A Sad Day for the Poor

The story I am commenting on can be found here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

The Supreme Court has recently declared that local governments may directly seize land from private owners and then give it to developers without negotiating prices, declaring it a blight, or even without reason. This stems from a case in Connecticut where developers want to place a office complex (or something similar) in a suburb.

Normally I am for the increased economic development of a city, but this decision seems wrong for a multitude of reasons.

1) The inner city poor. "Gentrification" as it has been called, is the revitalization of an inner city where slums and low-income housing are located (generally populated by minorities) by city government. This process involves uprooting the local population from its homes and replacing it with parks, malls, and condos. In the past, this was only legal if the area was declared blighted. Now this process has become far easier, and many minorities risk losing their homes and being unable to find inexpensive housing elsewhere if the local government decides to put a mall there. The outrageous thing is that the government can hand the land directly to private developers. No longer must the upgrades be for the public good. This is a dangerous prospect for the working poor in the core of cities.

2) The middle class. Apparently, the neighborhood in Connecticut isn't blighted, and it isn't even poor. It is merely a good locale for this new development, and the city government wants to turn it commercial. Before, the middle class only had to worry about eminent domain if a freeway or park was coming through. Now if a big developer wants a mall where you live, the city can force you out and only have to pay tax appraisal value of the land. This can leave you at a serious disadvantage, since most houses sell for a bit higher than the appraisal tax rate.

3) It's for the wrong reasons. The 5-4 split in the court makes this very clear. 5-4 decisions are never a good thing, as it means that there is no compromise, no comfortable majority, and no clear finale. 5-4 decisions mean the court is ideologically split and that the decision can be easily reversed in the future by changing just one judge. Another reason this is bad is that it's simply for profit. Cities want more tax revenue, developers want more money, and companies want higher profits. It's all about greed, and not about what's good for the residents.

I realize that cities need more money in the times of economic downturn, and some people believe that more jobs will be created--but what good is all of this if a city becomes all commercialized and people are forced further and further into the suburbs? No one will want to live there, at least I wouldn't. The consequences of having your family uprooted for someone else's gain are enormous. My basic stance is that this decision is bad for American cities and bad for American families. The only good it does is for the pockets of local officials and developers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

locked

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is one of those rulings I strongly oppose. If you can think of some (lawful and ethical) way to pressure the powers that be into either revoking this change or simply not using this new power, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, I don't think whining and complaining will do anything at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only options I can think of are a petition, raising a new lawsuit or writing Congress to pass a law that restricts eminent domain.

 

locked

 

Bush shud be bent over, fukd in the ass infront of his family, then make his daughters stick a fucking gun up his asshole and blow the fucking tossers brains out....ha

 

OMG THATS HORRIBLE!!!!!










not that you wrote that..but that I mostly agree. Im terrible.

 

hehehe, a fellow bush hater

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, you are not horrible (i tell myself ths everyday lol), it is tht bastrd bush thts horrible, when that feeling of venom enters your heart, just swear, punch something and count to 10, works every time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

 

Another aspect lost to land owners with this decision: My parents were involved in a land deal back in the early 70s that increased the size of a state park by more than 1,000 acres. Three siblings had farmed a piece of property for over 50 years and they were nearing a point of being unable to care for any aspects of the property anymore. A developer wanted the high ground that bordered my parents place, and the state wanted the lower pieces, to increase the park size. Funding wasnt there for the park to purchase the whole piece. Anyways, the developer needed 2 acres of our property to put in the road, or his development would be land locked. At that time, my parents had the upper hand and got a very nice price for that two acres even though they did not want houses overlooking our farm.

This ruling would have allowed the state to eminent domain our entire farm for the developer and the price recieved would have been peanuts compared to what they were able to negociate (in addition to the money, they had the park make walk in access points in several spots, for all the people who live close to the park and these access points will exist as long as the park exists) Why the access points? To allow people who live in the area to access the park from many points and not have to funnel thru the main gate (around a 10 mile drive from the far side). Trust me, the park HATED the idea of the access points.

