USSC Approves Property Seizure for Private Use!

[MomH]

Many of you are to young to remember but this has been going on for many years. In order to build Texas Stadium for the Cowboys in the late sixties-early seventies, Dallas declared a good bit of residential property Imminet Domain and paid those people very little. Many had lived in their homes for lots of years and were senior citizens living on fixed incomes. What they got for the property was not enough to buy anything else without paying huge mortgage's which they could not afford.

Some recent reading indicates it is about to happen again with the new stadium they plan to build in Arlington.

Seems to me if one must be moved from their property that the government should relocate them in similar or better housing and that they should not be burdened with any expence for moving goods and furniture. If the current house is paid for they should not have any mortgage payments and if it isn't the new mortgage should not exceed what is left on the current one. They should also be given a monetary amount for the hassle, stress and pain the move will cause based on the number of years in their homes.

And before anyone says a football stadium is needed for economic developement remember that in most cases the team owners get more than half the revenue from these things and that the bottom line benefit to a community is practicaly zilch.

[kevin]

For the common wealth I would not be protesting as much. For private interest I must protest. Roads and things vital to the continued health of the community may fall in public domain, but never a private building. It is theft, and no amount of compensation would make it tolerable to me.

No one is taking my house. Not the federal government, not the state of florida, not the county of marion, and if any municipality should be incorporated or come to encompass this property, they neither should have the right to steal my property and give to another. The law cannot make something just that is unjust.

[Stephanie]

Sadly I agree Stephanie. As I told some friends at another forum today, this isn't a liberal or conservative issue....it's a matter of RIGHT vs WRONG. To force anyone out of their own home is wrong....to do so to an elderly person is even worse.

This kind of ruling, along with some other equally disturbing things I've witnessed in recent years makes me honestly wonder and worry about the future of this nation. It's bad enough to not know right from wrong, but to know something is wrong, yet do it anyway is far worse. I've always believed a nation without a conscience will never not stand....we are sadly heading down that slippery slope to ruin.

I feel the same way Perry!

[Kelarie]

dont be so confident about that. it took 5 judges 1 ruling to void the right of private property. at anytime 5 judges decide can decide your right to own a weapon or defend yourself can be taken away. and you know what? its coming

I've got a lot of weapons the government doesn't know about.

As I mentioned earlier, I am also starting my preparations to have a backup plan in place in case I feel the need to bug out of the country.

You better start now. I think it is the beginning of the end. We are all going to have to get use to answering to "Big Brother" and doing everything "Big Brother" wants with a smile. Just remember to smile really big when they come to take your picture for your ID.

[Kelarie]

I was reading further and if this was to happen you could continue to fight this in state court. What that could get you, not sure? Maybe the state courts would see what was wrong with the Supreme Court desicion and side with property owners.

This just chaps at me. I don't understand how greed has just taken away good sense, honor and all great things that made this country what it was 100 years ago. Maybe it is just me.

[beenthru6]

This is horrible and scary. What is the point of even having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights? If we are now going to allow the Supreme Court to legislate all of our laws, why bother having Representatives and Senators etc.? I do not know one single individual who is for this. Apparently this country is no longer "Of the people, For the People, or By the people". If this isn't repealed in a hurry, this will go down in history as one of our worst and darkest days. I am literally sick to my stomach over this.

[Stephanie]

I was reading further and if this was to happen you could continue to fight this in state court. What that could get you, not sure? Maybe the state courts would see what was wrong with the Supreme Court desicion and side with property owners.

This just chaps at me. I don't understand how greed has just taken away good sense, honor and all great things that made this country what it was 100 years ago. Maybe it is just me.

Yeah, but we've seen the USSC already disregard state laws recently. It's almost as if you don't know if ANYTHING will be held up by the Supreme Court (or courts in general). There's too much subjectivity allowed now with decisions. I'll bet that there are precedents that have been set, only to be turned around 180 degrees and then back again.

[gtalum]

And just in case anyone here think only liberals are willing to take you rland for private development, remember that President Bush himself paid off the city of Arlington to raze many homes against the will of their owners in order to build a stadium for his Texas Rangers.

[JerryG]

I think the decision is fine..leaves power to the cities

States can still have stricter takings statutes if they wish

[feederband]

I think the decision is fine..leaves power to the cities

States can still have stricter takings statutes if they wish

I totaly disagree...... My private property should not be taken by another private person against my will...

[CentralFlGal]

I wonder how much interest there would be in forming a large, powerful taxpayer lobby.

Such a group would be immense and will fill the void of protecting our rights and interests - especially since our elected representatives continually fail to do so while allowing legislation to continue pouring from the bench because they are too scared to kick an anthill and affect their political career.

They're more friggin worried about prayer in schools and other inane side issues than the stuff that REALLY matters. A taxpayer lobby wouldn't be beholden to special interests and we wouldn't be afraid to take on the 'difficult' matters that affect our daily lives.

[BUD]

What would if a person owned more than 1 property, could the government take any of them? My wife and I rent a house here in SC. that her brother owns. He also owns a summer home in SC and also owns a home in GA where he lives. So could anything happen to him???

[beenthru6]

What would if a person owned more than 1 property, could the government take any of them? My wife and I rent a house here in SC. that her brother owns. He also owns a summer home in SC and also owns a home in GA where he lives. So could anything happen to him???

I guess they can take any piece of property they want, if they meet the requirements (which apparently won't be that hard). This really opens the door for people to become extremely vulnerable if they have had any kind of problems with any of their local officials. It would be very easy for the city officials/county officials etc. to get even with someone by declaring their property needs to be developed to enlarge the tax base. Sounds like the gov'ts way of keeping people in line and restraining them from being able to "fight city hall", Can you just see this ballooning into one political party that is in power taking the land from people in the opposite party? What a can of worms this is!

[kevin]

I'm sorry, my right to property is just as dear to me as my right to life. We cannot allow the government to take the rights of individuals to have property so that others can steal that property. Its just wrong.

This isn't an issue of federalism. Cities, counties, states, and the federal government should not have the right to steal from one to give to another, it is against our inalienable rights. You have a right to not sell as much as you have a right to buy. When there is vital interest then the government can take your land, but only for the government, not for some corporate individual.

[rainstorm]

there is a way to amend the constitution, through the legislative process. does anyone think this garbage would have passed if the people had a chance to voice their opinion on this through their elected representatives?
no chance

I don't even trust the elected stiffs to write and pass laws that mean anything. Santorum's bill is just one example. We've been passing laws for years that only appease a few and not necessarily do the right thing.

the amendment process is much more rigorous than just passing a bill that simply needs a majority of 1.
for an amendment to the constitution to become law 2/3 of the house and senate must approve it first, the the president must sign it. then 3/4 of the states must pass it before it can become law. thats why 5 judges ripping up the constitution is so odious.