Is this right?

[novella]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506240150jun24,1,7295148.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

The Supreme Court says it's okay to condemn and sieze someone's home against their will--at a fair price?--in order to develop the site into something more 'lucrative.' There are loads of cases this will affect, including a huge one along the riverbank in New London, CT, near the Long Island Sound.

The owners like living there and don't want to move. The local gov't wants to build a mall so they can make more in taxes.

 

[RitalinKid]

I'm torn on that one. My libertarian side hates taking people's shit. My business sense side says more money for the people's government is a good thing. I wish I could offer something more solid, but I'm wishy washy on that subject.

 

[Motokid]

I posted in "Only in America" on this topic. I think it's a huge, huge violation of what we've been taught and told to believe. Your home is the one place you can feel secure and safe. It's your refuge. It's your private domain that's worth defending, and possibly dying for. It's the "American dream" to own your home. A home is more than just a roof and 4 walls. It's memories, and sweat and tears. It's yours physically and emotionally. For some group of stuffed shirt politicians to be able to take that away from you to build a shopping mall, office buildings, and parking is, in my opinion "Un-American" and really a sad mark on what this country is supposed to be about.

Now I know that this has been done before in the name of cleaning up drug infested, crime riddled communities that have been left for dead for years and decades. Slums are regularly torn down and replaced with "new" stuff. But this law states that a local government can do this for just about any reason they can justify as being "better" for the economic heath of the city. That is wrong wrong wrong....

 

[novella]

Another wrinkle is the idea of fair market price.

The properties are valued at their present, predevelopment value (in a depressed area of a depressed town), though the owners are, of course, aware that two years from now their properties will be worth triple that price. Yet they have no say in the matter.

 

[cajunmama]

That's wrong....just wrong. My heart breaks for those people.

 

[Motokid]

That's wrong....just wrong. My heart breaks for those people.

There is a bit of hypocrasy though, because it's happened quite often in this country in the past. The difference is that usually it's slums and section 8 type housing that gets torn down and replaced. We can usually overlook it because the area is infested with crime and drugs, so that makes it ok.

There is a bit of a double standard there.

 

[Jenem]

maybe there ought to be rules about how long a person has resided. if someone's been in their home for more than 10 years they should be allowed to stay and the govt can't take their property.

 

[Motokid]

maybe there ought to be rules about how long a person has resided. if someone's been in their home for more than 10 years they should be allowed to stay and the govt can't take their property.

"But some homeowners, including one woman who has lived in her home since her birth in 1918, put up a fight and challenged the city's right to acquire their land for private economic redevelopment. They argued that governments could only condemn land for more obvious public uses, such as for utilities or new roads or schools or firehouses--not for private redevelopment."

How's this grab you...

 

[Jenem]

either way sounds like a load of crap. a home is a home. i wouldn't be any happier if the govt decided to throw me off so that a social services building could be put up. there's plenty of room elsewhere.

 

[novella]

"But some homeowners, including one woman who has lived in her home since her birth in 1918, put up a fight and challenged the city's right to acquire their land for private economic redevelopment. They argued that governments could only condemn land for more obvious public uses, such as for utilities or new roads or schools or firehouses--not for private redevelopment."

How's this grab you...

This is at the heart of what's wrong here, in my mind. It's pretty typical for local politicians to find themselves in the pockets of big corporations who are courting favor. This ruling just opens the floodgates for politicos to invite whatever corporation is willing to come into their town and build a mall, no matter who owns the land or has lived there forever. Just the fact that this 'eminent domain' is granted in order to increase the tax base is crooked.

On that basis, you should theoretically be able to evict every rent-stabilized tenant in Manhattan and build a giant hotel/Wal-Mart/Disneyland. After all, won't that increase tax revenues? It's as if the judges just threw out the rights of regular citizens because they aren't pumping money into the gov't's coffers.

 

[Renee]

I agree with all the articles that I've read - this is going to open the door to a lot more abuses. I'm too lazy to register for yet another online paper I'll never really read - but one article I read stated a few incidents of abuse, such as a used car lot that was seized and sold to the neighboring new car lot for expansion, and an elderly woman's home that had been seized for one purpose and in the end sold off for something else. It's total crap if you ask me.

 

[direstraits]

In Singapore, there are these government-backed housing projects called Housing Development Board (or HDB) flats, where Singapore citizens could buy at a pretty good (but still high, land is a premium in Singapore) price. However, the land in which they sit on belongs to the government, and if they suddenly decide to build a highway or a light rail track across the land, then the government compensates the houseowners at 'prevailing market prices' (no prizes for guessing if it's the actual price if sold in an open market), and asks them to vacate their units.

I've heard stories from Singaporeans of those who buy HDB flats, spend tens of thousands to renovate and decorate their units, suddenly get a letter from the government evicting them, while giving them the amount deemed fair for the unit they own, which of course does not include the amount spent on the renovations.

Ouch.

ds

 

[Slacker]

I'd love to read more about this, but the Chicago Tribune's process for registering is exasperating, and I'm still not able to get to the darned story.

Anyway, was this done under "imminent domain" laws, or what? What's the new "hook" if not?

Or if someone could just give me the details to make a competent search for the story, that would be awesome.

 

[novella]

I'd love to read more about this, but the Chicago Tribune's process for registering is exasperating, and I'm still not able to get to the darned story.

Anyway, was this done under "imminent domain" laws, or what? What's the new "hook" if not?

Or if someone could just give me the details to make a competent search for the story, that would be awesome.

Yeah, it's under eminent domain. The main difference is that this seizure is purely to boost the tax revenue and commercial use of any particular parcel. Earlier cases made way for public projects, not private commerce. The judges are giving local gov't the power to decide whether an individual's land could be put to better commercial use. Truly, I find the decision incredible.

Google news links to articles

 

[sirmyk]

Isn't there some kind of contitutional document that prevents this sort of thing from happening. I would excercise my right to bear arms if it came down to it. Oh yeah, and my freedom of speech, too. "Go **** yourself," I'd say, just before pointing my gun at them.

 

[mehastings]

There is a bit of hypocrasy though, because it's happened quite often in this country in the past. The difference is that usually it's slums and section 8 type housing that gets torn down and replaced. We can usually overlook it because the area is infested with crime and drugs, so that makes it ok.

There is a bit of a double standard there.

I guess this is my turn to be the dissenting voter...

I actually don't see a problem with this. My specialty in school was Urban American history. Without Urban Renewal (which is what this is called) none of our cities would be what they are today. While I certainly feel for those people who lose their houses, I can appreciate the process. Urban Renewal, when done right, replaces unsafe (falling apart, poor ventilation, outdated utilities and crime ridden) housing with newer, modern alternatives that can still be obtained by the area's more law abiding residents. Now, this hasn't always been the case and there have certainly been situations where innocent people get screwed out of their homes. Boston's Back Bay is a primo example of this as the housing built was too expensive for many of the previous residents to afford.

I'm not saying this situation happening in CT is right. I'm too lazy today to register for the website. It sounds like the housing being removed isn't a danger to it's residents and it sounds like it isn't being replaced by new housing. This, I do see a problem with.

 

[RitalinKid]

Isn't there some kind of contitutional document that prevents this sort of thing from happening. I would excercise my right to bear arms if it came down to it. Oh yeah, and my freedom of speech, too. "Go **** yourself," I'd say, just before pointing my gun at them.