I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling but heard last night that this just says the Federal government says this can happen. The states can still deny this if they choose and this is where the fight will lean to the side of the homeowner but we all know that the lobbiests will twist that around too. Sad day in America for sure!

Bottom line...you get what you vote for.

A slight majority in this country, for one reason or another, prefer class warfare, social intolerance, and hyper-aggressive unilateral foreign policy.

:::: Bottom line...you get what you vote for.::::

True, and aside from simple laziness / apathy, another reason many people do not vote is because there is no real choice---as there can be in countries with proportional representation. In the 2 party, winner-take-all system, a LARGE percentage of folks on the non-winning side don't get what THEY voted for. Often they get the polar opposite of what they voted for.

I think VOguy called it right----it really does seem to be Big Guy vs. Small Guy these days.

There are a LOT more small guys than big guys---but trying to get them to act as a team is impossible, so the big guys get away with whatever they like.

If it wasn't so sad it would be pretty funny----the self-same folks who wring their hands over the problem of drug addiction never stop for a minute to consider that addiction to Profit Uber Alles might be every bit as harmful.

(To bring things even more OT, let me add that I really appreciate the intelligence and civility I see demonstrated in these forums, and I don't mean only by those whose philosophies resonate with mine, but everyone. Sure wish I could sit down for drinks and a long dinner with some of you guys.)

----John

And to think that a mere 40 years ago, NYC built the superhighway to nowhere (the Clearview Expressway, only about half of the proposed length was actually built) because legal opposition from the small homeowners prevailed.

This is all not to mention the fact that China is trying to by Unical (Union 76) because they are growing so rapidly and need the oil which would mean that the gas prices would go up further. Also IBM is hiring 14,000 employee's in India and cutting 13,000 jobs in North America. The flood of jobs overseas had better stop soon or we will become a 3rd world country except for the rich people! This country is so messed up right now!

I was reading on CNN (I think) that the richest 1 percent of the country control around half of the contries wealth? And they are not re-investing it into the good old USA as much as they did in the old days.

On the other side of the coin, here in Portland they are closing down mobile home parks at a pretty fast clip because the land they sit on has become to valuable not to sell. The sad part is all these old folks on fixed incomes are getting kicked out and don't really have any place to go.

I'm all for making a profit but this just feels really wrong to me...

In the State of Georgia, when you buy a house, you have to buy title insurance. Why? Well in case sometime, long ago, the land was either stolen or "mistakenly" sold illegally. If someone claims the rights to your land, and can prove you have an illegal ownership, then you lose the land (and of course the house sitting on it). So this begs the question. Can you really ever own land?

I agree that this ruling is one of the worst rulings from the Supreme Court. But I always though the right to Eminent (sp?) Domain was a questionable practice at best. Considering that it has been used to remove unwanted "elements" of society as well as for legitimate public improvement.

But instead of the government coming forward and making bills to bar the possible discriminatory use of this type of precedent, they are busy trying to ban flag burning. Is flag burning really that prevalent in America? I have lived for 50 years and have never seen anyone burn a flag in person. I have seen it on TV, but most weren't in the US.

I think we need to clear up our priorities and let our Senators and Congressman know what they are.

Dave T2

NOBODY seems to believe that LOCAL opinion and control, or individual rights and needs are important anymore

I agree completely. That is the essence of the Supreme Court opinion, and of many of the comments that have followed. Both parties, regardless of rhetoric, have changed laws in the past ten years to put more power in the Federal government. For instance, Bush's "no child left behind" act has done terrible things to our local school system, taking away choice and control. This decision on property rights definitely dilutes what a state or local government can do.

Like several others in this forum, I identify most closely with Libertarian principles, but the idea of limited government no longer has any champions in either major party. In addition, it gets increasingly difficult to line up behind any party or any candidate. If you voted Democrat, I am sure you have noted that it was the judges that were appointed by that party or who have since moved to align their opinions more closely with that party, that voted for this nonsense. For those that voted Republican, it was their president who enacted the budget-busting prescription aid benefit, and will doubtless sign the pork-riddled energy bill and highway bills (which actually will pass with plenty of Democrat support, so both parties are responsible) which will put spending further through the roof.

