If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gadflyer)   Bad: Losing your property in a landmark eminent-domain decision. Worse: Having the corporation sue for "back rent" for the time you spent fighting the seizure in court   (gadflyer.com) divider line 445
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

25499 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2005 at 7:40 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



445 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-08-18 04:58:58 PM
It's exactly the same as if you were appealing a money judgment in a civil suit: once the first judgment comes down, you're on the hook for the judgment. You can usually suspend execution until the appeals process runs its course by posting a bond, but you're going to be on the hook for interest from the date of judgment.
 
2005-08-18 05:04:39 PM
Can't...post...so...angry
 
2005-08-18 05:05:31 PM
This is retarded. Seriously retarded.
 
2005-08-18 05:07:23 PM
Seriously, this is how revolts get started.
 
2005-08-18 05:08:23 PM
Whooo boy.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
 
2005-08-18 05:11:00 PM
This is one case where I would not be surprised if one or several of the displaced residents go postal and shoots people working at the offices of the New London Development Corp and/or the lawyers who represented the company.
 
2005-08-18 05:14:01 PM
Activist judges?
 
2005-08-18 05:16:59 PM
It's exactly the same as if you were appealing a money judgment in a civil suit: once the first judgment comes down, you're on the hook for the judgment. You can usually suspend execution until the appeals process runs its course by posting a bond, but you're going to be on the hook for interest from the date of judgment.

To be fair, you can see why this kind of a thing would arise - it discourages you from filing frivolous appeals that'll take years to wind their way through the courts while continuing to live on/make profit from/etc the thing that's already been decided against you.

However, this obviously seems unfair in a case where a one vote majority on the SC was required to decide it.
 
2005-08-18 05:18:48 PM
/flamebait

Just remember, it was those liberal judges who voted it for it, not the conservatives!

/end flamebait
 
2005-08-18 05:20:01 PM
I think people are kind of over reacting. The court to my understanding said baiscally that there is no law that stops this from happening. So not to be "activist judges" and make up some protection that isn't writen in the constitution they said states need to pass laws to say that the governement can't do this. So the only thing you need to do to stop this is have your state pass a law so they can't. The didn't say a law that stops it is unconstitutional. I don't like it either but just because a judge makes a decision that you don't like does not mean it is an incorrect decission.

I love how everyone who biatches about "judicial activism" is now biatching that the court is not making up a right/law that doesn't exist. Now it's time for the state legislatures to write laws to protect people and restrict this from happening.
 
2005-08-18 05:20:25 PM
bigpete53: Just remember, it was those liberal judges who voted it for it, not the conservatives!

They're American judges and that's what should have people enraged.
 
2005-08-18 05:21:45 PM
GaryPDX

There's absolutely no verbage anywhere in the founding documents that allows private property to be siezed and turned over to other private parties. Therefore, the core of the founding intent is that private property cannot be siezed by anyone, for any reason other than for Public Use.


Thank the Supreme Court for redefining what "Public Use" is: now it means that if whatever is going to be put there, owned publicy or privately, is going to have some sort of value to the community, i.e. tax revenue or jobs, it is considered 'public use'.

The fact that this court ruled the takeover actually happened in 2000 is a load of bullshiat. I'm sure that violates the standard grandfather clause (hoping a law talking person will chime in on this one) but basically you cannot apply a ruling from today to something that happened 5 years ago.

Furthermore, the fact that these scumbags not only have to pay these people pennies, but charge them for living there is pure bullshiat. They are getting kicked out of their homes and have to pay to leave! I compeletly agree with Great Caesar's Toast on this one, heads are going to f'n roll.
 
2005-08-18 05:23:14 PM
2005-08-18 05:20:21 PM GaryPDX

You mean those big liberal development corporations?


Woohoo! I got one! Hoo-eeeeee!

/rides 'em cowboy
 
2005-08-18 05:23:45 PM
bigpete53
Just remember, it was those liberal judges who voted it for it, not the conservatives!

Because liberals are for giving things to coroporations and businesses.

GaryPDX
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eminent domain you ARE compensated you get paid for what you propertys is what is assesed to be worth.
 
2005-08-18 05:24:06 PM
 
2005-08-18 05:28:55 PM
In all seriousness, though, I am deeply saddened by the judgement of the Supreme Court. It's a very sad time for America seeing as how it's being assualted by BushCo on the privacy rights and the Supreme Court on property rights.

Loss of rights makes the baby Jeebus cry.
 
2005-08-18 05:29:35 PM
Just to clear the air, here's how the SC broke down on this:

Against:
O'connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas

For:
Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
 
2005-08-18 05:33:11 PM
bigpete53
Just remember, it was those liberal judges who voted it for it, not the conservatives!


Well we better stop electing republicans then because according to you they elect LIBERAL judges.

