Cities seize private property for developers

[Arvon]

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?

[Timber Loftis]

From the article: The Constitution says that so long as owners receive just compensation, private property can be taken for ''public use.'' In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that includes plans that serve a ''public purpose,'' even if the land ends up in private hands.

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?

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by MagiK: Looks like plain simple greed here.

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

and Im just a throne....how fitting

[Micah Foehammer]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: 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.

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 ]

[Arvon]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: From the article: The Constitution says that so long as owners receive just compensation, private property can be taken for ''public use.'' In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that includes plans that serve a ''public purpose,'' even if the land ends up in private hands.

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? [/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.

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.