US Supreme Court has gone mad!

[The diplomat]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

The rest of the article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

I know it was a close vote, 5-4 but still. What is wrong with SCOTUS? Have they gone mad?

Suffice to say, I don't agree with this decision at all. Government, local or not, should not have that much power to displace people from their homes. It's not right.

[Stuie]

I cannot believe that for once I agree with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas (who were joined by O'Connor in dissent).

[DinoDoc]

US Supreme Court has gone mad!

What else is new? Though this case seems to hinge on how broadly one wishes to interpret what a public good is. I had hoped that the Court would close the door on a rather obvious avenue for abuse of power.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Stuie
I cannot believe that for once I agree with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas (who were joined by O'Connor in dissent).

Ditto.

I was hopping the lower court rulings against this action were upheld.

[DanS]

I don't know whether to be shocked or heartened by this decision. It could help clean up many city areas. On the other hand, this seems like an area ripe for pretty awful abuse. At a minimum, it could encourage private companies to go to the government first to try to get their way rather than going directly to the owners. That doesn't strike me as a good state of affairs.

[MichaeltheGreat]

In a lot of cities, owners and other affected parties would have some potential for forcing the development approval to the voters as a ballot measure.

It should make property owners a lot more interested in planning commission and city/county government.

Owners also still have the threat of litigation over what is fair value.

[St Leo]

Ugh. Eminent domain meets privatization. Eeew.

[DAVOUT]

Are the owners correctly indemnized?

[EPW]

Re: US Supreme Court has gone mad!

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

Just like in Simcity

[Dinner]

The city of San Diego has been big users of eminent domain to sieze property which would then be used for private development. My favorate coffee shop/hooka bar (where we went on a poly meet a few years back) got closed down because the city council was using eminent domain to take the land then give it to a developer who used it to build a new hotel downtown. Like we need yet another hotel in this city.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Agree this is rediculus, only in some kind of utopian society would this power not be abused. Public Infastructure is the only legit reason for Eminent Domain (and with proper city planing it shouldn't even happen that often). They are as usualy whacked out of 5/9ths of their heads.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interesting majority blurb:

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens (search) said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

Interestingly the majority is using the argument that they are trying to avoid judicial activism and the states are where to go for relief.

[OzzyKP]

Bah, such bull****...

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know, it's interesting. On another board, people didn't realize that the government, even before this opinion, could have taken anyone's land and ran a public business on it. I wonder if a lot of people don't realize what the government's power was before this decision (as I don't know if it'll really be used that much more often... the potentially displaced are voters after all).

[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.