WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a victory for cities, a divided Supreme Court concluded Thursday that local governments have the authority to seize private land and turn the property over to private developers for economic development.
Government's authority to condemn land for public use traditionally has been used to eliminate slums or build highways, schools and other public works.
But Tuesday's 5-4 ruling found that local officials can use their "eminent domain" power to condemn homes in a working-class neighborhood for private development in hopes of boosting tax revenue and improving the local economy.
Today GWB signs:
Quote:
Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.
Once again GWB shows his contempt for the judical system. How dare he ignore the will of the Supreme Court.
Once again the Federal government is stepping over local government...
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
OK. Thi is not quite as plain cut as you all want it to sound. Essentially, the Court had ruled (last year) that the Federal Government does not violate the Constitution if it siezes private land for the benefit of a significant public interest. The Executive Order simply says that as a matter of policy, the Federal government will not exercise its authority to do so, even though it is allowed.
It's kind of like this. Remember back when you were in high school and your mom would set a curfew, say at midnight. If you got home at 11:00, you were not violating the curfew, you were just exercising your right not to do everything you are allowed to do. Same thing here. BUsh is just saying that the gov't. will not exercise all of its authority that the court felt he had.
Naw, the man shouldn't be able to condem my house until I am done trashing it! Around here they want to condemn some very nice neighborhoods and put in some more strip malls. It aint like you cant toss a rock from one half full strip mall to annother. Just because some Mr. Big Bucks whats the city to build him a new stadium (or as I call em Monuments to Loosers) or wall mart parking lot, doesn't give em the right to buldoze my huvel.
I say way to go W. See what talk'n about toss'n republicrats get ya. ANYONE NEW WILL DO!
I'm definitely not always on W's side, but this is good use of his executive power. Essentially, a local government cannot take your home merely for economic gain. This prevents land-grabs by greedy developers with a few councilmen in their pockets. It sucks to lose your home to a freeway expansion, but imagine losing it to a freakin' T-mobile store and a TGI Friday's.
Actually, it says that they can still take your property for purposes of public benefit, but not for the economic interests of private parties.
Every nation has some sort of policy of Eminent Domain, the supreme Court decision said that local governments could use Eminent Domain to seize property for use by private parties to improve the economic values of an area... i.e. seize slums and underdeveloped property so a big developer could build condos... which would improve the community by generating greater tax revenue in that area.
This order says that Eminent Domain is to be used for PUBLIC use not private developments... So they can still take your property to build a road, but not so McDonalds can built a bigger parking lot.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.
If I am reading this right it would only apply to the Federal government since this is just a policy statement and not a law. This would not apply to Local or State Governments taking your land. Many States already have laws restricting this, but if your State doesn't I don't think this would change anything.
It's a lot of smoke and mirrors. How often does the Federal Government bulldoze a house to open a strip mall? That falls in the hands of the local government, so really nothing changes. To paraphrase John Mellencamp, if they want to have an interstate running thru your front yard, they still can.
The last clause, not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken is a bit shifty. If they felt inclined, they could take the land and make a strip mall, just as long as they put a public park on the property to satisfy the "not merely" part. Always convenient to put in a loop hole so you can say what people wanna hear but do what you really want to do.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and again the Feds aren't much into building shopping centers, but the wiggle room is there.
__________________
"We are all just prisoners here of our own device."
Money is the root of all evil.
Time is money.
Therefore, killing time is doing God's work.
Tribute in Haiku
My tool of choice - Ax
Notes, reminders-- things to do
Music, movies too!
The effect of this is, that because of the Supreme court decision any body could request an Eminent Domain seizure of a given property if they could show that it would benefit the economy in a positive manner, in the jurisdiction in which the request was made.
Some developers have used this to force out a homeowner (the last hold out) that didn't want to sell to the developer. many governemnt agencies passed similar ordinances as this one from the White House, because they all thought, as do most people, that that ruling SUCKED.
By passing this Executive Order, as does the similar ones from local governments, basically says to the developer, that they "cannot bring that BS around here".
Basically this is a Federal "Opt-Out" of the landgrab scheme that the Supreme Court said was OK. The Developer might find a State/County/City that is willing to defraud the property owner, but don't go crying to the Feds to take a person's property
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
yep in the land of the free where private property rights are stomped. don't you just love america today.
I'm just glad i'm not a land owner up north in canada. that whole mineral rights thing.
basically its that there's topsoil and everything under that, that you could own. people grandfathered in only own the topsoil. ANYONE can by the mineral rights to your property and they can inspect the property at any time, they can damage anything on the topsoil to get to the soil underneath and there's nothing the original(topsoil) owner can do.
I think it's time to get out my checkbook, I hear it's something like 5 cents a sq acre.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
It isn't just Canada, most Americans don't own the mineral rights on their property. Take a look at what the oil and gas companies have done to much of Wyoming if you don't believe me.
I'm definitely not always on W's side, but this is good use of his executive power. Essentially, a local government cannot take your home merely for economic gain. This prevents land-grabs by greedy developers with a few councilmen in their pockets. It sucks to lose your home to a freeway expansion, but imagine losing it to a freakin' T-mobile store and a TGI Friday's.
(X)
.
This was a really good thing. Since the ruling, which to me looked unconstitutional, there was a serious ramp up in seizures and pending seizures. Once in awhile George gets it right. This was not overstepping. This was checks and balances at work.
__________________
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
I think I've forgotten this before.
-Steven Wright-
The effect of this is, that because of the Supreme court decision any body could request an Eminent Domain seizure of a given property if they could show that it would benefit the economy in a positive manner, in the jurisdiction in which the request was made.
Some developers have used this to force out a homeowner (the last hold out) that didn't want to sell to the developer. many governemnt agencies passed similar ordinances as this one from the White House, because they all thought, as do most people, that that ruling SUCKED.
By passing this Executive Order, as does the similar ones from local governments, basically says to the developer, that they "cannot bring that BS around here".
Basically this is a Federal "Opt-Out" of the landgrab scheme that the Supreme Court said was OK. The Developer might find a State/County/City that is willing to defraud the property owner, but don't go crying to the Feds to take a person's property
Actually there is nothing inherantly wrong with eminent domain and it shouldn't be incredibly restrictive or no serious redevelopment of massively depressed areas could ever take place.
The problem isn't with the developers here people, it is with greedy local governments who see that their tax revenue from nicely kept 30 year old housing is nothing compared to what a new Super Walmart would generate.
What you need to do is try to get your local or state government to place restrictions on what is for the public good, where an increase in tax revenue does not apply.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
