2005
OPD 940
Once OPD
Always OPD
Always OPD
2005 OPD 940 |
|
Once OPD Always OPD |
|
|
[Supreme Court ** Eminent Domain] *** One more thing to consider. If your property is taken from you, you would then have to pay the income taxes on the profits from the sale of the residence. Add to that you would now have to also pay the increased property taxes on your replacement home unless you buy of lower value in specific areas. Not so bad for the developer but the shits for the older homeowner or business owner. Maybe we should tear down the old Cameron-Stanford house by Lake Merritt and put up a new sterile office building to get more taxes. *** Back to top From what I read of the court decision, states can limit seizures of private property. What we need is state legislation, preferably an ballot initiative, that prohibits governmental agencies - state, county, city, special district, et al - from using eminent domain to taking private property and reselling it to private parties or benefitting private parties. *** I think you are applying this decsion to broadly. I will look into the case, however I think this case is very case specific, and unique. I do not think we will see Local Goverments in masse snatching property. In some cases in might be a good thing, to remove blight and bring in new updated facilities. Lew Mace *** Back to top I and a friend bought houses in Danville years back. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that the city can take property and sell it to a developer, as long as that will result in a financial gain for the city, thus benefiting the public at large. So, what keeps the city where you live from grabbing up your home, sell it to me at the going rate, and pocketing the new tax gained by the new selling price?
*** Back to top I've heard the following attributed to Mark Twain-- "No man's fortune or property is safe when the legislature is in session." *** Land Developers will be wining and dining city council members all night long in Oakland getting the council to buy up real estate in the flat lands for "Urban Renewal"a dn we know how righteous the Oakland City Council is. Vic Sandoval Read it and weep. Just when you think that Ron Oz might be a little overboard on his criticism of the judiciary... well, here they give us a poster-child decision to make his criticism look pretty damned justified. I especially liked the portion of the opinion expressed in the fourth paragraph of the following article.. "Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said." Three more articles (one tongue in cheek), on eminent domain. I am a member of a group here in Colorado , fighting an eminent domain issue. If interested check out our site http://www.nosuperslab.org/ The condemnation laws in Colorado are unbelievable, written in 1890 and still in effect. Bob Attwood *** Back to top June 23, 2005 Media Contact: (202) 789-5200 Cato Scholars Condemn Property Rights Decision The Court this term is emerging as "The Government's Court" WASHINGTON -- In the landmark Takings Clause case, Kelo v. City of New London ,the Supreme Court ruled today, 5-4, that the government has the right to condemnprivate property and transfer titles to others simply to encourage economicdevelopment and a larger tax base. "With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon, director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies, "since any time a government official thinks someone else can make better use of your property than you're doing, he can order it condemned and transferred. Today's decision, the third loss for property owners this term, together with other recent decisions from this Court, marks this as 'The Government's Court,'" Pilon added. This decision comes as a blow to homeowners and small business people who have been robbed of their property by usually large and powerful interests in league with government officials. The Cato Institute filed a friend-of-the-court-brief, written by University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein , calling for the Court to come down on the side of property rights. Cato also published a Policy Analysis, authored by George Mason University Professor Ilya Somin, arguing that in principle and in fact, no property is secure as long as government can condemn it for virtually any reason it wishes. "Property rights are the foundation of a free society," said Cato senior fellow Mark Moller, co-counsel for Cato in the amicus brief. "Securing those rights is among the most important goals of our Constitution. Unfortunately, today's ruling breaks faith with the Constitution, by holding that local bureaucrats have the power to take your property and give it to someone they hope will generate more revenue for city coffers. That leaves every property owner and small business person with more reason to fear that their homes and businesses will be confiscated for the benefit of someone wealthier or better connected. That's the very opposite of the system of stable private property our Founders meant to secure." *** Back to top Posted on Sun, Jun. 26, 2005 Court's ruling paves way to ruin JOE SOUCHERAY The Supreme Court went nuts the other day. The heat got to them. There is no other way to look at it. Forget about gay marriage and prayer in the schools and God's mention in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those are minor affairs compared to the results of the complete breakdown of the land's highest court. They made a ruling that says cities can take your property and turn it over to private developers. This is the so-called issue of eminent domain. In the old days, when we were getting goods to market with an ox cart or poling a barge along a canal, the "taking clause'' meant that a community had to come together once in a while and decide to sacrifice the south 40 acres of Old Man Jesperson's farm so that a road could be built for all to use, while also fairly compensating Jesperson. That's the word the Fifth Amendment features: use. So what did the Supreme