Welcome to Bush Country!

[thefinalsound]

This is complete crap! Apparently ownership means nothing anymore.

Homes may be 'taken' for private projects

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for privately owned economic development projects. Leave a comment

Comments

[mr_jaeger]

I heard a bit about this last night, and it almost had me screaming and throwing things at the radio.

[thefinalsound]

It's still got me screaming! Particularly because I'm house hunting right now and it adds a whole new dimension to where we want to move to.

[mr_jaeger]

The thing that bugs me the most is that i ALMOST agree with SOME parts of it...because i want to see more new jobs created to help get the job market out of its current slump, but that's still no justification for stealing someone's house. When Iminent domain has spread to private corporations, the world is essentially fucked.

Here's a thought they never came up with. The city can take that land and turn it into an office park, but it's the city who will pay for it and build it and own it and rent it out and collect the rent as well as the taxes (a percentage of which will be paid to the displaced residents). See how fast the city runs when they're told they have to build a multi-million office park then. And the day spa? fuggetaboutit. Those people would probably keep their homes.

[protoclown]

Yeah, I heard about this yesterday.

Welcome to Geroge W. Bush's America :(

[mr_jaeger]

I'm no fan of Br'er Bush...you KNOW i'm no fan of his incompetent ass...but lay blame where blame is to be laid. this is in no way the fault of Georgie Porgie...this is all the fault of the Supreme Court.

it COULD be W's fault in that they're doing this to repair a job market and economy which is in the toilet, but only part of the blame for THAT can be heaped into El Presidente's lap. If you're going to blame someone, blame the justices of the supreme court. I note, proudly, that my homeboys Renquist, Thomas, Scalia and O'Conor are the 4 with the wisdom to shy away from this one. the other 5 have no mind for the kind of precedent they just set.

[thefinalsound]

Very true! It is the Supreme Court's fault, not W's! I just like picking on him when ever I get the chance. I wonder how the other 5 justices will react when the houses get repossessed to build another Star Buck's!

[protoclown]

Oh, I know, but this is all just part of my continuing joke of blaming everything on Bush.

[shadowmusic]

the results of teh online poll under the article:

"Should cities be allowed to seize homes and buildings for private projects as long as they benefit the public good?" * 108700 responses
-Yes, all parties benefit in the long run:
2%
-No, property owners will lose and developers gain
98%

[mr_jaeger]

Well...that's a pretty well biased poll you're looking at there. totally tilted by self-interest. Sure the 98% of the proletariat of this country who control less than 10% of the wealth would vote no because of their own petty self-interest. They can only see the same thing happening to themselves down the road someday and fear the idea that their house...in some cases the house they've lived in for 5 decades...could be taken away at any minute and turned into a day spa and office park. Totally biased

[msmeg]

Have you ever seen the aussie film "The Castle"? About exactly this - with a a fairy tale ending of course.