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

[Arta]

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

Totally agree.

[Hazard]

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

I think that the ruling shows the government is willing to do what is necessary to make sure that it has everyone's best interest in mind. We're not talking about knocking down a nursery school to build a strip mall here.

[Arta]

So that's not ok, but knocking down people's homes for the sake of an office complex is fine?

I don't object to the principle - it's the fact that the land is being used for private development that bothers me.

[CrAz3D]

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

I think that the ruling shows the government is willing to do what is necessary to make sure that it has everyone's best interest in mind. We're not talking about knocking down a nursery school to build a strip mall here.

Yes, yes we are.  If this nursey is on prime real estate for an office complex the nursery goes out the window.

[shout]

What bothers me is the state is involved in this at all. If the company wants to build there, it should have to buy the land from the people who own it, not the state that siezed it. Should be: The people would set a price, and if a company does not want to pay it, then they find a diffrent spot to build it.

[Hazard]

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

I think that the ruling shows the government is willing to do what is necessary to make sure that it has everyone's best interest in mind. We're not talking about knocking down a nursery school to build a strip mall here.

Yes, yes we are.  If this nursey is on prime real estate for an office complex the nursery goes out the window.

Show me where that happend and show me where I supported it.

[CrAz3D]

Some city back east wanted to tear down houses to give to private developers to build a hotel (or something similiar, I forget exactly).  The city could just as easily tear down a nursery if it was in a prime hotel area

[MyndFyre]

Show me where that happend and show me where I supported it.

The fact is that it can happen.

A theme in several Dilbert comic strips is that "given enough time, we can learn to get used to anything."  It might be something that actually benefits the public now, but the more power we give away to the government, the more they will use it.

[Hazard]

I know what you're saying MyndFyre. I mean, why the fuck should I give up 10 square yards of my property to build a Burn Unit to the Children's Hospital?! Thats just re-Goddamn-diculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

[Warrior]

There was a woman down here a few years ago and the government seized her land, but instead of buying a new home she requested to have her home moved to the new site (would cost about as much as buying
a new one anyway) so the government sent her house to the new site in peices.
It was really cool.

[MyndFyre]

I know what you're saying MyndFyre. I mean, why the fuck should I give up 10 square yards of my property to build a Burn Unit to the Children's Hospital?! Thats just re-Goddamn-diculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

I'm don't want to disrupt my life and give up my time to move when the government officials had poor planning skills, but a Burn Unit in the Children's Hospital is a public service.  A hotel is not.

[Hazard]

When did I say a hotel was a public service? Again, PLEASE point out where I said that. The government can't see the future. It is far better for them to have to deal with the situation as it arises, perhaps by taking small pieces of land from several people, than it is to just have them start building things EVERYWHERE out of the anticipation of POSSIBLE development.

[Arta]

You're picking at straws, Hazard - this post implies that you support this decision by the supreme court...

I think that the ruling shows the government is willing to do what is necessary to make sure that it has everyone's best interest in mind. We're not talking about knocking down a nursery school to build a strip mall here.

...and the points people are making follow on quite logically from there. A hotel is a private development that could be beneficial to a community, and thus falls under the scope of the discussion.

Basically: do you think that the state forcing private citizens off their property in order to sell their land to other private citizens for private development is ok? I think that's a horrible abuse of the sovereign powers of the state.

[Warrior]

I think this whole Eminent Domain is a stupid idea, they need to plan better if not too bad.

[Master_Nabo]

Basically: do you think that the state forcing private citizens off their property in order to sell their land to other private citizens for private development is ok? I think that's a horrible abuse of the sovereign powers of the state.

Seems really absurd to me.  I could understand (as many have said before me) that if a hospital or something "human services" needed the land, that they could "request" the land to be sold, but to force people out of their homes so they can build a hotel is really absurd.