PDA

View Full Version : Worst Supreme Court decision ever.


Rain Man
06-23-2005, 04:30 PM
I'm seeing this more and more. Local governments are pretending that they're developers (with no risk) and they're STEALING private citizens' property so they can sell it to developers. It's unbelievable that the Supreme Court has chosen to destroy individuals' right to hold or sell their property.

This decision will come back to haunt this country. It opens the door to the ultimate in governmental abuse. Watch out for the day that the mayor gets mad at you and steals your property to sell to Starbucks, because now he can do it.

Abso-freaking-lutely amazing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/


Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005WASHINGTON - 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.

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.

The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as handing “disproportionate influence and power” to the well-heeled — represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.

Those residents 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.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to “just compensation” for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

“It’s a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,” said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. “I won’t be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.”

Click for related content
Live Vote: What's your view of Supreme Court ruling?
Background on key U.S. Supreme Court cases




Jobs, tax revenue cited
Writing for the court’s majority in Thursday’s ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens 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.

“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Stevens wrote.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

O’Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with “just compensation,” is unconstitutional.

“The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,” Thomas wrote. “So-called ’urban renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.”

Homeowners refused to budge
The case involves Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., who filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

The residents had refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.

“I’m not willing to give up what I have just because someone else can generate more taxes here,” said homeowner Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the neighborhood known as Fort Trumbull for more than 100 years.

New London contends the condemnations are proper because the development plans serving a “public purpose” — such as boosting economic growth — are valid “public use” projects that outweigh the property rights of the homeowners.

The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling 4-3 in March 2004 that the mere promise of additional tax revenue justified the condemnation.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned between 1998 and 2002, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

advertisement

In many cases, according to the group, cities are pushing the limits of their power to accommodate wealthy developers. Courts, meanwhile, are divided over the extent of city power, with seven states saying economic development can justify a taking and eight states allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

In New London, city officials envision replacing a stagnant enclave with commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

“The record is clear that New London was a city desperate for economic rejuvenation,” the city’s legal filing states, in asking the high court to defer to local governments in deciding what constitutes “public use.”

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

Where other states stand
According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

Eight states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight; they are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.

Another three — Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts — have indicated they probably will find condemnations for economic development alone unconstitutional, while the remaining states have not addressed or spoken clearly to the question.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

JimNasium
06-23-2005, 04:36 PM
Come to think of it a coffee house would look really nice in your neighborhood.

Ari Chi3fs
06-23-2005, 04:52 PM
This country has really gone down the shitter since Bush2 took over. Like my opinion or not.

mikey23545
06-23-2005, 04:54 PM
This country has really gone down the shitter since Bush2 took over. Like my opinion or not.

True.
I can't believe Bush made this decision.
Well, him and all of Clinton's appointees on the Supreme Court.

stevieray
06-23-2005, 04:55 PM
Well, him and all of Clinton's appointees on the Supreme Court.


ROFL

Cochise
06-23-2005, 04:55 PM
This country has really gone down the shitter since Bush2 took over. Like my opinion or not.

Damn Bush2 and his supreme court rulings, and all those justices he didn't appoint.

Rain Man
06-23-2005, 04:57 PM
Come to think of it a coffee house would look really nice in your neighborhood.

Actually, you're right. Maybe I should write a threatening letter to the mayor and sign it with a neighbor's name.

Zebedee DuBois
06-23-2005, 04:58 PM
This is disconcerting.

While the free enterprize system works great in lots of ways, it isn't all rosy. People get hurt.

Government shouldn't be in the business of promoting business. Government should be in the business of creating a level playing field for all entrepenours (sp?) and making sure that the rights of any citizen are not trampled by the desires of other citizens for a buck.

Rain Man
06-23-2005, 05:07 PM
I was in a meeting once with some government folks who were talking about a business. They were saying, "It's not a great-looking building. It'd be much better if we had some nice new business on the corner, so let's condemn it and take it over."

Granted, the building was run down and it wasn't great-looking, but hey, it belonged to a guy who was running a legitimate business. If they wanted to buy it, fine. Make the guy an offer. But they were just planning to take it.

There have been two high-profile cases like this in recent years in Denver, not counting the one I'm referring to. And those are only the cases where the business owner was fighting like heck to keep his property from getting stolen.

Man, I'm ready to start the revolution over this.

Frazod
06-23-2005, 05:24 PM
My simple definition of eminent domain used to be "the government's right to take your shit in the name of the people."

Now I guess I'll have to change it to "the government's right to take your shit in the name of rich, politician-owning developers."

