Supreme Court upholds Eminent Domain
polycounter lvl 18
Dont know whom heard or not. Its been awhile since we had a political discussion. However I don't know anyone from both sides of the spectrum who support this.
[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
In a scathing dissent, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_seizing_property
[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
In a scathing dissent, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_seizing_property
Replies
There are parts of this city that need a good rasing. 90~100 year old row houses. Look like crap, no architectural or historic value.
Along the lakeshore there was a string of sleazy motels. Now it's all condos.
The problem is that if can get away with it, they will. Private concerns always skirt the edges of the law.
This is a little bit bigger than "its all the peoples fault for not looking into it earlier".
Sett: Houses from 100 years ago have historic value, they show how houses were built 100 years ago. 500 years from now we'll be interested in that and complaining that our ancestors decided to level such buildings.
As long as the owners get paid for their property being taken. Or did they say that the gov can just disown he people there like the Soviet Union?
[/ QUOTE ]
They get a set price based on "market" value. (The government makes the decision of that market value).
This idea has been warped to build things for private enterprises (its notoriously been used by Walmart in example). Instead of having to negotiate a price (or outright refusal of the owner) with the owners, they just have the city take over.
Versus public like it was meant originally. It was for public items like in example roads and parks.
This ruling warps that constitutional clause.
Hitchhyker
OTOH trying to drive a bunch of rednecks out of their homes will probably end in a small scale civil war.
So basically the Supreme court is not going to remove eminent domain from the Constitution, basically leaving it up to whatever state or local judges in a per case basis, just as it always has been.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. But its hasn't been reinterpreted to be used for private interest until the last 20 years or so. Which is not what the constitional phrasing had in mind.
So by upholding it the way it's being used is highly suspicious since again the constition never meant it to be used in such regards.
[ QUOTE ]
As long as the owners get paid for their property being taken.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's "fair market value" with whatever they estimate your house is worth. Who do the assesors work for? Not the old couple getting the boot. These are the same sharks that boot the sale prices of houses to make lenders and agents happy.
In the best case senerio you might have someone who flat out owns thier own home since before they retired. Or are making low payments bacause the bought "back in the day". EVEN IF they get fair market value they can't afford to make mortage payments on a new home without moving somewhere else that is really cheap to live, which means away from family friends. Even if they do move they are now saddled with a HUGE ammount of debt, finding a leader willing to give someone elderly on a fixed income a loan is hard even if they just sold thier home for fair market vallue. My grandparents would be in this exact same boat if they where ever forced to move. Thankfully they are in a "historic" part of town and everyone keeps thier houses in nice shape.
The worst case senerio is that the Real Estate Bubble bursts and everyones over inflated housing prices sink like rocks but everyone has sky high mortages or home equity loans. Far market vallue just became a F-TON less than what you paid and now guess who takes it in the shorts? Lenders wont be forgiving debts and you have to live somewhere, so guess who is making two mortage payments or an old mortage and rent?
Can you say Banruptcy is the new pet rock?
Why do they have to buy a house when they leave their old one, can't they just rent one? Might be a bit more expensive over time but it's not as big of a hit.
I think the last time I checked the tax works out to roughly 30% if you don't roll it over.
So even in a best case senerio with someone over the tax age and they flat out own thier own home, they are still on a fixed income and more than likely have medical bills to pay off. One trip to the ER can easily cost someone $1,000-$10,000 a few of those from the time you retire till the time you kick off, or a prolonged stay in the hospital and there goes whatever money you had left over. If you are renting that could be bad news if rent goes up and your nest egg is gone.
When the gov decides that fair market value is 150k and houses in your area are going for 250k More than likely the person getting the boot, can't buy near thier family or job. Also like I said when/if the housing bubble burts you could have a 250k mortage for a house that is only worth 100k.
Not to mention they can bulldoze a few houses all because they can get more taxes from a string of empty strip mall outlets than they would from the property taxes being paid by the single home owner.
Though I suppose most of the misery comes from the US social system, here you aren't charged for going to the hospital (well, a tenner a quarter). Also, what about retirement pay? It's not nonexistent in the US, that much I know.
