Supreme Court Rules Cities Can Seize Your Home For Walmart

[eagl]

The real issus is that the entire government, all 3 branches, are in agreement that both the federal and state government can do literally ANYTHING if it's in the nation's interest or a matter of national survival.  In the last couple of decades, it's become more and more clear that because tax revenues (and therefore the ability to run every single government program) are directly tied to the health of the economy, keeping the economy healthy at any cost is a matter of national survival.  The key to this train of thought is that all 3 branches of the government in one way or another consider the government and the act of governing to actually be "the nation".

Case in point - before the war on drugs was considered a matter of national survival, US military forces could not under any circumstances be used for border law enforcement.  That changed, under Bush Sr. if I recall correctly although it may have been Carter or Reagan.

So with the economy being a fully recognized matter of national interest at this point in time, the government at all levels, from your community council to the feds, can do literally anything to anyone in the interest of boosting the economy as long as someone with enough bucks to argue the case in court can justify the actions as being necessary for stable economic growth.

That means if your house has to go to make room for the new mini-mall or quik-e-mart, you have no say in the matter because it's a court-upheld matter of national interest.

Plus the constitutional loophole of eminent domain can be stretched if a local government shows that it's local decisions are in the interest of the nation as a whole.  And right now, economic interests are considered matters of national survival.

Don't like it?  Write your congressmen.  I'm not allowed to

[T0J0]

If the outcome could be deemed beneficial for a dieing community... If one howeowner is holding up billions in development revenues/job creation then its a good thing.... The imminent domain thingie has been around for a long time...Its not a new development in our history.... But add the name Walmart and you get conspiracy theories popping out of the wood work...
 Walmart bad.... Crack house good...

But living next to a Wallyworld I have noticed that it generally attracts a very challenged client base, might be a florida thing though? Luckily its moving soon to be replaced with bobs flea market thrift garbage dumb....

TJ

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

I understand that aspect Seagoon, but there is something I guess I didn't make clear. We have officials on "both sides" (conservative and liberal) who are doing things in various interests that are creating a socialist government, or atleast the precursor to one. Many disagree, but the Patriot Act is an example of rights being curtailed in the interest of national security. Wiretapping without a warrant, search and seizure without a warrant. Just as an example.

That's why I stated its the people vs the government, because the government thinks it knows whats best for the people (the nation) all the while walking all over them.
-SW

[john9001]

sometimes the people win , down here wally mart wanted to build another store on a site that would destroy some wetlands, the people protested, the govt backed down and denied the permits.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

This is why I say now, and have been saying for 20 years or so, that the interpretation of the Constitution and its basic tenets as a "living document" is very wrong and very dangerous.

Now, the most liberal interpretation if "imminent domain" has become "if it is good for business and for tax revenue" it is acceptable. When the Constitution and the documents that accompany it were written, imminent domain meant "for roads, for schools, for safety, for the common defense, for the expansion of utilities to serve everyone".

Now, because it has become acceptable to twist and turn EVERYTHING in the Constitution to fit ANY agenda, we need laws to protect people and personal property from the Supreme Court:eek: .

The manipulation of the Constitution has pushed us off the top, onto the slippery slope, and now we slide out of control towards disaster.

[StarOfAfrica2]

I've seen it used way too many times to line the pockets of local politicians.  Farms that had been around for 200 years suddenly gobbled up by developers and parceled out into subdivisions with barely enough yard to have grass growing around the house.  And when someone wont sell?  Have the county declare eminent domain, with plans for some factory or something else that will 'provide jobs', only to see the plans for that job making machine go belly up as soon as the land is purchased, and the county conveniently selling it off for a minor profit to a developer who will make millions off of it.  Heck, Lambert Int. Airport in St Louis wiped out an entire TOWN to expand and lay down a new runway.  When people didnt want to sell, they had the govt. take the land for them.  Eminent domain is wrong on so many levels.  I just see red every time I hear about another case.

[Thrawn]

What I find scary is that in the past few years you've had all three branches of government curtailing personal liberty.  And with both parties seemingly trying to screw the individual it's not like you can turn to them to try and redress the issue.  Whenever we get sick of a party up here we screw them in an election, but down there you would only have a case of the other party ****ing up.  You guys need to give the Libertarians some seats.  At least you would have a balancing force that is actually for personal freedom.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by T0J0
If the outcome could be deemed beneficial for a dieing community... If one howeowner is holding up billions in development revenues/job creation then its a good thing.... The imminent domain thingie has been around for a long time...Its not a new development in our history.... But add the name Walmart and you get conspiracy theories popping out of the wood work...
 Walmart bad.... Crack house good...

