Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[Unchainme]

i don't care if your a Republican or a Democrat this ruling was pure Bullshit. And I'm just suprised those judges have not been Impeached yet, some of their decisions lately have been ridiculous.

[DLR'sCock]

Abuse of eminent domain has been going on for a long time in this country, and frankly it is fucking digusting.




We fought this with our favorite local rock n roll watering hole and place for local rock bands to perform. We got over 300 people to attend a city council meeting where the first vote was to take place that would have eventually led up to abuse of eminent domain and good bye to an infamous rock n roll club, guess what??? We won!!!


You can make a difference, organize and act. Get the numbers out there and let people know. When you get those numbers at the important meetings, those fuckers won't vote against you in front of your face.

[BITEYOASS]

I have a few ideas to help this problem:

-Run for mayor in a city or town where a supreme court member(the ones who voted yes on the ruling of course) or one of their relatives live and seize they're property; let's see how those hypocrites react then!

-Second solution is to propose a constitutional amendment to congress concerning property rights if have a congress person who actually gives a fuck.

-The third solution is to have an endangered species of plant be placed on your property.

-And the final solution is to get in a standoff with the police if all else fails.

[academic punk]

Excellent article. Worth printing out and highlighting....

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm?cnn=yes

Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?

Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond


Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?

Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.

Retailers such as Target (Research), Home Depot (Research) and Bed, Bath & Beyond (Research) have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.

Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.

Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.

The ruling would seem to offer new opportunities to retailers. However, some industry watchers caution that with Thursday's decision thrusting the eminent domain issue into the national spotlight, companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.

Craig Johnson, president of retail consulting group Customer Growth Partners, said that retailers shouldn't interpret the high court's decision to be a green light to aggressively expand even into those neighborhoods where a big-box presence is unwelcome.

"Even with the Supreme Court's decision potentially in their favor, smart retailers would rather go into communities wearing a white hat rather than a black one," said Johnson.

The appropriate move for companies would be to selectively use eminent domain as a last resort, he said, not as a first course of action. "I think companies have learned a few lessons from Wal-Mart's public relations struggles," he said.

Where's the space crunch?
According to industry watchers, retailers face a different type of expansion problem on the East Coast versus the West Coast.

"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.

Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, (Research) has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.

Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.

"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group.

Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."

"It's crazy to think about replacing existing successful small businesses with other businesses," said Adrian Moore, vice president of Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization opposed to eminent domain.

"There are many, many instances where we've found that the cities that agreed to eminent domain use not only destroyed local businesses but the tax revenue that the local government had hoped to generate did not come to pass," Moore said.

But at least one retail industry analyst sees things a little differently.

"Expanding for big box store is a challenge, especially in the Northeast. Therefore, retailers will have to devise a strategy for using eminent domain," said Candace Corlett, retail analyst with WSL Strategic nRetail.

"Local communities may oppose Wal-Mart and Target coming to their area but as consumers, they also want to shop at these stores and they complain when they don't have these stores nearby," she said. "The fact is that shoppers ultimately vote with their dollars and retailers are very well aware of that."

Click here to read about whether the government can force you to sell your house in the name of new development.

Where is Wal-Mart looking to expand overseas?

[DLR'sCock]

Yes, it is fucking disguting, and it is the same thing as THEFT!!!!!!



FUCK OFF ALL OF YOU PIECES OF SHIT!!!!!

[Nitro Express]

If the United States keeps on the path it's been on, we are headed for another civil war. The first civil war really wasn't about slavery. It was about states rights vs. federal rights. The Confederacy believed that the states should decide on issues like slavery and not the federal govt.

Our federal govt. is so awash in special interest money that the small person gets ran over by the greedy corporations that make big donations to both Democrats and Republicans. If it keeps up, there will be lots of Wal-marts and Targets burning.

[DLR'sCock]

Look remember, you can fight having some business try and take yoru land through eminent domain, but you need to figth and make a big stink. You need people to show up to the council meetings that vote on this in your local town. Get articles in the local papers, bad press is bad press for big business'.....and local town council members who are voted nto office.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by BITEYOASS
I have a few ideas to help this problem:

-Second solution is to propose a constitutional amendment to congress concerning property rights if have a congress person who actually gives a fuck.

This is most likely to happen. I think the pressure will be so great lawmakers will want to do it. Even those who think the lawmakers are in peoples pockets (and they are) this is more important because it is the PERFECT re-election issue. Your city councilman, your governor, your Congressman ALL could have any easy win on this issue. As shown in this thread, pretty much EVERYONE is against it. They all can pass this law and looking like "working class heroes" or "saviours of small business". The Congressman are likely to act on it, because they wouldn't want the small fries getting the glory.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.

Damned right they do.

[madraoul]

I used to think those new world order guys were a bunch of whackos. But I'll be damned if a lot of their rhetoric isn't coming to pass.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't property ownership the entire basis of our American way of life? With the loss of outright property ownership, we just lost any power the individual had left in this country.

Not to be dramatic, but this ruling pretty much wipes out everything after the Magna Carta. Welcome to the United Serfdom of America.

[Big Train]

Your right, that WAS a bit dramatic. But your entitled.


I think we will see some new political stars made out of this ruling. It's just too fat and too easy a target for the wannabes of tomorrow.

[madraoul]

Originally posted by Big Train
Your right, that WAS a bit dramatic. But your entitled.


I think we will see some new political stars made out of this ruling. It's just too fat and too easy a target for the wannabes of tomorrow.

Good point. This situation has "hero" potential written all over it. I wonder who will be the first to attempt to McJump up to McSave the day and take advantage of the photo op.

[thome]

-Second solution is to propose a constitutional amendment to congress concerning property rights if have a congress person who actually gives a fuck.


Shure thing lets just keep chipping away at the only part of this
great nation that ever stood for the little guy

that is some peoples idea of fixing what isnt broken slowly
destoy it while nobody is paying attention Small little piece by piece
until we have a communist socialist manifesto that has so many
stupid retards ideas of how it should be everyone is a SLAVE