Solution? I still believe conditions are ripe for a third party. As far as Republicans and Democrats: A pax on both their houses ...

Add to it the USC 2257 regulations that they put into effect yesterday for adult content producers, and what we have is a present administration that is hell bent on setting our country back to the old days.

Now, many know my personal feelings on adult videos etc and those that know me personally know how much disdain i have for that line of work but man, the gov't is making it impossible to support them on anything. I am just so sick of hearing how the gov't is doing things for our own good or an even better excuse in "protecting the children." Time and again, anytime our gov't wnats more control they wrap a bill or regulation up in the name of the children and it gets passed through. Before I made this post, I read up on the new 2257 regs so I understood both positions. The new 2257 claims to help figth child porn. Kudos to them if that was their goal. But more will end up in jail and waste tax payers dollars because they made an error in their records than will those who exploit children.

While it may help decrease the proliferation of porn sites etc (Im all for that) it is creating an unfair practice of denying people the right to earn a living. While I dont support porn in any fashion or use, I do support consenting adults to do what they wish with their own bodies and a camera.

While my fear may be farfetched, but where does it stop? First radio shows, then TV, then porn. What next? Documentaries that dont paint the administration in a good light? Movies that are not allowed to contain action/violent scenes? To support freedom of speech, one has to support ALL forms of speech, not just those that they agree with.

So yes, US has become Russia in a sense. A government that can never have enough control of its citizen's minds, money, and property. Afterall, remember, they are doing this to protect children. Wont someone please think about the children? (note sarcasm.) No one would have to think about the children if parents did their job thinking about their own children.

Sorry to hijack the thread but there is a correlation between liberty and the loss of liberties.

</soapbox off>

Perhaps our "leaders" think of ALL of us as "children" who must be protected.

Mostly from bogeymen of various sorts.

I've felt for some time that the US is ripe for a third (and fourth, and fifth, and sixth, etc.) party.

However, under our present system (winner take all) alternative parties have about as much chance of getting media attention / power as I have of taking the gold medal in boxing in the next Olympics.

Try to imagine a system under which the major parties would HAVE to deal with alternative, smaller parties in order to get anything done. (That system exists. They use it in Europe.) Among other things, it would mean that large chunks of the voting public could no longer be ignored---which is the case under the present system here.

John,

Right now third parties only appear on the outer edge of the current political parties. Think Buchanan and Nader. It's very rare that a serious third party appears in the middle. Ross Perot is the only one I can think of and I think that was pretty special circumstances. Our voting system is winner-take-all. You win 50.1% of the vote in all counties you would control 100% of the government. I have heard people, including the bass player from Nirvana advocate various electoral changes, but I don't think it's going to happen. The main electoral reform I would like to see is America should have 100% verifiable votes. Too many voting machines in the US are not secure and not transparent. On far too many of them, you cannot prove if the final count is accurate or not. There's no evidence either way.

NYC built the ..the Clearview Expressway...about half of the proposed length was actually built because legal opposition from the small homeowners prevailed.

Yes, but this was only after decades of Robert Moses getting his way. It was only after folks saw the destruction he wreaked in Brooklyn with the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. and in the Bronx with the Cross Bronx Expressway. I grew up in a neighborhood that was filled with transplants from the neighborhood next to it which became a slum after Moses built the BQE overhead. One of his engineers pointed out that if he moved to 2nd Ave instead of 3rd Ave, it wouldn't disrupt the neighborhood because 2nd Ave was all factories and no homes would be displaced. Moses threw this upstart of his office.


About 10 years ago I gave myself a project for the summer which was to read Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses, The Power Broker . It's an unbelievable book. Massive too. A story of talent, ambition, arrogance and corruption like no other. When FDR was governor of NY he tried to fire Moses, but found he didn't have the power to do so, because Moses had written the law that created his office. Caro describes Moses as someone who started out in life as a reformer against corruption and had some amazing civic accomplishments. He ended up as man corrupt, not for money, but for power.

