Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PBJ

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I was surprised to hear that Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist were against this. Pleased, however.

I thought that Michigan came to its senses and finally realized that the Poletown decision was bad? Why is Michigan listed as one of the 8 states that allow seizing people's homes, etc. for private economic development?

Budgie

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this could be a huge benefit to cities that have large blighted areas, and could actually spur brownfield development. This could also give cities that have buiding ownsers who buy up buildings and sit on them (Azzar) to finally pry the buidling from them and actually have it be used.

on the other hand, if local governments abuse this power, there will be an amendment made to the constitution very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this could be a huge benefit to cities that have large blighted areas, and could actually spur brownfield development. This could also give cities that have buiding ownsers who buy up buildings and sit on them (Azzar) to finally pry the buidling from them and actually have it be used.

on the other hand, if local governments abuse this power, there will be an amendment made to the constitution very soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didnt think of it in that light, but the bad way overshadows anything else. How quickly will the GR city government act to demolish another west side block for a strip mall or another parking lot or freeway or Wal-Mart because it would "be for the public good"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is upside. But there is also a huge potential downside to this. In my opinion, government has as much, or more of a chance at screwing something up as private industry does. Plus, they really are not accountable as all positions that would be involved with something like this are not even elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this could be a huge benefit to cities that have large blighted areas, and could actually spur brownfield development. This could also give cities that have buiding ownsers who buy up buildings and sit on them (Azzar) to finally pry the buidling from them and actually have it be used.

on the other hand, if local governments abuse this power, there will be an amendment made to the constitution very soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's that I hear????

The bells of Urban Renewal ringing again. Yeah, we've been here and done that.

This type of thinking is dangerous on many levels. Gentrification is just plain bad any way you look at it. If we go in and wipe out blighted neighborhoods en masse it doesn't solve any more problems then it creates.

Eminent Domain is one thing. If the government needs my property for the sake of the public good go ahead and take it and compensate me for it. If they want to take my land for the sake of someone else's economic gain then it's going to be a long hard cold fight before they get me out of their hair.

This really chaps my ass :angry:

Nitro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt think of it in that light, but the bad way overshadows anything else. How quickly will the GR city government act to demolish another west side block for a strip mall or another parking lot or freeway or Wal-Mart because it would "be for the public good"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cities arent going to do something stupid, they still have to get reelected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's that I hear????

The bells of Urban Renewal ringing again.  Yeah, we've been here and done that. 

This type of thinking is dangerous on many levels.  Gentrification is just plain bad any way you look at it.  If we go in and wipe out blighted neighborhoods en masse it doesn't solve any more problems then it creates. 

Eminent Domain is one thing.  If the government needs my property for the sake of the public good go ahead and take it and compensate me for it.  If they want to take my land for the sake of someone else's economic gain then it's going to be a long hard cold fight before they get me out of their hair.

This really chaps my ass  :angry:

Nitro

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, this might go too far. But if it moves some real estate agents to get off their butts and actually make something of what they own, I'm for it. I'm not saying raze the buildings, but rather the city should be able to let someone who has real concrete plans to do something with the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.