Home | Community | Message Board


Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration >> Shroomery News Service

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleDNKYD
Turtle!

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 12,326
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
    #4327923 - 06/23/05 11:38 AM (11 years, 9 months ago)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer



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.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They 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.

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.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including ? but by no means limited to ? new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJoshua
Holoman
Male

Registered: 10/27/98
Posts: 5,389
Loc: The Matrix
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: DNKYD]
    #4328363 - 06/23/05 01:52 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

This makes me sick :shake:

Joshua


--------------------
The Shroomery Bookstore

Great books for inquiring minds!

"Life After Death is Saprophytic!"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineOrganic
Lloyd

Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 5,774
Loc: Overlook
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: DNKYD]
    #4328405 - 06/23/05 02:03 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

:puke:

Some great men are rolling in their graves


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: DNKYD]
    #4328808 - 06/23/05 04:04 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

The Supreme Court sucks recently. Especially the liberals in it, the conservatives are actually the ones fighting for our freedoms.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEkstaza
stranger thanmost
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/03
Posts: 4,317
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 3 months, 16 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: Ravus]
    #4329536 - 06/23/05 07:44 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Our rights are quickly being tossed in the can and flushed.


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Slightly Nutty

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,714
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: Ekstaza]
    #4329582 - 06/23/05 07:57 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Yeah. The Fourth Amendment takes another hit.  :frown: Jesus, why don't they just repeal the entire Bill of Rights? The Republicans sure seem to dislike it so....


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGNIOM1498
Death Cup
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/15/04
Posts: 945
Loc: My home is where my spiri...
Last seen: 5 months, 15 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: Le_Canard]
    #4329630 - 06/23/05 08:07 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

This is very shitty I can see how some corrupt politicians will buy land from people for crap and then go sell it to some rich land developers. I can see how this will work in Detroit and places of that nature and ppl will get screwed over.


--------------------

----ALL MY POSTS ARE FICTIONAL-------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: Le_Canard]
    #4330188 - 06/23/05 10:16 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

If you're talking about the Supreme Court, it's not the Republican elected justices that are doing the damage... the Democrat ones are the ones who are flushing America down the toilet one case at a time.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDNKYD
Turtle!

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 12,326
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: Ravus]
    #4330741 - 06/24/05 12:52 AM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Who thought it was a good idea to let justices serve life terms? I think we need to change that rule.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Slightly Nutty

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,714
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: Ravus]
    #4331030 - 06/24/05 02:18 AM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
If you're talking about the Supreme Court, it's not the Republican elected justices that are doing the damage... the Democrat ones are the ones who are flushing America down the toilet one case at a time.






Hrm...you're right. I had assumed with the recent decisions that Reagan and Bush Sr. had "packed" the courts. WTF were they thinking???  :confused:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedelta9
Active Ingredient
Male Arcade Champion: Plumber

Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 5,390
Loc: California
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: Le_Canard]
    #4331045 - 06/24/05 02:24 AM (11 years, 9 months ago)

One party system, that's what I say happened, TD


--------------------
delta9


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineVulture
Pursuer ofWisdom
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/02
Posts: 3,546
Loc: SC
Last seen: 2 years, 11 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: delta9]
    #4347526 - 06/28/05 07:06 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Quote:

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Caf?" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.




--------------------
Work like you dont need the money.

Love like you never been hurt.

Dance like nobody is watching.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblekake
The answer to1984 is 1776.
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/07/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: Vulture]
    #4350515 - 06/29/05 02:29 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

This country is fucked.

I'm packing my bags and moving ASAP.


--------------------
The answer to 1984 is 1776.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineVulture
Pursuer ofWisdom
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/02
Posts: 3,546
Loc: SC
Last seen: 2 years, 11 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Re: kake]
    #4350884 - 06/29/05 04:17 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

read that last post :smile:

the guy who voted to approve this is having his land seized..LOL


--------------------
Work like you dont need the money.

Love like you never been hurt.

Dance like nobody is watching.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Feedback and Administration >> Shroomery News Service

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* CALI SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST CAR FORFEITURE SCleROTiUM_LICK 852 0 07/27/07 04:25 PM
by SCleROTiUM_LICK
* Supreme Court Rules Against Free Speech In Bong Hits 4 Jesus
( 1 2 all )
jpuff 5,451 23 06/27/07 07:39 PM
by Lightningfractal
* Ore. Supreme Court rules moving marijuana illegal veggie 1,398 7 06/01/08 03:37 AM
by johnm214
* Supreme Court Ruling Will Set 19,500 Federal Prison Inmates Free veggie 2,840 9 12/15/07 08:59 PM
by monstermitch
* B.C. Supreme Court rules in favour of medical marijuana [CAN] veggie 913 2 02/02/09 08:43 PM
by TacticalBongRip
* Calif. Supreme Court rules workers can be fired for using medical marijuana [CA] FurrowedBrow 1,478 6 01/25/08 01:24 AM
by Alan Rockefeller
* CA Supreme Court: Caregiver must do more than provide marijuana Bridgeburner 882 3 11/30/08 04:23 PM
by Gastronomicus
* First Legal Marijuana Church Launches Due To Landmark Supreme Court Decision
( 1 2 all )
veggie 5,330 27 05/05/06 11:11 PM
by blaze2

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: motaman, karode13, Alan Rockefeller, naum, Mostly_Harmless
1,387 topic views. 3 members, 5 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.069 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.