Yup that's right! And in the US too. Here's the link: http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/...vts=5820031201

Still think the courts and politicians care about the constitution?

This is accurate. The 5th Amendment prohibits the gubbermint from taking property without just compensation. It is therefore not an absolute prohibition.

The revolution is swelling on IWF today. Who's with me? :mad:

<font color="#f683ad">You will note that almost all these seizures are being done by local governments....MOSTLY cities. Chicago is another bad one, don't have links to specifics, I just remember reading alot of emminent domain type seizures in the Chi-town place. This is clearly local corruption at work and Im surprised the feds don't step in.....wonder if it is a jurisdictional thing.

Looks like plain simple greed here. </font>

Urban renewal and development projects are not considered greed, for better or for worse. As the article mentions, historically most such seizures have been done to set up a slum for a revitalization project where the buildings are bought and condemned and the land is then purchased by developers for a new shopping center or whatever.

Land Use and Zoning has a long history, and is a very dense legal landscape, but suffice to say that this type of behavior is an extension of the basic ability to zone land as residential, industrial, commercial, or any of the various modern-day combinations. Because it is local gobbermint the city council meets to review these things. Due to procedural concerns, almost no such projects ever happen without city council votes and such. Thus, at least on this issue of gov'l tyranny, you at least have the option of rolling up your sleeves and joining in the fight on your own behalf. Plus, local leaders are more succeptible to the voters and how your complaints might affect their position on the city council. This is, in fact, democracy in one of its purer forms.

[edit] Oooooohhh - I'm Ninja Stormshadow. Fear me, Hard Master. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 05-08-2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I think you nailed it here MagiK. Perhaps they all failed English in school and therefore has no understanding of without just compensation. ;)

<font color="#f683ad">and Im just a throne....how fitting ;) </font>

TL, I thought the 5th amendment to the constitution in this case only applied to FEDERAL seizure of private lands (eminent domain and all that). How can local (i.e. city, county or state governments) governments sieze property in this fashion?

Willow, my understanding of "just compensation" simply implies that the former property owner receives payment which is 'approximately' equal to existing market value for his property.

In what is called "reverse incorporation" the 5th Amendment is made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, as are all of the first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights). Don't warp your brain too much on this one. :D

Oh -- the local government is an extension of the state government. Any law applicable to the state, either in favor of it or against it, is applicable to your local city government. Which is why most states have passed local home rule laws or local government law. Note that the 11th Amendment makes all states immune from lawsuits -- states can only be sued where they have consented to be sued.

Also note that your understanding is a wee bit arse-backwards. The 5th Amendment, as applied to a state, is a LIMIT to power. Without it, the state could seize your property, which was its property to begin with (in theory), with or without compensation. The Amendments are LIMITS to power, not GRANTS of power.

[ 05-08-2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

This is accurate. The 5th Amendment prohibits the gubbermint from taking property without just compensation. It is therefore not an absolute prohibition.

The revolution is swelling on IWF today. Who's with me? :mad: </font>[/QUOTE]Yes TL 1954 court I believe that was the Comrade Warren court where the government found several more things that weren't in the constitution, or Federalist Papers.

<font color="#f683ad">Thinking about this is very likely going to just Pi** me off so I think Im gonna call it a day [img]smile.gif[/img]

See you all tomorrow. </font>

My work here is done. :D :D

Actually, Messrs. Muppets, have a great night. Call me if the revolution begins anytime soon - I wouldn't want to miss it. I'll bring the whiskey. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

<FONT COLOR=ORANGE>In my line of work, I see this going on all the time. Not long ago, a local County Industrial Board decided that they needed a farm for a new industrial park they were planning. Never mind that the farm was from an old Land Grant when this area was still a territory. It had remained in the family for over two hundred years! The Industrial board got together with the County Commission and offered to purchase the land from the family. They said it wasn't for sale and the County Commission condemned the land. As it stands now the original farm had been divided amoung three kids after their father died. Two of them after some long negotations agreed to accept the offer from the County. The last took it to court and promptily lost. He appealed and that's where it stands now. He has the old home site and has built another very nice home next to that, but my guess is that he will lose in the end. I, for may part, hate like hell to work on any project where this has happened.

Around this parts, most comdemnations happen over industrial parks. Most of the Urban Renewal progects happened here in the late fifties and sixties. The State will still condemn property, but mostly for roads. Here in Tennessee, the Utility companies also have "Right of Eminent Domain", as do Railroads (one of the biggest and greediest users there ever was).

Another local case concerned the City of Knoxville. They decided they needed a new ball field... out in the county, mind you. Again it was another old farm. Been in the family something like 130 years. The old man who owned it said HELL NO! So the City attempted to condemn the place. The Knox County Commission stepped in and said "Not so fast". They threatened to sue the City if they went ahead, citing lack of jurisdection. The City backed down and built their new field on another peice of property where the owner was welling to sale. So sometimes the Local Government can be your friend. </font>

[ 05-08-2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

Sir T, there is one silver lining you have when all of these woes come crashing down on your head: you are a full 10 hours closer to the Big South Fork than I am. As far as I can tell, you're winning. ;)

But, when the revolution comes, may I place your name on the placard?

[edit:] Except in the summer. Snakes rule. I won't visit the BSFNRRA between May and August because of the 7 snakes I almost stepped on in a three-day span in 1995.

[ 05-08-2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Some people want a share of the pie, if they don't get it, they'll come in and get the whole piece of the pie. ;)

<font color=orange>I'd love to go camping up there, but right now we are in the middle of Girls softball, which is taking up every 'freakin' weekend!

I've run into a rattler or two up there as well. Nothing like a big ole Diamondback Rattler to get your attention while hiking down the trail!

For those of you who have never heard of Big South Fork, look here!

http://www.nps.gov/biso/

It's a beautiful area to the northwest of Knoxville. Great place to visit! you can do a little bit of everything there!</font>

One problem is that I don't think you ever see someone getting fully compensated for their loss. The word "approximate" apparently has a lot of play in it. First, once it's known that constuction will happen in an area, the property values for homes have to fall drastically. Do they then pay you this reduced rate as "compensation"? I think they do! I tell you what would make them think twice about seizing peoples homes is if they had to pay 120-150% market value for the priveledge plus relocation expenses. That would keep frivolous crap out of the mix. My late grandparents were kicked out of their home to make room for the itty bitty airport to expand their runway. They tore up a bunch of homes and the road. You know what's funny? Fifteen years later the seized land is forested over because it never happened! How stupid was that!

That, Sir K, is the blindingly swift pace of governmental efficiency hard at work. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

In most cases, though, particularly those that get any attention, the property is not taken for public use, but is instead transferred to individuals with the proper political connections.

Also, there is one other protection -- that people may not be deprived of their property without due process. Believe it or not, the people do have the power to stop the government confiscations, by ruling in favor of those whose land is being taken, but the system is quite happy to dismiss any potential jurors who understand this, and what passes for civics classes in public schools fails to teach the populace about their duty to restrict government and critically analyse the taking of each property, rather than just rubber-stamping the whims of the politicos.

Amen brother! A trial by your peers is your right, and they've turned it into something you dare not ask for because of the financial punishment if you lose. You're already losing substantial equity in the home. To risk liability for court and legal costs is enough to make you sweat! Most prefer to take the bullet and proceed meekly.