Chicago Tribune
By Hope Yen
Associated Press writer
June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling -- assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America -- was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
at the moment, just providing a link to the article.
the representatives that voted in favor of this bill, I wonder how they will feel if it is their property that is targeted for shopping center.
8 comments:
I hope you're happy with this decision. It was rendered by a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court.
That's trey making the rounds...
For some background information: anyone to the right of Marx is an ultra-conservative to trey. He is a self-described "militant leftist."
Obviously conservatives are not happy with this decision as it resembles communism. Who is happy with this decision? Hmmm, the NY Times was! A real conservative bunch they are right trey?
Obviously conservatives are not happy with this decision as it resembles communism.
Say what? A communist would NOT be happy with this decision because it stills allows for private property. Communists are against the concept of private property.
Who is happy with this decision? Hmmm, the NY Times was! A real conservative bunch they are right trey?
You see, it all depends on a person's perspective. You consider the Times to be liberal; I consider them rather conservative.
Daniel,
Just let me add another point. You consider anyone to the left of your position to be a socialist or communist. In your version of political thought, there's no such thing as a moderate.
P.S. I am proud to be a militant leftist!
I love it :-)
This is kind of like that old TV show,
point -- counterpoint on 60 minutes.
with Shana Alexander & James J. Kilpatrick
and it keeps it interesting.
Hey Robin,
You're right! I love political banter. One of the problems though is that people have gotten sooo sensitive. It's like you can't have a good old-fashioned fiery debate anymore without somebody threatening bodily harm or litigation.
Today, if you vehemently disagree with somebody, it's like they must become your sworn enemy. It's like folks can no longer have what we used to call a gentleman's disagreement.
When I ran for Congress in 1996, one of my opponents was the ultra-conservative Jim Bunn. From a political standpoint, I loathed almost every position he took. Yet, if he invited my wife & I over for a barbeque, I'd go in a minute. Political opinion aside, he's a nice guy and I think (if we avoided talking politics) he'd be a good fellow to hang out with.
Daniel & I don't see eye-to-eye on most things political, but that doesn't mean I hate him. I could see us sitting down for a beer (soy milk for me).
In short, just because two people have differing political perspectives, this doesn't AND shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to get along otherwise. I have a neighbor who's a ultra-fundamentalist Christian, yet my wife & I get along with her great -- we simply don't discuss religion.
You're a good guy trey. And you certainly don't have to worry about me being "sensitive" or any "litigation" from me.
But can you PLEASE name a conservative position that the NY Times has taken in the last 10 years?
I understand that communists are against private property but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that conservatives don't like this court decision. Conservative stand for the individual, including individual property rights.
But can you PLEASE name a conservative position that the NY Times has taken in the last 10 years?
They were in favor of the Iraq War. I also think, in the beginning, they favored the misnamed Patriot Act.
I understand that communists are against private property but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that conservatives don't like this court decision.
OK, I understand that. My point was simply that a true communist wouldn't like the decision either because it doesn't go far enough, not by 10,000 miles.
Post a Comment