Home | Community | Message Board


MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

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
OfflineJaguarWarrior101
ShamanicAlchemist InTraining
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/24/05
Posts: 184
Loc: State of Euphoria
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
U.S. Supreme Court rules it's okay for local governments to use eminent domain to seize property for
    #4332194 - 06/24/05 01:33 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

U.S. Supreme Court rules it's okay for local governments to use eminent domain to seize property for developers.

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 23,10:38 AM ET

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.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...zing_property_2


--------------------
The above post is purely hypothetical, and should not be considered the true thoughts, opinions, or actions of a real life person.

We perceive. This is hard fact. But what we perceive is not a fact of the same kind, because we learn what to perceive.
~Carlos Castaneda


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rules it's okay for local governments to use eminent domain to seize property for [Re: JaguarWarrior101]
    #4332225 - 06/24/05 01:40 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Duplicate thread. See "Supreme Court Rules Cities may Seize Homes".

Locked by Phred


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rules it's okay for local governments to use eminent domain to seize property for [Re: JaguarWarrior101]
    #4332227 - 06/24/05 01:41 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

This thread has been closed.

Reason:
Duplicate thread


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

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Canada! Supreme court case.. legalized buds for Xmas? Mixomatosis 706 12 12/23/03 10:00 PM
by trendal
* supreme court strikes down anti-sodomy laws Anonymous 590 11 06/27/03 06:12 PM
by Anonymous
* Supreme Court to hear 'Pledge' Case
( 1 2 all )
afoaf 1,672 26 10/16/03 09:03 PM
by afoaf
* The Supreme Court likes treats! afoaf 818 4 03/03/04 06:42 PM
by mabus
* Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 2,688 48 12/25/03 04:31 PM
by Anonymous
* Supreme Court Legalized Child Porn.
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 3,950 31 06/08/02 04:59 AM
by Anonymous
* Supreme Court Reform DailyPot 293 1 05/31/04 11:23 PM
by DailyPot
* Supreme court and Cross Burning
( 1 2 all )
JohnnyRespect 1,382 31 04/21/03 04:41 PM
by JohnnyRespect

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
582 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Azarius
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2018 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 19 queries.