property rights lost
Jun. 23rd, 2005 11:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chelidonPay attention to this one if you're a property owner, or may be someday. What it essentially says is that your local government can seize your property at any time, for any reason they deem sufficient, including because a developer wants what you have. Aside from the injustice issues (and I agree with O'Conner in her dissent), this makes it all the more important to pick a place to live where you trust your local government, if at all possible.
Full story: High court OKs personal property seizures (subhed: Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- 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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Full story: High court OKs personal property seizures (subhed: Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- 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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 09:06 pm (UTC)As much as I gripe about any taxes, I'll pay 'em although I just don't like the concept of the "public" taking away my house if I need to protest in that respect (we'll have 6 different property taxing bodies when the new law we passed takes effect). Add the factor of "public" good for a private company and I wonder when we'll start seeing businesses start pushing more for the land grabs.
Yep, through Amy and Dave and I had to do a double-take when you posted a response in Content's journal. Hopefully we can hook up when you're down here again!