Winners of eminent domain case order residents out

[donsu]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--seizingproperty0913sep13,0,4241656.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut


The New London agency that won a U.S. Supreme Court victory allowing it to seize property for private development is telling residents to vacate the homes, reigniting a controversy that has spread across the country.

A group representing the home owners accused the quasi-public New London Development Corp. of reneging on a promise not to seize the properties while lawmakers considered changing the state's eminent domain laws. State House Minority Leader Robert Ward, a Republican, called for a special session to enact a moratorium on property seizures, while the homeowners vowed to continue fighting.

-snip-

The notices order the property owners and tenants to vacate within 30 to 90 days and start paying rent to the NLDC during that period, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based group representing the homeowners.

-snip-

There are 15 homes in question comprising 1.54 acres of the 94-acre development area. The agency only had authorization to send out the five notices and is waiting for the state Superior Court to adopt the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, which involves all the properties, agency officials said.
-snip-
----------------------------------


in america your home is not your castle even if it's a bought and paid for castle

whatever happened to Robin Hood?

[aquart]

1. So much for the "ownership society."

The bastards are insisting homeowner PAY RENT for their own homes????

I'm sorry, I don't give a damn what the excuse is. If you own it, pay your taxes, it's YOURS. And if you don't want to give it up, let them build around you. This is an outrage. NO EXCUSE.

[acmavm]

2. The original intent of the founding fathers was that Americans have a

right to life, liberty, and property. (Happiness cannot be legislated.)

Now the wording needs to be changed to the rich have a right to life, liberty and property, the rest of you can drop back five and punt.

[Ksec]

3. They switched "americans" to corporations,

Corporations have the right to do anything they damn well please. And America is seeing the results of corporate whoring.

[DarkTirade]

4. Honestly, I'm surprised that no violence

has been incited over this issue. This is government sponsored theft, there's no other way of seeing it.

[Rex]

5. To all you lurking FRtrolls

Thanks for supporting a gummit that is taking away guns and homes from honest taxpayers! Way to go, morans!

[Smallberries]

7. Thank you, Supreme Court!

So...who on the Supreme Court voted for this...and who voted against?

Stupid Scalia and Thomas...

...oh ... wait.

[bluestateguy]

10. 3 of the 5 yes votes on the Court were Republican appointees

Shame on Breyer and Ginsburg, but Republicans don't get off scot free here.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

16. You did not contest my facts

Souter was appointed by Bush I in 1990; Kennedy by Reagan in 1987; Stevens by Ford in 1975.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

19. Then I think you owe it to the people here to prove those assertions

Any books you could recommend that could veryify those tall tales? Any links to sites that could verify any of that?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

23. You can love scalia all you want to

and thomas...shouldn't have allowed them to rig the 2000 elections. :eyes:

[tammywammy]

9. ....

Sorry, you can't really blame this one on Bush. It was the Supreme Court that decided this case...Stevens, Souter, Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy.

[donsu]

21. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy are part of the bushgang

nt

[Retired AF Dem]

22. Is the gummit supporting the taking of homes

or the courts? The way I see it it is local gov both Dem and Rep that supports it for a higher tax base. I just have to say if my local govt tries to take my house and property to build a new Walmart I will take as many as I can before they kill me.

[Rex]

25. Last time I checked the Judicial branch was part of the gummit

don't worry (especially you smallberries) the gummit will be around to take your home and guns away from you soon!

Coming to a small town near you!

[Mairead]

6. Boil it down and it's a compulsory sale to elite special interests.

For the price that they or their minions set.

How much worse do things have to get, anyway? Is there any point at which people will take to the streets?

[insanity]

8. I've got no problem with eminent domain, but this is wrong

This isn't taking a house to build a park or a bridge or something the whole community could have open access to. This is about feeding some capitalistic development fund to build a fucking beacon to excess. To make it worse, these assholes now think they can enforce rent. If the homeowners are unsuccessful, then I hope the bill that blocks federal funding for this project passes.

[Retired AF Dem]

26. To say it more simply

Take your private property to make it someone's else's private property.

[Seansky]

11. that was my nightmare last night * had taken my

house...I hate this...

[mainegreen]

12. I hope the residents win.

Barring that, I hope they go all French Revolution on their ass.

[dcfirefighter]

13. SC only allows it, state legislatures actually *DO* it

I don't like it, but don't blame the SC, blame CT.

As far as bought and paid for land: who did you buy it from? Who did they buy it from? so on and so on, and you get to the second h. sapiens to an area hitting the first h. sapiens with a club.

It's tough, it's ingrained, it could be painful, but people must recognize that ownership of god/nature's gifts is only a societal convention. When you exclude others from what should be a birthright to all, you owe compensation.

On the bright side, the ownership of land property is so drastically skewed, assessing taxes as a percent of land value is quite progressive. Just don't tax buildings, and you get an incentive to build houses and businesses in good locations, and you reduce sprawl pressures.

[tammywammy]

14. You're right

It's the state legislatures that now need to get to work to protect their citizen from this.

Unfortunately, I live in Texas, and our legislature is really just good for nothing.

[NaturalHigh]

17. Do the landgrabbers at least have to pay the homeowners?

[Lars39]

24. If it's the same bunch I'd read about before,

they were actually trying to charge the landowners for back rent!

[K-W]

29. ignore, mispost

[K-W]

27. The city will pay the property owners.

The constitution requires that the government pay for any land it grabs.

Whether or not the compensation is just is a debated issue, but it is supposed to be.

[K-W]

28. To the supreme court blamers. Please read the decision.

Here is a syllubus:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

Kelo was the plantiff. The lower court sided with New London. Kelo was asking the supreme court to set precedent by by declaring that supporting economic development was not a public use. It did not set precident. It did not change eminant domain. Dont believe the hype.

The real villian here, here is the 'free market' the problem here is that the economy is controlled by reckless profiteers who have equated economic development with thier own exploitation and empire building. The constitution gives government the power to sieze land, that is all the supreme court can rule on, it cant rule on the fact that the government is full of profiteers and criminals.

in america your home is not your castle even if it's a bought and paid for castle

No, we dont have castles because this isnt feudalism. Property is a legal contstruct in a republic. The only reason you have property is because of a government who controls the land and gives you the priveledge of ownership.

whatever happened to Robin Hood?

Robin Hood redistributed property. If you want the government to do so like Robin Hood, you need to change the government, not destroy the governments ability to regulate property. Because guess what, the people who have real power over property arent home owners. They are the extremely wealthy.