Navigation...User loginBlogad PremiumDonate with PaypalBlogad Regular David Swanson's new book is only $14.95.
"Daybreak urgently reminds us that good political intentions are not sufficient to ensure the continuation of our democracy; informed vigilance is vital to that task." |
Supreme Court rules that Cities may seize homes for private developmentToday, the Supreme Court ruled that cities may seize homes for private development - development other than roads, schools, etc. I find myself agreeing with Sandra Day O'Connor who wrote the dissenting opinion in this case. She wrote that this is nothing more than a gift to wealthy developers at the expense of middle class homeowners. |
What's HotJobs Not Wars [100,000] Single Payer Healthcare [100,000] Boycott FOX News Advertisers [100,000] Special Prosecutor for Bush War Crimes [100,000] Facebook / Twitter (Bob Fertik, David Swanson, Democrats.com) Local: connect with Democrats.com members in your State, County, Congressional District, and Zip Single Payer Health CareActive forum topics
Your Representatives
Welcome new visitors! Login to see your Representatives here and how to contact them.
Syndicate |
It seems that big money wins more and more of the battles
On both the liberal and conservative side, it seems that more and more decisions favor big money or big corporate interests. Typically, Stevens would be on our side, but on this issue he sides with the big developers against the average Joe. This seems to me to be very dangerous.
If a city can take our property against our will in order to build a damn strip mall - what else can they confiscate from us? I didn't realize that expanding the tax base was a legitimate "public use." The folks over at DU are as outraged as I am. This ruling is truly an abomination.
I never thought
I'd find myself siding with Rehnquist, Thomas, and the like. John Paul, where are you thinking?
Local Government
I read this and thought Wal-Mart the entire time.
I feel like its way to easy for big companies/developers to get in bed with local government.
I believe the reason they
I believe the reason they voted that way was to protect the process that builds municipal projects for the common good, like freeways, rapid transit, water systems and energy projects. If the decision would have went the other way then building these projects in the future would be impossible. The court clearly stated that these issues should be determined at the state level. I, like most, don't find the private development for increased tax revenue scheme for the common good
.........................................YYYEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH !!!!!
My 2 cents
This is a double edge sword. While I shiver when I think of what a Walmart can do with this ruling, this also supports the ability of local government to condemn land for parks, green spaces etc. If you are involved in your local political process, than you can take advantage of this to condemn vacant land to preserve open space. I would have prefered to see a ruling that narrowed the definition of "public good".
Has anyone seen the Administration's responce to this? I am curious to see if they see this as encouraging or weakening their concept of an "ownership society."
Saving the world from stupidity
One Republican at a time
Since November, 2004
Cities have had the right to seize land for public purposes
Public purposes such as parks, roads, schools, etc. This ruling means that cities can seize property under eminent domain statutes for PRIVATE development. I am not worried about Wal-Mart as they are not a developer - although I did hear a man on the radio whose home and business was displaced by a Costco. My concern is that anytime a well-connected developer can convince elected officials that his project will increase tax revenues (which they are always projected to do) then the city can seize homes (usually lower and middle class homes as it wouldn't make economic sense to tear down million dollar homes) to make way for development.
This seems to be abhorrent to the American spirit of basic property rights and ownership. It weakens individual property rights significantly in the favor of government.
Is there a reason why you
Is there a reason why you singled out Costco? There are dozens of other Republican backed corporations (or vice-versa) that you could have mentioned, but chose one of the rare "blue" leaning ones.
This is not an isolated occurrence. Is there something you'd like to divulge? I hope I am wrong.
Are you kidding me?
Costco was mentioned on the radio this morning so it was fresh on my mind. I didn't know that Costco was a "blue" leaning corporation. Where does one get that list? What other occurrences are you talking about?
Hmm, that depends...
It depends on whether we count your posts under the JasonC, Phreshgruve and CreativeDem aliases. Which account do you want me to show you a "baiting" post from?
The campaign contribution information is widely available on Opensecrets.org or BuyBlue, as if you didn't know that already.
Thank you for the helpful information
I will be careful to check it before mentioning any corporation by name in the future.
Well, therein lies the rub.
Well, therein lies the rub. I don't believe that is was inadvertent. My assertion is that you carefully selected that company to discredit them.
Who am I speaking with this time, Doug, Jason or Mike?
I don't spend that much time posting comments to do research
Does one of your family members work for Costco? I didn't intend to offend anyone. I like Costco although I let my membership lapse because there's not one close to my home. I go to Target for everything now. I hope Target isn't on any kind of list because I didn't have time to check it out before mentioning. BTW, it's Doug.
Why are you playing footsy
Why are you playing footsy with a moderator?
Your aliases indicate you should know better? What am I missing?
Doug, I gave you every
Doug, I gave you every opportunity to come clean. You knew exactly what you were saying. Every person on this blog knows Costco's political leanings, so the innocent act is really tired. The land seizure incident in CA was reported in the National Review (a republican rag) over two years ago. You have not addressed or denied the fact that you have 3 other aliases that you've been banned under.
Goodbye Doug.
Thanks, GM. Clwilk was
Thanks, GM. Clwilk was right! He suspected this guy was a re-run all along.
Golfmonkey on the trail
Yeah that crap about let's invade Iran scared the crap out of me - that's no Democrat!
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security
like it's some kind of federal program."
- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000
Put a fork in him
He's done!!
Good slap of red ass G.M.
................................YYYEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH !!!!!
I'm sure Cheney loves the decision
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.3457/?tr=y&auid=956029
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security
like it's some kind of federal program."
- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000