Court justices rule by a 5-4 margin? Well, they decided that a city or government entity's ability to increase revenue is a public use. In other words, if a developer can sweet talk the City Council or county commissioners into the belief that the Acme Resort Corporation can generate more taxes than that row of Craftsman bungalows on Fifth Street , then by all means, have at it. Knock those people out of their homes. Bulldoze those houses and put up the new development. Oh, and pay them just compensation? You can't come up with a figure. There is no amount of money to accommodate the new belief that the sanctity of the government is now elevated above the sanctity of your home. I defy anybody reading this to tell me I have misinterpreted the Supreme Court's most progressive thinkers, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. I mean progressive in the most ominous way. The state's ability to generate revenue is now considered a public use under the court's newest interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. Dissenting were Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. I don't know about you, but I took a walk around my property after I read this ruling and I felt a pit in my stomach. Nothing is safe. Nothing. And if your attitude on this one is, "Oh, well, it will never affect me,'' or, "Oh, well, life will go on,'' then you could be the next Wilhemina Dery. Dery was among a group of homeowners in New London , Conn. , who were faced with losing property after the Pfizer pharmaceutical company began discussing with the city plans for a $300 million waterfront research facility. The plans also include a hotel and a health club. Dery and her neighbors do not live in a blighted neighborhood, but rather an antiquated one of Victorian-style homes and shops. The neighbors sued and the case landed at the Supreme Court, where the majority essentially erased the concept of private property, which is a bedrock of this republic. O'Connor, writing for the minority, argued that the decision will disproportionately benefit people with influence and power in the political process. She is absolutely correct. Here is the important thing to understand, especially if you are of a "progressive'' mind and have counted on the government to pave over life's bumps and ruts. You are going to get paved over in the new process. O'Connor warned that rich people would buy up the property of poor people and create developments that only rich people could possibly use. And what makes this horrible prospect possible is the unbelievably flawed ruling that a city's ability to make money is more important than your right to our home. If you are out in your back yard today and you hear a chattering over your rooftop, look up. It might be the arrival of the black helicopter - the black helicopter of myth and conspiracy. Or, worse, it might be a developer with big plans. *** Back to top New York City Invokes Eminent Domain to Acquire New Jersey Buoyed by the Supreme Court's decision to expand cities' power of eminent domain, New York City filed today to acquire the state of New Jersey for commercial development. " New York has been facing some very difficult economic decisions," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "Building viable economic development strategies for the city has been our number one priority. We think that the Supreme Court decision really opens a door for us, and will allow New York City to finally resolve some of these intractable issues." The Constitution says government may take private property "for public use" if it pays the owners "just compensation." Originally, public use meant the land was used for roads, canals or military bases, or to clear blighted areas. In today's decision, the court went a step further and said officials need not claim they were condemning blighted properties or clearing slums. Now, as long as officials hope to create jobs or raise tax collections, they can seize the homes of unwilling sellers, the court said. This "public purpose" is a "public use" of the land, the court said in Kelo vs. New London . "The Supreme Court decision makes it easier for us to justify this course of action in the name of economic development," said Bloomberg, "although actually we could easily have made the case that taking over New Jersey would be analogous to condemning a blighted property. I mean, come on. Have you been there lately?" New York will compensate the current residents of New Jersey with "fair market value" for their property, a total amount estimated to be well within Bloomberg's ability to pay out of his own pocket. After evicting all current residents from New Jersey , New York plans to add a new Olympic stadium, a Trump apartment complex, international airport, and, most critically, a 4,000 square mile landfill. "I have mixed feelings about this," said Newark resident Franklin Comstock. "On the one hand, I am not thrilled to be kicked out of my home and be paid pennies on the dollar for the privilege. On the other hand, New York is evicting our state government as well, every last official and bureaucrat. That is an immensely appealing concept." Others are more concerned about the Supreme Court decision and New York 's plans. "The Supreme Court has really started down a slippery slope by expanding the definition of "benefit to society" which can be used to justify eminent domain ," said economics professor Brad Turkelson, of Cornell University . "Making way for an interstate or a military base is one thing. Making way for a new golf course is something entirely different. Where is this going to stop? What if they decide that eminent domain could be invoked for the moral benefit of society? Do we want to go there?" If New York is successful, it would mark the first time that eminent domain was used to take over an entire state. Other states are reportedly watching New York closely, and may be considering takeover efforts of their own. "Dibs on Nevada ," said California Governor Schwarzenegger.
|