy who was a Reagan appointee.

It would seem that it is the conservatives who want to protect personal property rights and the liberals who want to destroy them.

Just my opinion but you are welcome to it.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:11 PM

troll: yes you are right. It was the liberal judges on the court who are to blame. Chief Justice Rhenquest, Anthony Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor, Conservativews all, dissented. The dissent (described as a scathing rebuttal) was written by O'Connor.

All of you who are so upset with the Wal-Marts, Targets, and other big box stores moving to your home towns and displacing mom and pop stores SHOULD write your congressmen and senators urging them to pass legislation undoing the Supreme Court's decision. Now the developers will be able to displace families!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:21 PM

I have to admit it -- when I first heard this I really wanted to find out what the spin would be. For just the reasons Doug has just laid out -- that it opens up for teh confiscation of privately owned homes to the Walmarts -- and there are few things on this earth more reviled by liberals than the Walmarts -- and yet it was the liberal's guys who voted the huge break for the Walmarts. The conservatives on the bench acted as I would have expected them to act.

Does it come down to the conservatives on the bench believing in private property and the liberals not? How else could it be interpreted?

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:38 PM

Well as has been pointed out before, the US does have a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: Troll
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:44 PM

Thank heaven we elected Tweelde Dum.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:47 PM

On television last night, they said that some states have allowed 'block' seizures, on an individual basis, for a long time. Some states do not and have not. Is this Supreme Court decision binding on all states and communities?

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:58 PM

"The high court said Thursday, with justices William Rehnquist,    Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent, that governmental agencies have the right to use their eminent domain powers even if the concerned property isn't blighted. The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

"Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

"City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

"The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses, some of which have been owned by several generations of families.

"The group unsuccessfully argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

"The decision reaffirms that cities have clear power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

"Leslie Wade of downtown San Diego's East Village Association, said eminent domain is a "necessary hammer in the toolbox."

"Wade said it was easy to show that the ballpark was a public benefit. She conceded, however, that it is much harder to justify the building of hotels and condominiums at the expense of other residences and businesses."

More



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/sddt/20050624/lo_sddt/supremecourtupholdseminentdomainbutstateshaveright

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 11:56 PM

I know this neighborhood; used to drive over in that area quite often. My daughter and her family live just across the river from it. You may read more of it, from the perspective of the folks in the thick of it in the local paper, The Ne London DAY. One couple who may be displaced have lived in their home for over 60 years and are in their 80's.

This is an abomination and I was never so glad to hear of O'Connor writing a dissenting opinion, BUT we DO have to do MORE. A blind woman in CO was/may have already lost her home to an action like this for a WalMart.

Write the bastards, be they Dem or GOP...they DO pay attention to the numbers!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: dwditty
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 06:33 AM

a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-108.pdf">GO HERE to read the transcript of the court proceedings from the Supreme Court website.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: dwditty
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 06:33 AM

Little clone help, pease?

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:27 AM

Supreme Court Oral Argument - DW's link above

Congressional Email Directory

I intend to contact several congressmen.

But while all you good folks are railing against this one, why don't you put in a word for me in my upcoming trial. You seem to think it's OK for eminent domain in the case of highways...I can't say more, publicly, just now...But the so-called fair market value is a crock that's been used by politicians and their cohorts for years - and as long as they can take one at a time, no one stands up for the property owner. Rant over.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:52 AM

Mary, I'm really sorry. I wish you the best.

Ginsberg, from the very onset, has already decided to make a ruling based on an exception rather than on the greater good or, and this is more important, on the basis of the constitution.

Truly stunning. Activist court may have FINALLY gored the ox of those who most want an activist court. I can only hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 09:45 AM

I was so stunned by this decision that I stupidly assumed the conservative justices were behind it. Thank you, Troll, for pointing out my error.

But be that as it may. The decision, good or bad, was grounded in an interpretation of the Constitution. That tells me there is a loophole in the Constitution - unnoticed until now - that requires prompt
repair in the form of an Amendment. For the information of Commonwealth Mudcatters, any proposed Constitutional amendment must be ratified separately by both houses of Congress, and then submitted to the fifty state legislatures. A two-thirds majority of the states is required to turn the amendment into law, a process which usually takes months or years.

(Mary in Kentucky is correct about "fair market value" being a joke. The local government is always motivated to make a rock-bottom offer. You either accept it, or find enough money to pay an attorney to go to court. I know because I served on a jury in such a case. The city was using eminent domain to rebuild a truly blighted slum area. I personally have no problem with that. The city offered one property owner about $18,000 in "fair market value." His own paid expert testified the property was worth $125,000. After reviewing all the evidence, which included what similar properties nearby had sold for on the free market, we decided that a genuinely "fair market value" in this case was about $30,000. That's 40% more than the city offered. Is anyone surprised? And of course another jury might have awarded more - or less.)

Neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on the little political wisdom that exists in the world. However the Court decision may have been reached, it needs to be addressed promptly by both parties in Congress. (If they can stop wasting time with idiotic anti-flag-burning and anti-gay-marriage amendments.)

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 10:23 AM

Mary, I missed that somewhere or have forgotten? Please let me know what I can do and/or what's happening?

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 02:14 PM

Guy Who Thinks: don't you find it a bit strange, though, that the 5th Amendment (I'm pretty sure that's the one)had been interperted in a way favorable to "the little guy" for over 200 years, and suddenly a group of judges view it differently? Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent, even with the support of the four conservative judges doesn't really amount to hill of beans. It's on the record, but the majority still rules. The only way this can be corrected, IMO, would be through legislation.

I am definitely writing my representatives to ask their support for corrective legislation.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 01:39 PM

Apparently some entreprenuer in New Hampshire is suing to acquire Judge Souter's house to develop a Hotel on the site.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 04:21 PM

We have a case pending here in which twenty nine established businesses face just that thing because the biggest developer in the area has some grandiose scheme in mind for their area. Just another right of the citizens that the government wants to do away with. Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 09:27 AM

"Lost Liberty Hotel" proposed on Justice Souter's land

On Monday June 27, Freestar Media, LLC informed the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire that it wants to begin the permit process to build a hotel on the land owned by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 11:39 AM

1 The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, "There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

    4 "Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him."

    5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity."

    7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man!

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 12:38 PM

LOL.

After reading through part of the arguments, I think I understand the reasoning of the liberal judges. And if I'm right, I have some difficulty disagreeing with them.

Eminent domain has been used to kick poor people from their land and houses for private developemnt for a long time. The "liberal" judges seem to be saying if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. It looks to me like they're saying that middle income and upper income people shouldn't have different standards applied to them than poor people.

If this is the case, my guess is that they want the legislature to clean up the problem of eminent domain being used for private development so that it becomes fair to the poor people as well as everyone else. I have difficulty disagreeing with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 08:06 PM

John Hardly: I think the guy trying to get Souter's land is a hoot!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Write your congressional reps
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 10:00 PM

You're next, DougR...

;-)