Most people who are on a fixed/locked income can't affort to spend 200-$1,000 more a month for a new place to live and that factors in more than just the cost of the house. Gas to the store/pharmacy, Doctors appointments, food, insurance (auto, home, life). Most people in that situation have it ballanced out to the dollar or are running in the red.
Its Capitalism at its worst....
Something a lot of people outside the us need to get a handle on is that not everyone here has 5 jags a 200,000sq/ft house. Most of us are working poor two paychecks away from being out on the street. sure there is a small population of pretty wealthy SOB's but its not like they are the majority. Besides they are the ones in bed with the gov to make sure A-Hole laws like this stay in place. They really don't care if the house stays or goes or if the new stip mall stands empty for 3 years before it gets a bussiness. They care about the construciton contracts and the money they make off of sub dividing realestate.
I have friends that live so close to thier neighors even when the houses are sealed up you can hear someone cough through the walls. That is always fun owning your own home and having to walk around on egg shells like you live in an apt, what is the point? The houses are so close that you can stand in the side "yard", put your arms out and touch both houses. The grass in the side yards die because it goes get enough sunlight, and this is progress? Did the distance between houses get cut down to 6 feet because that is good for the community to be that close. Or was it so builders could squeeze on another 250k house and make that much more of a profit. This is better than what was there before how?
Its ok to blow down a wooded lot that provides a noise barrier between the freeway and these new houses after they sold the houses to people thinking they had a noise barrier? That is a protected natural wetland it won't be going anywhere. Oh look it was rezoned to be a parking lot, guess who gets to deal with the water run off?
These are all things that happen in my community due to "progress". They should change Washington State from the Evergreen State to the EverAssfault State.
So much power has been handed over to the gov since 911(and even before that) out of fear that it is no longer run by the people for the people. Its all based on how much they can screw and milk their customers/citizens without causing a revolt. They have learned where that line is and move it slowly up year after year. They even changed the name from inflation to "economic growth" which means things cost more and rich SOB's have managed to increase thier profit margins.
The minimum wage is a joke it hasn't been increased in 7 years while costs of everything continue to raise. But congress has not failed to vote themselves a cost of living raise every one of those 7 years. It would have been ok if they raised it a little each year but now it is so out of wack to catch it up would mean a huge increase and business would start to lay people off or flat out close down.
Its not a problem with the people I have seen enough grass roots movements across the entire US fail after trying to raise the min wage. They fail because the people put on the ballot (elected representatives) don't care and vote it down. The people on the ballot are not people who everyone thinks they would best represent them. It doesn't matter if you vote for JoeBob A. or JoeBob B. they have the same agenda.
You don't hear about them because they get squashed right about the time they start to get press. Who owns the media outlets? Is it the guy that works at mc Donalds for min wage? Or is it the guy that pounds rivets? Oh thats right its the rich SOB that has friends in the gov and private business (which he is apart of). If those movements ever got off the ground it could hurt his friends, we wouldn't want that now would we, best not air that kind of news. It could be dangerous if other people have the same idea or join their cause.
Its a broken system and its not going to get fixed because we have the capt of the Titanic saying don't worry about the ice bergs look at the war. Don't worry about the war look at social security, don't look at social security look at how much I can give to other countries but I ignore the homeless around the corner.
The government won't force private business to pay more money. First they would say they can't do that since they shouldn't interfere with private business. Second it would cost those company more money which would cause them to not report such stellar profits and that would weaken the stock market which would break the fragile economy. It would get nothing but negative press and how it is going to cause millions to lose their jobs, even if it isn't true. It would be pitched to the voters in such a way they would have no choice to vote it down.
wow... I am turning into the angry guy that wants to go live in a cave so I'm going to lay off this thread. It's obvious you think America is a big ball of golden candy and we all live in marshmallow houses and have super model maids. Nothing I say will convince you that it's not all that and most of us are having a hard time getting by just like the rest of the world. But I guess its hard to do when we have a President that says crazy crap like "we are the light of the free world".
That reminds me of a Simpsons episode where god comes to Bush and asks him to stop telling everyone "God told me I should be president" "God told me I should go invade Iraq" "God told me ect..."
[ QUOTE ]
If you move for a job you can't take the house with you. If you get tired of your place you can't take the house with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
But you can still own it and use it to make money such as renting it out. That is kind of hard to do when they flatten it. Ok now I have said my peace I am done with this thread...