I think where it all started to go wrong in many parts of the world was when we decided News of the World could be squashed into a 20 second sound bite.
And before we blame the media (and that's us!), they just gave us what we wanted, didn't they. As the old saying goes, we get the governments we deserve.
Bob.

Last night I watched "Grapes of Wrath" (1940). I was intrigued that my immediate reaction was to wonder that this was made by Hollywood. Surely it couldn't be made today -- too un-American (whatever that means). Mind you, the government was portrayed in a very good light. Now I think perhaps there is less separation between government and wild commercial enterprise.

Back then a LOT of people in Hollywood suffered for what they believed in.

You wanted a regal court to run the nation instead of those evil "strict constructionists" -- you got it.

You wanted a court that looks to "international law" for rulings instead of to the Constitution -- you got it.

You wanted expanded government -- to you got it.

You wanted a Supreme Court that makes law based on feelings -- you got it.

You wanted nine unelected, appointed-for-life, black robed kings to have the last word instead of the duly elected Congress that's supposed to speak for the people -- you got it.

NY Post Editorial:

In essence, the court expanded the requirement of "public use" — the longtime limit on eminent domain — to anything that supposedly enhances economic activity. No more need for a truly public need — such as highways, parks and bridges.

The liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — joined with moderate Anthony Kennedy to state that economic development is a legitimate "public purpose" that can override private property rights.

Writing for the majority, Stevens said: "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government . . . There is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."

The court's more conservative members — Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia — all dissented.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory," wrote O'Connor.

Added Thomas: "Losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

It's ironic that the conservative justices are the ones who sound like the New York liberal voices that rise to block almost any sort of economic development.

Ironic, but not too surprising. "

Writing for the majority, Stevens said: "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government . . . There is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."

And people wonder why we call 1937 the year of the socialist revolution. That's when the words "provide for the public welfare" were twisted to mean that the government can take property from one person and give it to another, as in corporate subsidies and mandatory participation in the half baked government pyramid scheme called social security, among other things. If anyone thinks it's going to end with the expansion of eminent domain, you are in for a shock.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the nation is getting older. If and When the SS system gets strapped for cash, what do you think the aging population, who will obviously have more political control since they will be greater in number, will do? Take a lower benefit from the system they've been paying into their entire life? Or use the newly discovered powers of "enhancing economic activity" to simply take more money out of your paycheck?

Could there be a better answer to the question "When did U.S. become old Russia?"

"On March 11, 1933, he issued an order forbidding banks to make gold payments. On April 5, Roosevelt ordered all citizens to surrender their gold -- no person could hold more than $100 in gold coins, except for collector's coins. ... The penalty for defying Roosevelt was 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. ('The Great Gold Robbery,' James Bovard.)

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-24-Sun-2005/opinion/1248944.html

Sidecar,

It's rather interesting, but if you look at the prior line of cases leading up to this one, you'll find that this precedent has been built from the cloth of the conservative justices as much as the liberals. As a law student (a late in life one), I'm not happy with the outcome of this case, but its outcome was totally predictable: So long as the taking serves a legitimate government purpose (here, to raise taxes and increase the economic vitality of the area in question), the courts will not second guess the local authorities' decision to use EM, but there must be a rational basis for the local authority to assert the "public benefit" purpose.

As others point out, it is up to your state to make stricter rules against eminent domain procedings. California, for example, has a requirement that an area be "blighted" before a transfer to another private party (e.g., a developer) may be considered.

It just doesn't feel right, though.

Bob.

When did US become old Russia?
- Can I say something? George Lucas has shown how a Democracy, a Republic can easily turn into an Empire, exactly like the one shown in the movie. ;)

May the force be with us, Cunhambebe!

Bob.

LOL - LOL - LOL
;)

rstein: As a law student (a late in life one), I'm not happy with the outcome of this case, but its outcome was totally predictable

I agree, and if the media got this excited everytime the Constitution was violated... well let's just say I'd be a lot happier!




http://oreia.com/Legislative_Affairs/Eminent_Domain/eminent_domain.html