The rich keeping getting richer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dandelion_Wine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Maranatha:
The jealous keep getting more jealous.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, fighting a city or county appropriation of your property isn’t the same as being jealous of the wealth of the people who are going to benefit by seizure of your land.

I think it was a bad decision.
 
So now they really can just seize property for ‘valid’ reasons. Y’know I always thought such a thing was a ‘conspiracy theory’ looks like it’s turning out to be a real issue.
 
Maranatha said:
** **The jealous keep getting more jealous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, being thrown out of your own house when you’re age 80, which your family has lived in for 150 years so some corporation can bulldoze it to put in a parking lot for a high-rise, that’s really something to be jealous of the corporation over, you bet.

Amerika. Wotta country. :rolleyes: (The music you’re hearing in the background, by the way, is Der Horst Wessel Lied.)

I don’t often agree with Justice O’Connor, but this time, she’s right.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Sometimes, fighting a city or county appropriation of your property isn’t the same as being jealous of the wealth of the people who are going to benefit by seizure of your land.

I think it was a bad decision.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if it was a good decision based on the law but I don’t think it’s a good policy to have in general. The states or the federal government should update their rules (laws and constitutions) to make it clear when a person’s property can be seized.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that we should be jealous of the “rich” and seize their financial property just because we don’t like them building their wealth.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
I don’t subscribe to the theory that we should be jealous of the “rich” and seize their financial property just because we don’t like them building their wealth.
Click to expand...
You’ve got it upside down. They’re not seizing the land of rich people, but allowing the appropriation of the land of ordinary people for the benefit of developers - almost certainly more wealthy than the folks whose homes and land are being seized.
 
This has been an issue for sometime where I live in western NY. Landowners are notorious for gridlocking developement in posh places. Despite this ruling there must be hidden loopholes for landowner’s rights.
 
40.png
Richardols:
You’ve got it upside down. They’re not seizing the land of rich people, but allowing the appropriation of the land of ordinary people for the benefit of developers - almost certainly more wealthy than the folks whose homes and land are being seized.
Click to expand...
I agree that seizing anyone’s property, physical or financial, needs to be carefully considered before implemented. When physical land is seized for the “common good” the owner is usually more than adequately compensated based on market prices. The exception being an owner that puts a sentimental value on the land that’s higher then value that the market puts on the land.

I really have no problem with the article posted but the title of the thread.
 
I don’t subscribe to the theory that we should be jealous of the “rich” and seize their financial property just because we don’t like them building their wealth.
Click to expand...
I think you really misunderstand what’s going on here. We’re not seizing the property of the rich. The rich want to seize our property.

Donald Trump is now free to seize your property and build a parking lot for a new casino. Think it can’t happen? It already has–he got a city to take an old widow’s house under eminent domain and then sell it to him.

Are you aware that Congress gave away $70 billion of public property for free? Probably not, because it was not reported in the news. That’s because the property was $70 billion worth of publicly-owned airways given to the media. For some strange reason, the media refused to tell us about it, maybe because we’d realize it’s like giving away $70 billion worth of public parks to developers.

In my own city of San Bernardino, CA a lake was drained to make new land. A mall was built there, with a parking structure–on liquefaction, next to a major fault. Now the city wants to condemn several blocks of houses and raze them to the ground. Why? Because they want to put in a lake.

Is it any wonder I’m disgusted with our government?
 
This is a landmark decision! Imagine Wal-Mart coming to your neighborhood and deciding that you and your 15 neighbors are on land they wish to build. Now your local government can force you out.

My understanding, at this point, is that only 8 states have laws on the books allowing this. 7 others will only allow it for “blighted” areas.

You may want to think about this when you next vote.😦
 
First off, the rich getting richer comment was goofy. If anyone read the article, it was more about GOVERNMENTAL tyranny than anything else. Sure, “Rich” developers are there in the mix, but look who voted for it:
“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.
Click to expand...
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Click to expand...
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.”
Click to expand...
This seems like judicial activism if you ask me. I am all for compensating homeowners for land, but to just TAKE, even in the name of economic development (as opposes to “envirnmental protection”) is flat-out wrong.
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, 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.
Click to expand...
The dissenters:
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
Click to expand...
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
Click to expand...
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
Click to expand...
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...
It is odd, and flys in the face of CW than the liberals on the bench sided with corporate interest and the conservatives sided with ordinary citizens. The difference: Conservatives care about protecting individual property rights. Liberals…less so.
 
40.png
jlw:
The dissenters: It is odd, and flys in the face of CW than the liberals on the bench sided with corporate interest and the conservatives sided with ordinary citizens. The difference: Conservatives care about protecting individual property rights. Liberals…less so.
Click to expand...
You are politicizing the issue where there is no political left/right issue. Dissenter O’Connor is a pro-choice moderate, hardly a conservative.
 
Kay Cee:
I think you really misunderstand what’s going on here. We’re not seizing the property of the rich. The rich want to seize our property.

Donald Trump is now free to seize your property and build a parking lot for a new casino.
Click to expand...
I understand that it’s your elected local officials that can seize your land and not Mr. Trump. If you don’t like your local law your should work to change it.
 
40.png
Richardols:
You are politicizing the issue where there is no political left/right issue. Dissenter O’Connor is a pro-choice moderate, hardly a conservative.
Click to expand...
“Moderate”, yes. That’s why she was quoted! The fact that Scalia and Thomas also sided with working-class homeowners was buried at the bottom of the story was interesting to me.

One side sided with governmental power, the other with citizen’s rights. That’s not political???
 
40.png
jlw:
One side sided with governmental power, the other with citizen’s rights. That’s not political???
Click to expand...
Perhaps to you, but there were no comments on the decision nor anything in the decision itself with political references.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top