:shake:

Skip Towne
06-23-2005, 05:48 PM
I was in a meeting once with some government folks who were talking about a business. They were saying, "It's not a great-looking building. It'd be much better if we had some nice new business on the corner, so let's condemn it and take it over."

Granted, the building was run down and it wasn't great-looking, but hey, it belonged to a guy who was running a legitimate business. If they wanted to buy it, fine. Make the guy an offer. But they were just planning to take it.

There have been two high-profile cases like this in recent years in Denver, not counting the one I'm referring to. And those are only the cases where the business owner was fighting like heck to keep his property from getting stolen.

Man, I'm ready to start the revolution over this.
I was ready 20 years ago.

Dave Lane
06-23-2005, 06:00 PM
This is the way it has always been. You don't own anything. The King gives and the King takes away. I'm amazed at the naiveté attitudes here. The right of eminent domain has been around for ages. I used to wield such power years ago.

Every utility company, local, state and federal government have the right to put you out any time they feel fit and do whatever they want with your property. I think Bush is the ultimate dufus but this is way beyond him.

Say you have a $250,000,000 project and one person refuses to sell you their land? Poof their land is gone and the project is completed. It’s a needed power by the state and hopefully they normally use it wisely.

Dave

Rain Man
06-23-2005, 06:19 PM
I understand the reluctant need to use eminent domain powers in the cases of building roads and power lines and that sort of thing. I think that's a necessary evil.

But this is fundamentally different in my mind. Local governments can now take your land and sell it to Starbucks or Wal-Mart, based on nothing more than their own ability to make money off of the deal. In fact, they can take it SPECULATIVELY, and then shop it around and see who'll pay them the most for it. It's the end of private property as we know it, because we now own property only if the government can't make money off of it by selling it.

milkman
06-23-2005, 07:35 PM
I don't usually get involved in political discussions, but this really bites.

I've always said that a person never really owns a house, they just have it on lease from the government.

This ruling just makes that 'lease' even more fragile, and is just another example of government's lack of concern for the people they are supposed to be representng.

DJay23
06-23-2005, 07:40 PM
Seems to me that local government officials who try to exercise this "right" won't be local government officials for long.

gblowfish
06-23-2005, 08:20 PM
Actually, you're right. Maybe I should write a threatening letter to the mayor and sign it with a neighbor's name.
Then burn a flag on his front porch!!!

alanm
06-23-2005, 09:45 PM
Say you want a revolution, well you know, We'd all love to see the plan.:thumb:

Manila-Chief
06-23-2005, 11:45 PM
I understand the reluctant need to use eminent domain powers in the cases of building roads and power lines and that sort of thing. I think that's a necessary evil.

But this is fundamentally different in my mind. Local governments can now take your land and sell it to Starbucks or Wal-Mart, based on nothing more than their own ability to make money off of the deal. In fact, they can take it SPECULATIVELY, and then shop it around and see who'll pay them the most for it. It's the end of private property as we know it, because we now own property only if the government can't make money off of it by selling it.

Hey, this is frightening ... twice in the last couple of days I agree with you!!! The right wing makes a big deal over being anti-communists ... but this smacks of the same thing. This decision is just plain WRONG!!!!

I am an anti-bush supporter ... but this is not, yet, his responsibility. If he appoints a couple of justices then it would be his concern. I know he is for the rich and the rich are the ones getting richer over these projects ... but still too much of a stretch to blame him for this decision.

Whatever happened with the right wing's "personal freedom" issue???

alanm
06-24-2005, 12:26 AM
I've been wondering where the ACLU is in all of this? Oh that's right... Concerned with Honey glazed chicken and rice pilaf being served at Gitmo. :shake:

trndobrd
06-24-2005, 12:57 AM
I don't know about "worst ever"...hard to get much worse than Dred Scott. Still this decision is a stinky-stinker. I wonder if the Justices were reading the same 5th ammendment that is in the glossary of my 7th grade civics book:

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

It says 'public USE' not 'public BENEFIT'

ENDelt260
06-24-2005, 01:49 AM
Seems to me that local government officials who try to exercise this "right" won't be local government officials for long.
Nonsense. Once they snatch your land, you'll have to move out of their district. How will you vote them out of office then?

Brilliant!

jynni
06-24-2005, 06:31 AM
There was a situation out in Belton/Raymore a few months ago involving the Dean Farm.

Lowes wanted to use the land the farm was on - the Raymore council suggested that eminent domain might be used. Lowes ended up on the receiving end of some pretty bad publicity (Dean Farm being kind of a landmark out there). Boycotts were threatened (Home Depot is just down the street) and I know people that are still so pissed that they will be boycotting Lowes even though everthing was settled fairly (at least from what I heard).

