Re: Supreme Court: Home May Be Seized
Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is more than just a little disturbing to me. The abuses of Eminent Domain continue.. Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good Excerpts from the article... WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. snip http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ This is *appalling* - I thought part of the reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break from GB was 'unreasonable seizure'? Not only the poor, but the middle-class will have no recourse. Debbi Time To Write Our Congressfolk Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Supreme Court: Home May Be Seized
At 01:53 PM Wednesday 6/29/2005, Deborah Harrell wrote: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is more than just a little disturbing to me. The abuses of Eminent Domain continue.. Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good Excerpts from the article... WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. snip http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ This is *appalling* - I thought part of the reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break from GB was 'unreasonable seizure'? Not only the poor, but the middle-class will have no recourse. Debbi Time To Write Our Congressfolk Maru If you want your efforts to actually have a chance to accomplish anything, though, that needs to read: Time To Write Our Congressfolk » A Check « Maru and make sure it's for a substantially bigger amount than the check that Wal-Mart writes to your local officials to get them to give them your property . . . Money Makes The World Go 'Round Maru -- Ronn! :) Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain, a Biography ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Supreme Court: Home May Be Seized
On 6/24/05, Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary Nunn wrote: This is more than just a little disturbing to me. The abuses of Eminent Domain continue..Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good This is one of the most hideous decisions I've seen in a long time. Anyone who thinks this decision will not disproportionately affect the lower classes is kidding himself. Does anyone *really* believe that some guy with a $1 million home is going to lose it to make way for a mall? What a crappy way to start the day today. Second worst part? Agreeing with Scalia and Thomas. :-P Bad, bad, decision. Only hope is this had a lot of publicity and nearly everyone thinks it is bad. I also find myself agreeing with old-style conservatives on some things. -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 24-26 Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Supreme Court: Home May Be Seized
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 6/23/2005 8:41:02 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 Oh hell yes. I don't think the law on civic improvements has changed either. In Phoenix a big developer put up a 20 story tower in what was a residential area. The homes on the other side of the street had to pay for a part of the new sewer that had to be put in. Payment was based upon property frontage to the street. Ten homes had to pay half of what was needed for 400 offices. So it goes. So it goes. I know. I got chapter and verse on You [EMAIL PROTECTED] LIBERALS! did this on the Fourth Turning website, along with a smarmy editorial in the New York Times online and and a more thoughtful but wrongheaded one in the Washington Lost online. I have written to them, the Albuquerque Journal, my three Congresscritters, my state legislators, and my city councilman protesting this decision, and in the case of the politicians, asking for laws banning the taking of private property for nongovernmental purposes. As I said to one of them, now my home is my home only until Megalomart wants it. Cheap. It's enough to send someone running back to Ayn Rand who outgrew her 20 years ago. This is straight out of Atlas Shrugged. Pat, disgusted ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Supreme Court: Home May Be Seized
Gary Nunn wrote: This is more than just a little disturbing to me. The abuses of Eminent Domain continue..Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good This is one of the most hideous decisions I've seen in a long time. Anyone who thinks this decision will not disproportionately affect the lower classes is kidding himself. Does anyone *really* believe that some guy with a $1 million home is going to lose it to make way for a mall? What a crappy way to start the day today. Second worst part? Agreeing with Scalia and Thomas. :-P Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Supreme Court: Home May Be Seized
This is more than just a little disturbing to me. The abuses of Eminent Domain continue.. Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good Excerpts from the article... WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing disproportionate influence and power to the well-heeled - represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. 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. 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. Complete article... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Supreme Court: Home May Be Seized
In a message dated 6/23/2005 8:41:02 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 Oh hell yes. I don't think the law on civic improvements has changed either. In Phoenix a big developer put up a 20 story tower in what was a residential area. The homes on the other side of the street had to pay for a part of the new sewer that had to be put in. Payment was based upon property frontage to the street. Ten homes had to pay half of what was needed for 400 offices. So it goes. So it goes. William Taylor - Good words on page I do forbear Not pulled out from my derriere. Blest be the man who says, 'Writes well.' And cursed be he that makes me spell. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
