SCOTUS rules that seizure of private propert for private development is ok

[Kp]

not really, roads can curve.

But they're much more efficient when they are straight.  Would you really want to try to drive 70mph on a highway that twists radically every few miles?

[Hazard]

I don't neccessarily disagree with it. This sort of thing, seizing land for public development, is only done in extreme and may I point out extremely rare cases and nearly exclusively as a last resort.

[MyndFyre]

I don't neccessarily disagree with it. This sort of thing, seizing land for public development, is only done in extreme and may I point out extremely rare cases and nearly exclusively as a last resort.

I have to say I'm surprised that you're taking that position Hazard.

The government exists to serve the people, as well as protect people's rights.  If people are willing to sell their land to the government for public development, that's one thing.  But the government shouldn't be able to seize land for it.  They should have set aside that land earlier.

[Forged]

not really, roads can curve.

But they're much more efficient when they are straight.  Would you really want to try to drive 70mph on a highway that twists radically every few miles?

If the choice was between that and me losing my house then yeah.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029

I love it

[Warrior]

LOL!

[Hazard]

The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.

[MyndFyre]

The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.

Then give up your own land, damnit, or else the government better compensate me for the time and trouble I would have to go through to move.  My time is valuable.  So is my stress.

[CrAz3D]

The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.

Hotel != betterment of public!

I thought you would have more sense than that

[Warrior]

I thought eminent domain was only useable if it was public development like a park or something, if you need to pay then it isn't public to everyone.

[CrAz3D]

It was...not anymore

[shout]

This is bullshit. The state should not be able to seize then sell land. I could see if it was for a PUBLIC venue (eg Schools, Hospitals, ect), but this is just another thing bringing the U.S. closer to a facist government.

[Hazard]

When did I support real estate development under seizure of lands? I'm talking about hospitals and highway expansion, not a new Best Western here...

[CrAz3D]

The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.

The Supreme court now sees important public development as building hotels.  I thought that is what you were agreeing with

[Forged]

The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.

I agree with you if there is no better alternative. 

I think this ruling really shows whos side our goverment is on....