tpter1

I saw this on Yahoo News this AM. At first glance, I thought it was an action against messy or derelict property. This is pretty shocking when you get right down to what's really happening.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...izing_property

__________________
-Glenn
"Roses have thorns; shining waters mud. Clouds and eclipses stain the moon and the sun; and history reeks of the wrongs we have done. After today, after today, consider me gone."- Sting

st. paulitan

Could this be the type of case we look back on as having opened a Pandora's box of seizure of private homes? I was very surprised to hear this outcome and thought that this cannot bode well for those in a similar situation as those homes will be destroyed. Developers may sharpen their lookout for modest homes in scenic areas and then dangle a prospect or two in front of a strapped local government in order to raise tax revenues.................

W Scott

Folks, this type of seizure of property is already being done in a majority of states. All that the decision today does is make clear that (according to the U.S. Supreme court) the constitution does allow for this type of taking. But, the decision will be at the munincipal level----not at the Federal level. This decision will, I hope, serve as a catalyst to get folks off their derriers and involved with local politics.

__________________
Gabriel is NOT a woodwind player!

Tootsall

I saw that article yesterday also. Figuring it was US politics though, I thought I'd stay out of it. Pretty darn scary stuff! Since when is it government's responsibility to determine that one non-government organisation's (the developer) rights are more important than the individual citizen's rights? I'd be spitting mad if that happened to me.

What is it that they say? The tyranny of the majority vs the rights of the minority? (Yeah, I hacked it but you get my drift).

st. paulitan

Hey Tootsall,

Remember that, to quote Calvin Coolidge, "the business of America is business," and pesky impediments to developers such as homeowners may now be more easily removed. Forward into the 1920's!

Mr. Semman

No doubt that what appears to be detrimental on the surface, is actually a boon to civil liberties beneath the surface. The U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling gave a general okay, which only reinforced the local laws, but left a great deal unstated. The "Due Process" of any action taken, especially in the Fort Trumbull section of New London, will be placed under an electron microscope for any faults. If any are found, then rest assured that the issue will again be before the Federal Courts. I have a feeling that this will only be the tip of the ice berg!

__________________
ZeuS Olympus ZTR 1000
ZeuS Guarenius ZTR 900
Ageis F2
Bach 3C
Bach 5C
________________________________________

"Let your words be soft and sweet. You never know when you will have to eat them!"

old geezer

This has been happening in Indiana for years. I have had several friends who have lost homes when the airport decided to expand [even though they lived around 5 or 6 miles away, flight path and such]. They usually give you several offers and if you don't accept they condem the property and low ball you. I also had a friend here at work that had a natural gas well on his property [ ran everything in his house off of that well, had a commercial generator to make elect. ] and when the energy crisis hit in 79 the feds came out and capped his well. old geezer Dave

__________________
L.A.Benge 2ML 16389
L.A.Benge 2MLP 11745
K- Allmen 1414
Yamaha 231 Flugel 15383
Olds Amb. Cornet 50734