But living next to a Wallyworld I have noticed that it generally attracts a very challenged client base, might be a florida thing though? Luckily its moving soon to be replaced with bobs flea market thrift garbage dumb....

TJ

There is no way to justify taking the personal property of an individual and giving it to a business under the original intent of imminent domain. Besides the fact that it leaves way too much room for the abuse of power.

Imminent domain should remain as it was, with its original intent.

In Seagoon's example, imminent domain was used to STEAL personal property for the benefit of a business. WalMart has BILLIONS of dollars, and can buy property they can use that is for sale just about anywhere. The government should not have the power to force a person off of his property because a business wants it. Any way you look at it, that is wrong.

[Seagoon]

Hi all,

Obviously a lot of people are incredulous that this could actually have happened, that we could have gotten to the point where a municipality could actually seize your real estate, pay you what they deem to be a fair price, and hand it over to a private developer. But respectfully, this doesn't reflect any sort of sea change in the understanding of government that has prevailed in the USA for almost 100 years now.

Let me try to explain what I mean. Our problem seems to lie in the way that we view different kinds of private property when from the point of view of thory of government no real distinction exists. Private property is private property. The money that you receive from your  employer goes from being their private property to your private property. You are free to either keep it liquid, or use it to purchase other forms of private property, either durable such as cars, real estate, or non-durable food, etc. or use it to secure services. If I take your money from you without having a right to do so, I am guilty of theft. This is true regardless of whether the property I unlawful seize is money or some other kind of property.

For over 100 years now, Americans have accepted the Marxist/Utilitarian principle that the state should take your private property and redistribute it "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need". Now this regularly happens to most of us, when the state siezes a percentage of our income in taxes. This is private property that has been seized and redistributed to both private and public interests "for the greater good." In fact, even money seized from us via taxation and handed over to private interests (whether it is in the form of subsidies for farmers, small business loans, etc.) "to help the economy" is ultimately seen as serving the greater good.

Now for most of us, it is money in its liquid form that is seized, but if, for instance, someone cannot, or does not pay their taxes, other forms of private property (boats, cars, real-estate) can be seized by local, state, and federal government in leiu of payment.

Since we have already ceded the vital principle that Government has a right to seize our private property and redistribute it as they see fit for the "greater good," the current emminent domain decision isn't a big stretch. What is being seized in Eminent Domain decisions is still private property, in this case it is not money, but money that has been converted into a durable good, i.e. real estate. Hence the consistency of the Supreme Court Decision. What we are really doing in complaining about it is in a sense "Katie Bar the Door."

I would instead assert that if we don't like it, we need to focus the attack on the more fundamental issue, i.e. that the state has a theoretically unlimited right to seize and redistribute our private property as it sees fit.

- SEAGOON

[Shamus]

Been going on for years.

Detroit did it for GM and the poletown plant 25 years ago.

Those poor folk couldnt buy a two car garage in the burbs for what they were forced to take.

shamus

[JBA]

Originally posted by Seagoon
.....in order to generate tax revenue......

That is the some of this decision.

[Karnak]

While strongly I agree with the Conservative members of the Court in this case, the moderates and Liberals ruled correctly based on the law as written.

Now the reason this is even an issue is because nobody considered that corporations would be able to manipulate the .gov into taking private property from one private interest and give it to another private interest.


The law being ruled on merely pertained to eminient domain.  There is no provision in the law as to what happens to the property or what is and is not an allowable use of the law.

This really, really, really sucks.  We need to have it written into law that the .gov cannot take one private party's property and give it to another private party.  Not ever.

And for the public use I'd like to see the .gov to have to pay twice "fair market value".

[Bodhi]

Removal of any persons property for eminent domain that will benefit a private business is pure and simple theft.  All three branches of the US government are so far gone from reality that I truly feel this is no longer a land of the free.

I guarantee the day some government official tries it on me, is the day I am killed defending my property.

[Furious]

firebomb.

[jEEZY]

Before one passes judgment on this case, either way, perhaps people should read the actual opinion:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108

After reading it I deem most of the hyperbole from the press and public to be misplaced.