Eminent Domain - Political Forum

Santa_Claus · #1 (**permalink**) 01-18-2007, 06:38 PM

Eminent domain (U.S.), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Australia) or expropriation (Canada, South Africa) in common law legal systems is the inherent power of the state to expropriate private property, or rights in private property, without the owner's consent, either for its own use or by delegation of the taking power to third parties who will devote it to "public uses", the most common examples being public utilities or railroads.
Eminent domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clearly this is an injustice, wouldnt you agree? Taking the private property of individuals and giving it to another party is fucked up and illegal.

ladyt28 · #2 (**permalink**) 01-18-2007, 06:49 PM

Here in Michigan we just passed a law prohibiting eminent domain for the purpose of commercial use as the Supreme Court did not rule against it and advised states to protect themselves from it if they wished.

Scribbler1 · #3 (**permalink**) 01-18-2007, 10:16 PM

As long as it remains a state issue, as opposed to federally mandated compliance there shouldn't be too much of a problem. As soon as the first little old lady gets evicted to make room for a mall people will be storming their state houses with torches. However, I feel it WILL take something like that to get the sheep angry enough to do anything.

Daewoo · #4 (**permalink**) 01-18-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribbler1

As long as it remains a state issue, as opposed to federally mandated compliance there shouldn't be too much of a problem. As soon as the first little old lady gets evicted to make room for a mall people will be storming their state houses with torches. However, I feel it WILL take something like that to get the sheep angry enough to do anything.

You are underestimating the apathy of the American people. In kansas city they evicted little old ladies (sometimes forcefully) to build a nascar track. There was no storming the statehouse. People went "that is terrible" then bought their nascar tickets in advance.

Diuretic · #5 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007, 04:53 AM

It's better than it used to be

CHUQ · #6 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007, 05:57 AM

Since this is nothing short of legalized theft and to depend on the people to become angry is wishful thinking. I feel as long as" I am ok who cares," attitude is the norm. Developers have the bucks and that is about all that needs to be said.

Gumbercules · #7 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007, 06:08 PM

The recent, major Supreme Court decision about this was Kelo v. New London. Here is the basic Wikipedia rundown.
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is the Supreme Court decision.
KELO V. NEW LONDON

The Supreme court basically gave government the ability to condemn private property and give it to other private individuals simply to increase tax revenue. The legal reasoning may have been sound but the real outcome was bullshit. Even after the case was settled the city tried to fuck over the homeowners even more. After taking these peoples land they even tried to charge them rent for the duration of the case. Pure bullshit.

Quote:

Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. However, the Supreme Court having disposed of the eminent domain issue, the only legal avenue left to Kelo and her fellow residents may be to contest the fairness of the amount that the city intends to pay for the land—the city has reportedly set aside $1.6 million to buy all 15 homes, and city officials believe that they will be in possession of the property within a few months.[4] Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began. The city contends that the residents have been on city property for those five years and owe tens of thousands of dollars of rent. The case was finally resolved when the City agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location

CHUQ · #8 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007, 05:03 AM

As I have said and will always say--it is legalized theft. It is not understandable in a country that prides itself on the possibility of private ownership that the people allow this tpe of theft to continue.

FRYandBENDER · #9 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007, 01:18 AM

I hope to God I never have to deal with that shit. I think that if the government came to my house and said they were going to take it and put a car lot or something on it I would probably sit outside with my M4 and dare the motherfuckers to come take it.

Is this a relatively new topic? I haven't heard too much about it untill recently. I know that the government can move you out of your house if they have to build a road or something, but here recently I have been hearing cases where they force people out to build a mercedes lot or something to raise tax revenue. Revolucion!!!!!!!!!

CHUQ · #10 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007, 05:16 AM

This is not new, it has been used for years to take property from people to benefit someone or something, financially. I is wrong, but apparently it is the new Manifest Destiny, with the exception, it does not benefit the people, just the monied few.