Private Property... no more - United Bimmer Community

**komodo** · 06-29-2005, 03:35 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

Quote:

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.

Those residents 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.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to “just compensation” for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

“It’s a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,” said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. “I won’t be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.”

This is so lame. Taking property for a road or something is one thing, but with this they can take your property and sell it to another private party if they feel the other private party could make better use of it. What the hell...

**Hoppy** · 06-29-2005, 03:52 PM

it was to be made for those parcels of land taht are, well shit holes. unfortunatly thats not how it comes out

DEATH2000 · 06-29-2005, 04:00 PM

america is getting to power hungry, thanks in part to Bush

**Hoppy** · 06-29-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEATH2000

america is getting to power hungry, thanks in part to Bush

just stop. please. stop.

witeshark · 06-29-2005, 04:57 PM

Well depending on how exactly it is used... But wow that is a bit excessive. In any event, thread will close if a political argument starts

**beem** · 06-29-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoppy

just stop. please. stop.

ha.. sometimes we dont like hearing the truth huh

thats almost as great as the patriot act! all for our freedom.. im glad i live in a different world though - united bimmer!!

oh whiteshark - i am just wondering how come we cant argue about politics.. Do you think it would just get way too ugly?? Im just wondering, because this is the off-topic lounge

witeshark · 06-29-2005, 05:55 PM

I have no problem with a discussion. I just don't wanna see it get personal

**xsperf** · 06-29-2005, 06:01 PM

thats ok, it has already gotten personal, i hate all democrats, republicans, and members of the green party

but seriously, go ahead and try to come take my home, see what happens, seriously if someone was giong to get his home taken and he killed the people trying to take his home and he went to trial.. if i was on the jury, hed be innocent

witeshark · 06-29-2005, 06:10 PM

Yeah my home is just that. End of story

**RealBmw 02** · 06-29-2005, 06:31 PM

I think that is getting a little too rediculous. I know they are most likely intending on taking shitty homes with little to no value, from people who have no income and live off of wellfare; but the fact that the government will have the power to take anyone's home at will is just not right.

However, I do not see this having anything to do with BUSH. If you read carefully, you see it was a 5-4 vote in CONGRESS. Bush does not just decide one morning when he wakes up that he wants to start taking peoples homes away from them.

**Chris** · 06-29-2005, 09:29 PM

5-4 in the supreme court, but whatever

**xsperf** · 06-29-2005, 11:26 PM

how could the freakin judges agree to that, and yes, bush did appoint i think (2)? supreme court judges

**Hoppy** · 06-30-2005, 12:11 AM

the courts made up of 9 judges

most see it as.

rehnquest, scalia, and thomas are the republicans
Breyer, ginsburg, and stevens are the democrats
and kennedy oconor and souter are viewed as "neutral"

any vote brought before them stands an "equal" chance either way

this isnt bush's doing. this isnt a massive conspiracy. the supreme court makes the decision to allow it as "possible" then a state or local court would decide if the state or town is using this in an acceptable manor.

**xsperf** · 06-30-2005, 12:58 AM

i didnt say it was bush's doing, and i totally agree with you(not trying to start political fight) im just saying #1 bush did have some influence because of the whole veto thing and doesnt he have to sign it? and he did apoint some judges so that influences decision.. whatever

**Spieluhr** · 06-30-2005, 03:48 AM

That is 100% horrible. I would like to see how long this lasts until it is brought to the supreme court enough times that they get rid of the bill. To take away someone's home for a more valued office building?!?! That is just un-American.