Sam
06-24-2005, 08:29 AM
There was a situation out in Belton/Raymore a few months ago involving the Dean Farm.

Lowes wanted to use the land the farm was on - the Raymore council suggested that eminent domain might be used. Lowes ended up on the receiving end of some pretty bad publicity (Dean Farm being kind of a landmark out there). Boycotts were threatened (Home Depot is just down the street) and I know people that are still so pissed that they will be boycotting Lowes even though everthing was settled fairly (at least from what I heard).


Yeah, that family had given up many, many acres of their family farm to the city, that they've owned for many generations, over the last few years in order to let the city expand and grow. All they wanted to keep was a small tract that the family farm house was on. Then after all their good will towards the city the city comes back and wants all the rest of it.

I think the family's being ousted should find out where the heads of these corporations and cities (and now I guess even the judges) live and then go submit plans to their city's for new businesses that will generate more tax revenue. Just to see how they'd like it!

Sam
06-24-2005, 08:36 AM
I think the family's being ousted should find out where the heads of these corporations and cities (and now I guess even the judges) live and then go submit plans to their city's for new businesses that will generate more tax revenue. Just to see how they'd like it!

Ahh, screw that. They should just take whatever money they receive and go buy a fleet of bull dozers and just start knocking down all responsible party's homes for the hell of it!

DJay23
06-24-2005, 08:38 AM
Nonsense. Once they snatch your land, you'll have to move out of their district. How will you vote them out of office then?

Brilliant!
Whether I vote for them or not, I think, makes no difference. I'd expect that most citizens don't want to be represented by people who will take their homes.

ChiTown
06-24-2005, 08:44 AM
This is just one in a long line of examples of how the Judicial systems in the US are completely fooked up. When I first read this yesterday, I thought it was a joke.

People, we are losing more and more rights everyday. Somehow, I don't think this is the type of democratic system our Founding Fathers had in mind. To be honest, this is more in line with how the Chinese would operate :shake:

Brock
06-24-2005, 08:47 AM
[whineyTacovoice]But what about the Paaaaatriot act?[//whineyTacovoice]

mikey23545
06-24-2005, 09:17 AM
Hey, this is frightening ... twice in the last couple of days I agree with you!!! The right wing makes a big deal over being anti-communists ... but this smacks of the same thing. This decision is just plain WRONG!!!!

I am an anti-bush supporter ... but this is not, yet, his responsibility. If he appoints a couple of justices then it would be his concern. I know he is for the rich and the rich are the ones getting richer over these projects ... but still too much of a stretch to blame him for this decision.

Whatever happened with the right wing's "personal freedom" issue???

Perhaps if you knew how to read you'd realize it was mostly the left-wingers on the Court that supported it, with the right-wingers opposing it....

Rain Man
06-24-2005, 09:17 AM
I don't know about "worst ever"...hard to get much worse than Dred Scott.

I don't know. In Dred Scott, the justices voted to protect property rights.


(That's going to cost me some time in purgatory, but I couldn't resist.)

WolfDawg
06-25-2005, 08:38 PM
Seems to me that local government officials who try to exercise this "right" won't be local government officials for long.

Yeah hard to be a government official when you've had six 9mm rounds pumped into you.

ENDelt260
06-25-2005, 08:57 PM
I don't know. In Dred Scott, the justices voted to protect property rights.

Hahahaha.

cosmo20002
06-25-2005, 09:14 PM
As usual, people get hysterical about things without thinking it through. The ruling makes sense and eminent domain is necessary. First, your property can't just be "taken" they do have to pay you.

But the main point is that eminent domain allows progress in cities. It allows downtown arenas to be built, for example. Should 1 person be able to hold up progress? The ruling just upholds the ability to govts to do this, when appropriate. What's appropriate may remain up for debate and probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The SC didn't say it can be done on a whim.

I understand the frustration of people affected by it, and I hope I'm never one of them, but without it, it would be nearly impossible for development and progress in some areas.

CHIEF4EVER
06-25-2005, 09:37 PM
As usual, people get hysterical about things without thinking it through. The ruling makes sense and eminent domain is necessary. First, your property can't just be "taken" they do have to pay you.

But the main point is that eminent domain allows progress in cities. It allows downtown arenas to be built, for example. Should 1 person be able to hold up progress? The ruling just upholds the ability to govts to do this, when appropriate. What's appropriate may remain up for debate and probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The SC didn't say it can be done on a whim.

I understand the frustration of people affected by it, and I hope I'm never one of them, but without it, it would be nearly impossible for development and progress in some areas.