Voted for:
Stevens picked by FORD
Souter picked by GHW BUSH
Kennedy picked by Reagan

3 Out of the 5 justices that made the ruling were picked by REPUBLICAN presidents.
 
2005-08-18 05:35:27 PM
bigpete53




I warned you! But did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew, didn't you?

 
2005-08-18 05:37:23 PM


Specifically, these asshats in New London.

In the name of Our Father, who commanded "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Amen.
 
2005-08-18 05:38:28 PM
Corvus

Those who went against were picked by:

O'Connor (Republican) - Reagan, 1981
Rehnquist (Republican)- Nixon, 1971
Scalia (Republican) - Reagan, 1986
Thomas (Republican) - Bush I - 1991

The only help this thing had of defeat was made by Republicans nominated by Republicans

/can't believe I'm defending the Right, but for once they are
 
2005-08-18 05:40:19 PM
Corvus

And all 4 who voted against were appointed by Republicans.

Thank you for taking the bait.

Please see my above post to Gary.
 
2005-08-18 05:41:47 PM
ArkAngel

Great reference. I am humbled.
 
2005-08-18 05:43:28 PM
And to further clear the air, here's how ones who voted for it got there:

Stevens (Republican) - Ford
Kennedy (Republican) - Reagan 1988
Souter (Repulican) - Bush I - 1990
Ginsburg (Democrat) - Clinton 1993
Breyer - (Democrat) - Clinton - 1994

So perhaps I was wrong when I said the right was right, only half were right.
 
2005-08-18 05:46:27 PM
GaryPDX

Who disagrees?

I totally agree, I cannot stand this left/right bullshiat. They're all farking idiots, they all say whatever they have to to get what they want, its that f'n simple. Best example I saw was the other day someone posted a link to an article quoting all the 'Right Wingers' crying out when Clinton went into Kosovo, funny, it's the exact same shiat the "Left Wingers" were/are saying about Bush going to Iraq.

We are being farked, left right, red blue, up down it doesn't matter what you call it, bottom line, we are being farked.
 
2005-08-18 05:47:44 PM
GaryPDX: Who disagrees?

OOOH!!! I know this one!!!

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Republicans in Congress
 
2005-08-18 05:50:54 PM
Taxable!
 
2005-08-18 06:01:58 PM
This is just so farking wrong on every level imaginable.
 
2005-08-18 06:10:11 PM
Ok, so we all agree that this is the final straw and the revolution starts now. I'll meet you guys in town square in 15 minutes. I'll be the guy with the burning torch.
 
2005-08-18 06:18:14 PM
JerseyTim: I'll be the guy with the burning torch.

I be the guy with the looting hammer.
 
2005-08-18 06:24:08 PM
Where's Hanover Fist when you need him?

"Burning's too good for em!! Hanging's too good for him!!!"
 
2005-08-18 06:25:20 PM
mediaho: They're American judges and that's what should have people enraged.

It does have me enraged. But Bigpete53 does have a point, the same justices who voted for this are the same justices who regularly vote along "Liberal" lines (I use that term loosly). It was in essence a vote in favor of a corporation. Something that most people would assume only "Conservative" (used loosly again) justices would do.

This has to make many give pause and perhaps rethink where they stand in the political spectrum. If the left is where you involuntarily "Give" your private property away to someone else for the greater good (aka communisim) and the right is where you retain your own private property or sell it at a price you can agree to (aka capitalisim) then I think most would go for capitalisim in this situation.

I'm certainly not a screaming right wing whore but things like this do make me glad I lean a bit more to the right than the left on many issues. Property rights are high on that list.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-08-18 06:31:17 PM
Neither of the links I've seen on TotalFark about the rent demand say anything about the legal aspects of the claim, such as whether the court ordered a stay of seizure of the land back in 2000.
 
2005-08-18 06:36:53 PM
ZAZ:

Neither of the links I've seen on TotalFark about the rent demand say anything about the legal aspects of the claim

Par for the course in the media. It's all the result of the decision (or what have you), never the rationale or legal basis. For a law junkie like me, it's simply infuriating.
 
2005-08-18 06:52:06 PM
Corvus:

The didn't say a law that stops it is unconstitutional. I don't like it either but just because a judge makes a decision that you don't like does not mean it is an incorrect decission.

You're right. It doesn't necessarily make it a bad decision, but this one is incredibly bad nonetheless. They changed the meaning of the phrase "public use" to mean "public benefit" and effectively rewrote that part of the constitution. The change in meaning is quite significant. Before, the government had a responsbility to use the land in a manner that allowed the public to access the land and benefited everyone directly.
 
2005-08-18 06:59:54 PM
Radioactive Ass: It was in essence a vote in favor of a corporation.

That's funny. You see it as a vote for corporations, but I see it as a vote for big government and against individual rights.

I see it as a liberal decision because liberals typically want the government to have more power while conservatives want a smaller government and more individual rights.

