Private property is now a fiction in the US

[Mista_B]

Private property is now a fiction in the United States. "Property" is now redefined as something that you temporarily occupy under the consent and sufference of your local political majority.<br><br>From: <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotu ... index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotu ... a><br>"The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development."<br><br>So, what the hell?<br><br>Hasn't it been, traditionally, the type of country that does that kind of thing been who the US invades, to free the people?<br><br>I mean, I know it says right there in your <a href='http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm#bor7' target='_blank'>constitution</a>:<br><br><i>nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.</i><br><br>Which I guess, sure. Greater public good and all. But now it's okay to seize people's homes and businesses for *private* economic development?<br><br>Seriously, what the hell?<br><br> <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Bocaj Claw]

Its things like this that make me uneasy about my future in this country.

[Mista_B]

Well, as long as you keep those feelings to yourself, you should do okay.

[Ankaris]

That is screwed up. Seriously.<br><br>"Sorry, get out, a casino is being built here."

[Paul.Power]

Reminds me of 19th-Century Britain when people's houses were knocked down to build railways through (something I have mixed feelings on. Yes, it's bad people lost their homes, but... railways, guys!)<br><br>Is this part of some new campaign to put things closer to people's houses so they don't have to drive? Because there's plenty of open space in America where you can plonk a new building down without having to demolish anything

[Bocaj Claw]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mista_B+Jun 23 2005, 09:48 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Mista_B @ Jun 23 2005, 09:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Well, as long as you keep those feelings to yourself, you should do okay. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Ohhh.... but I like having freedom of expression... Where is a country where I can do that? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Tom Flapwell]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bocaj Claw+Jun 24 2005, 12:53 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Bocaj Claw @ Jun 24 2005, 12:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Its things like this that make me uneasy about my future in this country. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> It's things like this that make me uneasy about the <i>present</i>. I suspect that many problems, like pollution, would be addressed better if more people saw them as happening now rather than due to worsen in the future. Just the rampant Charles Manson mindset: "I don't live in anticipation.... I live in now."<br><br>You know what else is emerging? "Torture-free zones." This after the free speech zones. What next, genocide-free zones?

[Steve the Pocket]

By "seize," do you mean they can take the property and not even pay the owners for it???

[Softpaw]

Technically no, they have to pay "fair market value" for it. However, the definition of fair is highly disputable in these cases (to the people taking the land), and they often take it for a tiny fraction of its value.

[Mista_B]

Worst part is, you've got no choice.<br><br>Wal-Mart wants to bulldoze your neighbourhood?<br><br>You got 2 weeks, oh, and here's a cheque.

[Bocaj Claw]

If that happened to me I would seriously consider taking a page out of Douglas Adams' book and laying in front of the dozers.

[Zaaphod]

Some irony involved with property belonging to justice David Souter, who voted with the majority. Heeheehee! <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Press Release<br><br>For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media<br>For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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."<br><br>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.<br><br>"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."<br><br>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.<br><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Steve the Pocket]

<!--QuoteBegin-FelixSoftpaw+Jul 1 2005, 03:15 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (FelixSoftpaw @ Jul 1 2005, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Technically no, they have to pay "fair market value" for it. However, the definition of fair is highly disputable in these cases (to the people taking the land), and they often take it for a tiny fraction of its value. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Oh. I was wondering 'cause they've actually been doing that for a while now. It was featured in Reader's Digest's "That's Outrageous!" column about a year ago.<br><br>What really scares me is that it was the liberal justices who voted in favor of this and the conservative ones who voted against it, or at least that's what I've heard.

[Softpaw]

Well, according to the constitution, private property may be taken by the government for public works projects that benefit the people of the jurisdiction taking the land. However, if the government takes land this way, they must get it appraised and pay fair market value for it. Technically, this is only supposed to be used for roads, possibly schools, things like that. This is called Eminent Domain.<br><br>HOWEVER, for the last decade or so, governments have been using several dirty tricks to abuse the system. First off, they get the land appraised at an extremely low value, so they don't have to pay as much for it. Secondly, they've been using eminent domain to condemn private property, buy it at an extremely low value, then sell it to a commercial developer at a profit margin that would make pharmaceutical companies drool*. They've been getting away with this by saying a commercial development would benefit the community moreso than a private residence, field, or suburb.<br><br>Recently, someone took an eminent domain case to court, saying that using the eminent domain process to take personal land for commercial development was unconstitutional. Legally, he was right, but for some peculiar reason, the court sided with his city government and stated that eminent domain could be used for commercial developments that were deemed more beneficial than the existing land use. Governments still have to pay "fair market value" for land siezed via eminent domain, but since the definition of fair market value has yet to be challenged in court, corporate interests will continue to rape the system, and the people, by devaluing the property, and essentially saying "We're taking your house and land to build a Wal-Mart, now here's what we think it's worth, enjoy your new 1-bedroom apartment in the slums, if you can even afford that."<br><br>* = Pharmaceutical companies have the highest average profit margin of any other US industry, by quite a long shot, but that's another rant.

[Joe3210]

Where's the verse that says to get out of Babylon before the whole thing collapses into a million pieces? I actually believe that the US is now Babylon.