And who arrives at what constitutes "fair compensation"? Fact is, you are going to get lowballed each and every time simply because they know they can get away with it. They have the leverage, you don't. The only protection you have in such a case is, believe it or not, the press. I know this as my father in law was subjected to this type of bullcrap by the State of Missouri. He had an established business and the State tried to lowball him. The State ended up using some other poor schmuck's property who was easier to deal with/beat down.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2005, 11:15 PM
Plessy v. Ferguson sucked bad too.

Brock
06-25-2005, 11:17 PM
As usual, people get hysterical about things without thinking it through. The ruling makes sense and eminent domain is necessary. First, your property can't just be "taken" they do have to pay you.


Eminent domain is not the problem, which you would recognize if you actually read the decision and as you say, thought it through. The problem is this is eminent domain for the sake of private development, i.e. shopping malls and wal marts, not parks and golf courses. The businesses who want the lands should have to negotiate with and pay individually, each homeowner, not use the government as their proxy.

Rain Man
06-26-2005, 12:56 AM
Overreaction.

I never overreact. If you ever say that again, I'll chop you into small pieces and feed you to your dog.

As usual, people get hysterical about things without thinking it through. The ruling makes sense and eminent domain is necessary. First, your property can't just be "taken" they do have to pay you.

They have to pay you some amount that they select. If I'm going to sell my property, I'd prefer that the amount be mutually agreed upon, you know, like what happens in a capitalistic society.

But the main point is that eminent domain allows progress in cities. It allows downtown arenas to be built, for example. Should 1 person be able to hold up progress?

Eminent domain is a necessary evil for infrastructure development like roads and dams and power. My personal opinion is that it is not necessary for "progress" to take someone's home to build a strip mall or condos. That's what has happened in at least two instances here in Colorado.

A couple of years ago, the local government in one of our suburban cities tried to take a man's family business so they could replace it with a strip mall. The justification was that a strip mall would produce more revenue and provide a "nicer entrance" to the city. The man was a second-generation auto mechanic whose father had started the business in that building. It wasn't fancy, but it was reasonably clean and more importantly, it was the man's livelihood.

About four years ago, the City of Denver got into a battle when they tried to take over an independent restaurant as an expansion to the Art Museum. The restaurant owner was well-situated to take advantage of the expansion, and absolutely didn't want to move. The City forced his taxpaying business to shut down and leave, and then guess what? They built a bunch of condos on the property and sold them just to make a profit. Not only did they take his land, but they used their power to compete unfairly with private housing developers, and you know what? My taxes didn't go down a penny, and I'll bet they're actually more likely to go up, since the long-term tax base went down. Where was the public benefit from that, other than getting to see the City give bigger raises to City employees?

The ruling just upholds the ability to govts to do this, when appropriate. What's appropriate may remain up for debate and probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The SC didn't say it can be done on a whim.

More importantly, they didn't say it couldn't. I guarantee that you will see this policy being abused now that it's received the green light. I've already seen it being abused here in Colorado.

I understand the frustration of people affected by it, and I hope I'm never one of them, but without it, it would be nearly impossible for development and progress in some areas.

It depends on how you define progress. Roads and power are necessary for progress in my book, but I don't necessarily think that speculative government involvement in real estate development is progress.


True story: Two blocks from my house, there's a Safeway store. The Safeway wanted to expand, and there was a lot of resistance from the neighborhood. I live in a historic district, and the Safeway is located right on the border of the district. To expand, they needed to tear down some turn-of-the-century houses that were located just outside the district.

Safeway handled it very well. They made offers to the four houses that had to be torn down that were generous enough to be accepted. They then worked out a deal with the neighborhood association to provide improvements that offset the loss of the houses, such as the development of a new alley and some nice architectural work to make the expansion low key. In the end, it worked out well for everyone, because everyone mutually agreed to the terms and conditions and everyone had the opportunity to refuse. It was a successful negotiation that all sides thought were fair, or they wouldn't have agree to it.

With the new policy, the city government here, which is predominantly lazy and corrupt, would have sent jackbooted city hoodlums to force out the property owners at Safeway's initial offering price, which was lower than what was later established as the market value of the land. Then, with no leverage, we would've had a big, ugly, low-bid expansion with no protection of the outside neighborhood. Safeway would've made a ton of money in that scenario by buying for a low cost and not improving the property to the same level of quality.

trndobrd
06-26-2005, 01:33 AM
A couple of years ago, the local government in one of our suburban cities tried to take a man's family business so they could replace it with a strip mall. The justification was that a strip mall would produce more revenue and provide a "nicer entrance" to the city. The man was a second-generation auto mechanic whose father had started the business in that building. It wasn't fancy, but it was reasonably clean and more importantly, it was the man's livelihood.




