3 Aug 2005 06:54
Re: Breaking the 5th amendment
Norma <crasulady2 <at> adelphia.net>
2005-08-03 04:54:48 GMT
2005-08-03 04:54:48 GMT
Nothing is scared any more. I feel like I'm living in Germany 1939.
----- Original Message -----From: Lynn R. BreckaSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:55 PMSubject: Re: [Sansevierias] Breaking the 5th amendment
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, hoyakins wrote:
> Hermine, by taking the land from Tropic World, the Govt. is breaking
> the 5th amendment. The right to own property by taking it away from
> And this land is located in the sticks, where are they getting the
> students to fill the school. Up date the high school they are using
> now. Norma
Recently the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can do just that:
Supreme Court Allows Property Seizure for Economic Development
Release Date: 07/ 11/ 2005
House Votes to Blunt Decision
In a closely watched Supreme Court decision in late June, the high court
affirmed in a 5-4 vote that municipalities and other government entities
may seize property for economic development purposes.
The decision met a mixed reception nationwide, with some advocates of
urban development citing the need for cities to seize blighted properties
to revitalize areas that are beyond renovation in their current form.
Writing for the majority -- which included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, Justice John Paul
Stevens said that when the Fifth Amendment allowed taking private property
for "public use," economic development is included.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted
function of government. Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic
development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose,"
Opponents of the decision noted that "urban renewal" and property seizures
will disproportionately affect the poor, or could be unscrupulously used
by a city to improve its tax base, by seizing residences to build
businesses, for instance.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," wrote Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor in the minority opinion, joined by Chief Justice
William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a
Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."
In the wake of the court's decision, private-property advocates in the
U.S. House acted swiftly, passing a measure that would deny federal
transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development funding to any
project that involved the seizure of private property by a local
government for economic development.
The 231-189 bipartisan vote attached the private-property rights measure
to an appropriations bill, and senators have introduced a similar measure.
To become law, the measure must remain intact through the
budget process in both chambers and be signed by President Bush.
Means that if I want your property to build a WalMart, I get it, if it
benefits (broadens the tax base, for example) the "community".
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Sansevierias" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sansevierias-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.