I assume that you are left-leaning politically and you see this in one light. I am right-leaning and I see it in another. It's interesting that we both see this as a bad thing for the same reasons, but form place the blame in different directions.

/Bush/republicans aren't conservative.
//I'm not a Republican.
 
2005-08-18 07:22:28 PM
I seriously hope that no one patronizes this development. The citizens should make it known to any potential tennants that their businesses will not be patronized.

Any word on the Souter property?
 
2005-08-18 07:28:20 PM
scooby111: I assume that you are left-leaning politically and you see this in one light.

Nope. Registered republican in a very blue area.

My point was that many of the people who posted before me are self described liberals and were outraged at this decision. I was only trying to point out the simple fact that perhaps they should re-think where they are on the political spectrum and what being "Left" or "Right" leaning actually entails.

You are absolutely correct on it being a vote for big government. But it was also a vote for corporations in that by redefining what public good is, allowed increased tax revenue (from the corporation that won the case) to the city to be considered as for the publics good while trampling the rights of individual property owners. Nothing good can come from this in the long run.

I have a very good friend who is a retired litigator who thinks this the most assinine decision he's ever seen. and I loosely quote him "It opens a floodgate unimaginable to most people due to its potential misuse and creates many oportunities for corruption". And, you will have to trust me on this, if anyone knows about corruption it's this guy. Leave it at that.

Bush is not a conservative. I will agree with you on that one. RR is spinning in his grave and daddy can't be very proud of his son right about now.
 
2005-08-18 07:33:35 PM
I wonder if the people getting sued for the "back rent" to the city development corporation paid property taxes to the city during that time period.

Rent --or-- property taxes, pick one, you greedy assh*les.

/makes me almost glad I can't afford to buy property.
 
2005-08-18 07:38:37 PM
2wheeljunkie asks:
Any word on the Souter property?

That is a completely stupid proposal going nowhere. Do get away with what New London did it is necessary for municipal authorities to have public hearings and come up with a plan for improvements. The uttrely bogus and misguided attempts to involve Souter's property did not involve any municipal authorities, there were no public hearings, and the foolish malecontents involved did not even bother to produce a plan showing how their proposal improves the area. It is really sad that so many people have no clue at all about what is actually going on around them.
 
2005-08-18 07:40:42 PM
Radioactive Ass: Nope. Registered republican in a very blue area.

A farking conservative in the Bay area who likes to play pool and is ex-military?!? What the hell? If you drop that pansy 8-ball game and start playing nine ball, you'll make my favorites list. ;)

I understand what you are saying and I agree 100%. I can see it from both sides. It just seems interesting to me that everyone hates this decision for the same reason, but everyone (including me) has their own jaundiced view of why it happened. It does make you wonder exactly why the left and the right don't get along on more issues. We all pretty much want the same things.

I've talked to a couple of lawyers also and not a one of them think this is a good decision. Even on of the justices that voted for it (Stevens?) commented that it opened up a whole bunch of undesirable consequences. It kinda makes you wonder why he voted for it. Did he honestly think that the framers wanted the government to take private land and give it over to another private entity? The wording is unambiguous. The only reason that I can see that someone would want to change the (obvious, IMHO) menaing of the amendment woule be to expand the powers of government.
 
2005-08-18 07:45:00 PM
Did anyone else misread the headline? I read it as "Screw you Supreme Court." Guess I was off on that one.
 
2005-08-18 07:49:19 PM
How is it that just 560 men and a few corporate CEOs can
force laws upon millions of others that don't want them?
 
2005-08-18 07:50:13 PM
Once again people, the SCOTUS ruling left the decision up to local courts / officials. That's as it should be. Take your grievances up with the asshats in New London.
 
2005-08-18 07:50:15 PM
They're lucky they got any front rent.
 
2005-08-18 07:51:05 PM
And that, my friends, is the reason we pay money into escrow when we're suing over real property.

This guy's attorney should have known about that potential expense and had his client start an escrow account just in case he lost.
 
2005-08-18 07:51:12 PM
How's the one going aganst the Supreme's house?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-08-18 07:52:57 PM
Here is the Connecticut Supreme Court decision. It doesn't really shed light on the city's legal entitlement to rent. Some of the property owners won in trial court and the injunction against seizure was reversed on appeal. Some lost at trial and on appeal. But I don't see what orders the trial court made during trial.
 
2005-08-18 07:53:16 PM
Riots? yea, right. You 'tards won't fight for anything and will just keep whining until you're turn into green chips for the elite rulers.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-08-18 07:54:20 PM
...and five seconds after posting that I found this in the court's decision: Accordingly, the trial court denied the plaintiffs request for permanent injunctive relief against the condemnation of their properties located in parcel 3, although it did grant temporary injunctive relief pending the appellate resolution of this case.
 
Displayed 50 of 445 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report