High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property - Spurs/Pistons
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.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Is this another move towards limiting our rights as citizens, or does it have merit? I know how it appears to me. We seem to be having our rights as citizens stripped away one by one!!
Who are you pulling for; Spurs, Pistons, or do you care?
Garza
posted by Garza at 7:52 AM
8 Comments:
It is another power grab by government. If they didn't spend wildly they wouldn't need more tax revenue & thus they wouldn't need to steal private property. Spurs/Pistons? The only game in town is March Madness. Thanks for visiting my site.
I stepped out today and made two posts. See below.
Pretty soon they'll be seizing our children. Sounds paranoid, I know, but nothing surprises me these days.
Tanya
It's like we're wandering into the realm of science fiction...
My point in all these blogs about the supreme court decision is this:
I find it interesting that it was the LIBERAL judges that held sway in this case. Liberals are the ones that are supposed to be the champions of the downtrodden. Who, in this case, are more downtrodden than the poor propeerty owner that finds his property is expendable in the interest of highter tax revenues?
I dont agree with this decision at all. To have the home you worked your butt off for stripped away from you for a shopping mall? That is surely NOT the American dream I expected.
The liberal court justices were in a dither: yes, they are for the down-trodden, but then again, they are for bigger government. What to do...what to do? So they went for bigger government. So sad,too bad, sucks being poor.
The Idea that the Liberals are for the poor and downtrodden is a fallacy. They are only for bigger, more intrusive, more confiscatory government.
They scream about the evils of tax cuts for the rich,(The creators of jobs) and at the same time, support the confiscation of the property of poor people, to be given to richer people if it creates more revenue for the local governments, and people buy this premise one time right after the other.
It makes me crazy...
Post a Comment
<< Home