Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property  (Read 6443 times)

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« on: June 23, 2005, 12:12:50 PM »
I think this is horrible. A huge step backward for the rights of private citizens.

InVinoVeritas

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5550
  • Fine! I shall also fix zee hobo suit!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - NVinoVeritasChi
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2005, 12:16:26 PM »
i haven't read much in the way of the exact details surrounding the case, but as an intial reaction, i agree.  This sucks.

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2005, 12:18:15 PM »
I'm pretty shocked actually. I thought for sure it would go the other way. And I can't believe I'm agreeing with Scalia.

InVinoVeritas

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5550
  • Fine! I shall also fix zee hobo suit!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - NVinoVeritasChi
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2005, 12:21:06 PM »
I'm pretty shocked actually. I thought for sure it would go the other way. And I can't believe I'm agreeing with Scalia.

and i'm disagreeing with ginsburg and breyer.  oh boy.  ;)

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2005, 12:26:06 PM »
I'm pretty shocked actually. I thought for sure it would go the other way. And I can't believe I'm agreeing with Scalia.

and i'm disagreeing with ginsburg and breyer. oh boy. ;)
I don't know what to believe anymore!

elemnopee

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2005, 01:05:44 PM »
"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers."

That's exactly what this is going to do. 

Julee Fern

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • be cheerleader for al qaeda and osama!
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2005, 01:53:04 PM »
I also oppose the decision, but this is really just an extension of existing policy.  They could already uproot familes and neighborhoods to build factories, etc.  They just called it "Blight" then, I guess.

Keep in mind that they have to compensate for anything they take, and the doctrine of eminient domain goes back quite a ways.
goooooo al qaeda!  gooooooo bin laden!  go, go, osama bin laden!

never mind all people you killing senselessly--that just more that silly conservative thinking.  what important is scooter libby and cheney's former employers.  beeeeeeee substantive!

InVinoVeritas

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5550
  • Fine! I shall also fix zee hobo suit!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - NVinoVeritasChi
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2005, 02:02:05 PM »
I also oppose the decision, but this is really just an extension of existing policy. They could already uproot familes and neighborhoods to build factories, etc. They just called it "Blight" then, I guess.

Keep in mind that they have to compensate for anything they take, and the doctrine of eminient domain goes back quite a ways.

i think it's an overreaching interpretation of what has traditionally been the doctrine of eminent domain (which has been limited to clear public benefits).  and while monetary compensation may make up for some of the loss, i think there's more to losing one's house than merely economic loss.

elemnopee

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2005, 02:04:30 PM »
Do they have to give a fair market rate, or the actual market rate.  

Houses that go on the market in many areas get offers well above the asking price, so the actual market rate is higher than anticipated.

I'm nervous that city councils are going to plow through undesirable, low-income housing and sell the land to developers to build giant high-rise condiminiums.  

Julee Fern

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • be cheerleader for al qaeda and osama!
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2005, 02:15:18 PM »
Do they have to give a fair market rate, or the actual market rate.  

Houses that go on the market in many areas get offers well above the asking price, so the actual market rate is higher than anticipated.

I'm nervous that city councils are going to plow through undesirable, low-income housing and sell the land to developers to build giant high-rise condiminiums.  


I'm not sure how fair market value differs from actual market rate. 

Sure, someone may underprice their home, or they may overprice it.  The trick is to first establish what someone would actually pay for it.
goooooo al qaeda!  gooooooo bin laden!  go, go, osama bin laden!

never mind all people you killing senselessly--that just more that silly conservative thinking.  what important is scooter libby and cheney's former employers.  beeeeeeee substantive!