Eminent Domain Abuse

[LadyT]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/long_branch_homeowners_take_fi_1.html

A three-judge state appeals court panel heard more than two hours of arguments today in Trenton in the case of 11 Long Branch residents who are fighting an effort by the city to take 36 middle-class homes in a beachfront community through eminent domain and replace them with high-end condominiums.

 

[evince]

This is sooooo fucked up.

 

[Chapdog]

happens often. you dont really own your land ever. govt just taxes it till they own it down the road.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is sooooo fucked up.

agreed. This abuse is way way way over the top.

This is the result of a piss poor decision by the Supreme Court in (I believe, but am not sure) 2005. No way in hell should eminant domain be used to take private property from a person and give it to another private party for economic development.

 

[Thorn]

I fail to understand how in any way this would be in the "public interest"! It's not a needed highway or bridge or anything. Sounds like a strictly commercial venture, and relates directly to the inefficiency and corruption of government-- here at a local level -- that were addressed in another thread today.

I most sincerely hope that this effort to dispossess homeowners fails! Otherwise, I hope that they can take it to the S.C.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I fail to understand how in any way this would be in the "public interest"! It's not a needed highway or bridge or anything. Sounds like a strictly commercial venture, and relates directly to the inefficiency and corruption of government-- here at a local level -- that were addressed in another thread today.

I most sincerely hope that this effort to dispossess homeowners fails! Otherwise, I hope that they can take it to the S.C.

That is because it isn't really. The "justification" is these types of projects can create more tax revenue per square foot than the homes that currently exist on the project. The "justification" continues in that if the government (typically local) has more revenue they can "do more" for the "people". Thus, it is "good for everyone"....except of course the owners of the property.... but screw them.... needs of the many....

 

[LadyT]

I fail to understand how in any way this would be in the "public interest"! It's not a needed highway or bridge or anything. Sounds like a strictly commercial venture, and relates directly to the inefficiency and corruption of government-- here at a local level -- that were addressed in another thread today.

I most sincerely hope that this effort to dispossess homeowners fails! Otherwise, I hope that they can take it to the S.C.

Exactly. This is down right criminal as far as I'm concerned. It would be one thing if it were a road or something like that but moving homes for high rise condos?

 

[evince]

What idiots approved of this law?

 

[evince]

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed New London’s authority to take nonblighted private property by eminent domain, and then sell the property to a private developer. This 5-4 decision received heavy press and in some cases inspired a public outcry. Several states have enacted or are considering state legislation that would restrict the state's own power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock(2004)), and Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney(2006)) have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_Domain#United_States

What a pack of Idiots this right leaning scotus is

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What idiots approved of this law?

Not a new law as far as I am aware, just a new interpretation of the law by the courts. I believe (but am not positive) that the decision was made by the Supreme Court around 2005 to allow eminant domain to be used to transfer property from one private entity to another if deemed "in the best interest of the public".

Which again, I believe is a load of crap. As mentioned, it should be allowed for private to public use when necessary, but private to private.... no chance should that be allowed. Unfortunately SCOTUS disagrees with me. Which is further proof why judicial activism is bad.... even when done by a conservative court.

 

[evince]

Look for more of this stupidity out of them.

 

[cawacko]

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed New London’s authority to take nonblighted private property by eminent domain, and then sell the property to a private developer. This 5-4 decision received heavy press and in some cases inspired a public outcry. Several states have enacted or are considering state legislation that would restrict the state's own power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock(2004)), and Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney(2006)) have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_Domain#United_States

What a pack of Idiots this right leaning scotus is

Interestingly enough Desh those who ruled in favor were John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. I believe that would your left-leaning group in the Supreme Court, not the right as you claim. You said look forward to more stupid decisions from them. Another reason we don't need more liberals on the S.C.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Interestingly enough Desh those who ruled in favor were John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. I believe that would your left-leaning group in the Supreme Court, not the right as you claim. You said look forward to more stupid decisions from them. Another reason we don't need more liberals on the S.C.

I admit, I was wrong as well. I also stated a it was a conservative court... I should have known better. My bad Desh, I led you astray. We both should have known judicial activism like this was the result of the liberals. But at least you admit it was a stupid decision on their part.

 

[evince]

Interestingly enough Desh those who ruled in favor were John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. I believe that would your left-leaning group in the Supreme Court, not the right as you claim. You said look forward to more stupid decisions from them. Another reason we don't need more liberals on the S.C.

You are right I forgot about how it broke down.

I was very much against th decision.

It was the liberal judges weho screwed this pooch.

 

[Damocles]

Interestingly enough Desh those who ruled in favor were John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. I believe that would your left-leaning group in the Supreme Court, not the right as you claim. You said look forward to more stupid decisions from them. Another reason we don't need more liberals on the S.C.

hayuls yes!

 

[LadyT]

I'd just like to point out how reasonable and unapologetic liberals are. Desh didn't twist it and try to spin it into being Bush's fault and nor did any other poster.

Take note Bushies. That's how you class it up.

 

[Damocles]

LOl. Who put that tag in? Eminent, not immenent..

 

[LadyT]

LOl. Who put that tag in? Eminent, not immenent..

I would laugh, but I have no rume to talk.

 

[Cancel7]

I'd just like to point out how reasonable and unapologetic liberals are. Desh didn't twist it and try to spin it into being Bush's fault and nor did any other poster.

Take note Bushies. That's how you class it up.

Well the ruling isn’t bush’s fault, but who said he was against it? This is the man who after all, had homes declared condemned in Texas so he could steal the land and build his stadium on, which he then profited greatly from.
Also, eminent domain is supposed to be used only for the public good, and as Thorn pointed out, this hardly qualifies. This sounds like a big business deal, real estate moguls, you know, Cawacko’s friends.

All of that given, I still disagree with eminent domain, and it is probably the only ruling a liberal court is likely to make which I would disagree with, and the other 99% of ruling are going to affect far more people and are more important, so, you know, I’ll stick with a liberal court, which we’re going to get with the upcoming landslide.

Hate to inform the cons of this, but even if a miracle were to occur and you were to keep the white house, dems will have such margins in the Senate, different ballgame then when you were enjoying one party rule under W.

You ain’t getting your nominees confirmed, and you can count on the liberal grassroots ensuring that. But with the expected Dem white house thrown in, we are going to reverse some serious damage on our courts, across the board, under W.

 

[cawacko]

I'd just like to point out how reasonable and unapologetic liberals are. Desh didn't twist it and try to spin it into being Bush's fault and nor did any other poster.

Take note Bushies. That's how you class it up.

I don't understand LadyT. How would Bush be blamed (or credited) for this decision? He hasn't even appointed any justices when this decision was made.