This ruling takes away this potential also. While local officials may have a good idea of what brings in money, they do not always have an idea of "we the people" when implementing such ideas. If my parents would not have had this kind of land rights, there would be no access points for people whos lands are on/near the far side of the park, and these access points are not "private property, No Tresspassing" points. They all border roads. The one I used has its own road sign. A road that goes no where. The road is about 100 feet long. No one can put up a "no tresspassing" sign there.

These kinds of land deals occured in california, and that was where my parents got the idea for the access points from. In california, there were a few old timers who sold out to developers along the ocean. These old timers had amendments to the land sales for "public access" points along the properties, to ensure their children and grandchildren would have access to these beautiful places along the coast. Now there are some people who are fighting these ammendments to their lands and are putting gates up and such, trying to prevent persons from using these access points, but they lose in court because the deal is in writting. Madonna was one celeb who lost the battle If I remember right. I am sure this piece of negociating powers will be gone because of this ruling.

.

 

And yet, for all of the complaints, don't most people here at sciforums think that we should give of ourselves to help the less fortunate? And isn't that about the same thing? If so, how can you complain about this ruling when that's almost exactly what you've been preaching about all along? ...that we should be forced to help the poor in Africa? ...that we should be forced to help the uninsured? ...etc?

I think the ruling sucks big donkey dicks ....but it's soooooo liberal that it seems as tho' most people here would be cheering. Why not?

Baron Max

 

Make an Amendment to the US Constitution that would not allow the government to taking of private property for uses other than for governmental needs IE roads, hospitals, bridges etc..

Instead of making a Constitutional Amendment disallowing the destruction of the American flag for protesting anything.

 

What did President Bush have to do with this ruling? Please tell me. Not one of the justices was appointed by him and I daresay that he is probably against this ruling as much as anyone. Please tell me ....what does he have to do with this?

Baron Max

 

He casted a dark republican spell over your country.

 

I wonder if y'all would feel differently about this ruling if it was for taking property from the rich and giving to the poor? Would the law then seem easier for y'all to accept? 'Cause so far, it seems that most people are upset about the idea that it's taking property from the poor and middle class ...no one has mention how terrible it would be to take property from the rich, right?

Baron Max

 

This ruling is a huge irony. Liberal justices have presented a ruling that coincides beautifully with the republican corporate mentality. I seriously doubt if relief will be seen on the national level. If we see a correction, I suspect it will be on the state level and at a slow pace.

IMO, abuse will be rampant for five or ten years until the public demands relief.

Two comments from Justice Sandra O'Connors dissent which I agree with entirely:

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.

and

"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."

 

You mean that cities will be robbing property from the rich and giving it to the poor? Abused how?

And what is it about "for the greater good"? I.e., if a section of a city slowly turns into a plight, does the city have no responsibility to correct it if they can? Isn't this something like a city putting up "the projects" for the poor? How could they do that if they didn't have the land to do it?

As a former architect, I've seen many property owners stand in the way of progress only to find in a few years that they're homes were worthless, that the progress of the city passed them by ...and they lost everything. Is that what you'd like to see happen?

Don't forget, there's a good side to this "horror story", too. Y'all need to look closely at that side, too, BEFORE you make your final judgement.

Baron Max

 

locked

 

I do agree with this ruling. It allows cities more power to revitalize themselves. When peak oil becomes more of an issue, we will realize that a vital city is a better use of energy than a spread-out suburbia.

 

You are correct. We should just have flags made that release a poisonous gas when burned.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Proper flag disposal ceremonies can be supplied with a chemical to prevent this release.

 

I'm no proponent of urban sprawl, but this is mild fascism by the Supreme Court.

Marriage of corporation and state + exaltation of both over the people = Mussolini's dead thumbs now protrude enthusiastically through his coffin's cover

I don't like it at all. I'd rather deal with an energy crisis than a dystopia. Of course, at this rate, we'll all be dealing with both...