The guy should have formed a corporation, then dumped all his waste oil and all the hazardous waste produced in the greater Denver Metro area into a hole in the back of the property. Take the pittance the city paid him for the property, dissolve the corporation and move out of state.

Fast forward ten years. Call the EPA and tell them all the kids in the neighborhood have lukemia and they need to do some soil samples. Guess what, if a previous owner can't be pegged with the cleanup costs (i.e. an non existant corporation) then the current owner gets to pay, even if they had nothing to do with the contamination. Right back at ya, evil strip mall devlopers.

ENDelt260
06-26-2005, 03:08 AM
The guy should have formed a corporation, then dumped all his waste oil and all the hazardous waste produced in the greater Denver Metro area into a hole in the back of the property. Take the pittance the city paid him for the property, dissolve the corporation and move out of state.

Fast forward ten years. Call the EPA and tell them all the kids in the neighborhood have lukemia and they need to do some soil samples. Guess what, if a previous owner can't be pegged with the cleanup costs (i.e. an non existant corporation) then the current owner gets to pay, even if they had nothing to do with the contamination. Right back at ya, evil strip mall devlopers.
Holy smokes. You really are a lawyer.

*not to self... do NOT f*ck with trndobrd.***

ENDelt260
06-26-2005, 03:11 AM
FWIW, Rain Man... I don't think you should've wasted your time on your well reasoned thought out response to whatshisname. It was obvious from his post that he either didn't read the article and the thread, or was too dense to absorb them both. Either way, he's clearly not worth the effort to try to sway with well reasoned arguments. A quick jab like Brock's, (and, I can't believe I'm saying this, I don't think Brock's jab was nearly abrasive enough) is about all he's worth. And I, personally, decided he wasn't even worth that effort.

the Talking Can
06-26-2005, 04:59 AM
Perhaps if you knew how to read you'd realize it was mostly the left-wingers on the Court that supported it, with the right-wingers opposing it....

give me a break...6 members of the court were appointed by Republican presidents...if you don't like the makeup you've got nothing but Reagan and Bush I to blame...

yoswif
06-26-2005, 06:22 AM
Hey, this is frightening ... twice in the last couple of days I agree with you!!! The right wing makes a big deal over being anti-communists ... but this smacks of the same thing. This decision is just plain WRONG!!!!

I am an anti-bush supporter ... but this is not, yet, his responsibility. If he appoints a couple of justices then it would be his concern. I know he is for the rich and the rich are the ones getting richer over these projects ... but still too much of a stretch to blame him for this decision.

Whatever happened with the right wing's "personal freedom" issue???

If you check the background of the local "official" behind the New London project, she sounds like some left wing yuppie, not a conservative. She's married to a Phizer executive, the major corporate sponsor of the project.

http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-usland244250862may08,0,4422002,print.story

The public interest law firm representing the landowners is Institute for Justice, a conservative/libertarian group, not the ACLU, a liberal/socialist group.

This decision looks like the left wing Supremes backing left wing big city governments and the big corporations that own them. The little guys don't stand a chance when entrenched big city political machines can hook up with huge corporations wanting to buy cheap city property.

WolfDawg
06-26-2005, 06:27 AM
I never overreact. If you ever say that again, I'll chop you into small pieces and feed you to your dog.




ROFL
Rep for that, it might become my new sig line.

Rain Man
06-26-2005, 01:39 PM
The guy should have formed a corporation, then dumped all his waste oil and all the hazardous waste produced in the greater Denver Metro area into a hole in the back of the property. Take the pittance the city paid him for the property, dissolve the corporation and move out of state.

Fast forward ten years. Call the EPA and tell them all the kids in the neighborhood have lukemia and they need to do some soil samples. Guess what, if a previous owner can't be pegged with the cleanup costs (i.e. an non existant corporation) then the current owner gets to pay, even if they had nothing to do with the contamination. Right back at ya, evil strip mall devlopers.


I want you on my side.

Dayze
06-26-2005, 09:07 PM
Note; anyone in DC who holds an office/cabinet position, etc.

is completely F.O.S. Period.


Wonder if you shot the guy in the bulldozer for trespassing; if you would go to jail? Or if you strategically placed some anti-personnel mines along the entrace to your property.

Probably :mad:

$100 says none of the justices homes would be bulldozed.

F*ckers.

This makes me so mad, it's incredible. All politicians deserve a healthy kick to the nuts - period. They will screw you over as soon as it's in their best interests.