US Supreme Court has gone mad!

[boann]

sorry didn't see your thread on it..
ill post ming to close mine



O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
vote for Rider for San Diego mayor in the coming special election.

vote libertarian, the only party who protects you from the government's abuses.

I like Donna Frye; I know she's a surfer chick who runs a surf shop (how San Diegan?) but she really impressed me during the debates last year. Donna Frye is a lady who knows a lot about this city, who has a good vision about where this city should go, and who isn't corrupted the way the Republican establishment is.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

vote Rider for San Diego mayor!

[JohnT]

Jesus H. Christ.

I bet Wal-Mart is having a celebration right about now.

[Tuberski]

You mean that 25 years ago when they took my grandmothers house for a shopping center, it was illegal?

The sad part was that the house stood there for another 20 years and was finally burned down by squatters.

It's now a minor league baseball stadium.

ACK!

[GePap]

Well, people better get more involved in their local government and follow local planning boards and such if they don;t want to get bulldozed out of house and home.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Planning boards.... "Beware of the Leopard"

[MrFun]

This is ****ing bullsh!t.

[DanS]

Are the owners correctly indemnized?

Yes.

[MrFun]

The right of property for private citizens doesn't mean **** when it comes to corporate interests.

That is nothing new, but it doesn't lessen the outrage of this ruling.

[Dinner]

The sad fact is politically connected developers will now be able to sieze land they only had wet dreams about before.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Unbe fuggin believable.

I don't think I've ever been more disgusted in our judical process.

So begins the end of society once the observance of private property rights is so cavalierly dismissed.

[VetLegion]

How local are these "local governments" from the original post?

Are we talking, state, county, city, city block -- which have the right to seize property now?

[GePap]

Municipal government (ie, the City), so the most local brand.

Interestingly enough, its the level of government the media never really covers, the one a very small num,ber of people ever participate in nationally, and yet, as this case shows, probably the one that affects the average person most.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by DanS

Are the owners correctly indemnized?

Yes.

Define "correctly". I somehow doubt it will be what the owners would have sold for before this ruling (assuming they would have sold at all.)