The vote was 5 to 4.
So far my research shows only that Justice John Paul Stevens was
adamantly in favor of giving cities the right to kick poor people off
their land, and more level headed and considerate Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor was opposed. It'd be interesting to know which of the other
justices were in favor and which were opposed to this travesty.
The good thing is that now state governments are writing into their
state laws more specific rules as to what can and what can't be seized
by the government. I know that the Texas state government is, anyway.
I'd be very suprised if other states weren't as well.
Personally, I think seizing property ought to be directly related to job
creation. IOW, eminent domain may only be used for non-public works
development if it can promise to create 'X' number of jobs per home
seized (10 would be a low number). Perhaps the developers should even
be required to give the owners of seized properties first dibs at
applying to those jobs. Of course this is something for states to decide.
I get to keep my property. You can't have it. No matter what "good" you
think it may do. No matter what cheap rationalizations you may come up with.
There really is nothing to decide. Some nimrod will always feel that their
pet project trumps my liberty. They are always wrong.
Exactly my point. Nearly all if not all of them would be unable to
promise jobs - it would render it virtually impossible for non-public
interest projects to take advantage of eminent domain.
So write your city councilman, mayor, state legislators, and governor
about it. The SCOTUS has said it's up to them, after all. And you can
bet your ass that the big developers are lobbying HARD for them to go
the wrong way.
This is America. You didn't have to vote for the shitbag, and if you
did vote for a shitbag that subsequently forced you to sell your home,
then nobody's forcing you to vote for them in coming elections. (In
fact, the beauty of America is that if you tell your story to enough
people, and tell it eloquently enough, you may even be the driving force
in that official's defeat in the next election).
There's no way to predict what an elected shitbag (er, government
official) will do in the future, but you can go by past history in
deciding whether to vote for them. To help you out, here's one person
who you should never, ever, vote for in any election anywhere:
Richard M. Brown - City Manager of New London Connecticut:
Kotus v. New London is the case that made it to the SCOTUS, was upheld,
and led to this thread. Dick Brown is the man who was fighting for (and
who won) the right to force owners of moderately priced houses to sell
in order to make way for expensive houses. (Honestly, if the guy wanted
to be mayor of a rich town, why didn't he just travel a few miles south
to Westport or Greenwich, and run for office there, but I digress). If
it weren't for Mr. Brown's greed and disdain for the middle class
residents of his town, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Hehe. Here's one more person who you should absolutely never vote for.
The 37th district seat she ran for in the Kentucky State Senate is now
empty. Why? Because when Woodward lost the election by fewer than 1000
votes, she filed suit. Her lawsuit, successful, has prevented the
winner from taking office, allowed her to briefly take office, and has
kept the seat empty for over 6 months. This shitbag's stance is obvious
- if she can't represent the people of the 37th district, she'd rather
they have no representation at all....
I don't remember voting for Supreme Court Justices.
And, for the sake of this conversation, those who nominated
and voted for them, too (see my previous post), will never
be affected by their latest faux pas.
The man who took the case all the way to the SCOTUS, New London CT City
Manager Dick Brown, was an elected official.
I'm only saying that, in light of his callous attitude towards middle
class homeowners in his city, you vote against him if ever he runs for
office in your area.
The only problem is, and I'm certainly not defending the shitbag that
you speak of, by the time they're elected, it's (for the most part)
too late. In one term, most can do more damage than is humanly possible.
I say we fire them all, today, and start all over again, Monday morning.
And I say you're right. Remember how the people of California voted to
recall their former governor after he showed himself to be ineffective,
even as shitbags go?
Woah, wait a minute. Did I actually say that the people of California
did something right!!!
Oh, sorry. I'm now taking a pledge to call out politicians who screw up
by name when I talk about their cases.
The recalled California Governor's name was Gray Davis. His claim to
fame - ROLLING BLACKOUTS!
You vote AGAINST one candidate by voting FOR his OPPONENT.
Which is exactly what everyone living in his district should do the next
time Richard M. Brown runs for public office. If I lived there, the
only way I would vote for Dick Brown is if his opponent was a current
member of the KKK. Actually, no, scratch that. I'd just not vote if
that were the case....
When the votes are counted, the winner says "Look at all the people who
voted for me. They must want me to behave like I said I would." The never
say "Damn, I know I suck and they all hate me, but thank god they hate the
other guy more." They say "a mandate from the people." You can ONLY vote
My point is this: if an elected official decides to force me to sell my
property, I will do all I can to bring that official's political career
down in flames. I would encourage you to do the same.
I even offered you some names of officials whose careers should be
terminated and why.
If you'd rather debate the definition of the word "against", that's your
Your property is stolen from you. Property that represents your life spent
in affording said and represents your life lost in replacement and if you
are retirement minded represents your life finished early and squallid and
YOU want to... force the perpetrator into a lucretive consulting job.
Not stolen. Forced to sell. Stealing means they came in and forced me
off the land without compensation. Forced to sell means they've given
me what they deem fair price for my property, and then told me I -must-
take the offer. Neither is an attractive or good thing, but the latter
at least leaves me with some cash to send fliers to their other
constituents, organize groups against them, or (at an extreme) fund my
own candidacy against them.
I want to make them wriggle in debates when asked by their opponents
point blank "why don't you value private property and the rights of
Americans to home ownership?" I would want it to become not just an
issue but -the- issue when they come up for re-election. And I would
want them to face a crushing, resounding, defeat in the election -
knowing full well why.
I would -not- want to shoot them in the face, as Don suggests and you
appear to agree with. All that does is get one shot themselves, and
moreover, it draws attention from the official's dangerousness and
s.h.it's hatred of average Americans.
Good luck finding an opponent who does that. I'm betting your more likely
opponent is "now that you've stolen his house, why didn't you use the
procedes for a different project that some other faction deem 'worthy'."
None of them want you free, they just want to use you differently.
How about this new thread...
Working as Architects, Designers & Developers are we being a little
hypocritical because many times we have projects that utilize the land that
was acquired thru Eminent Domain? I have worked on several residential
projects that went in and developed older, run down areas and developed them
into thriving projects.
While on a personal level, I regret having to force people out of their
homes, I also am in the business of development - this is how I feed my
family. Is this any different from developing farmland into hundreds of
But what if when you don't accept, rather than saying "ah-vah, I'm
telling" and going and getting the man, they offer you 2x$X for the
property? Or 3xX? If they really want the land; if it makes economic
sense to buy it at that price, they will. And if you refuse to sell for
the higher amount and they can't justify going higher, that's that. Too
bad for them.
THAT is America. Not Justice Stevens' socialistic view that you should
be forced to sell for a low amount if some quasi-private developer with
lapdogs on the city council thinks they want your land.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.