Site Cleared Of Homes By Eminent Domain Remains Empty Eight Years Later (part II)

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights. In 2005, residents in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London were told they had to abandon their homes so the city’s government could demolish them and hand the property over to developers to build hotels, health clubs and new condominiums.


The Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling, with a 5-4 decision, that the Fifth Amendment’s “taking clause” could extend to city governments that wanted to remove old structures and build something for the betterment of the community. Traditionally, such seizure of personal property, known as “eminent domain," had been limited to a government’s need to build facilities like schools or police stations, according to a recent story in the Boston Globe.


Today, the land that was cleared remains a 90-acre barren field with waist-high weeds.
Click to expand...

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...minent-domain-remains-empty-eight-years-later
 
It was worth it to get Souter off the bench. Major class A scumbag.

The ruling was so shocking that most states in the Union took up legislative cures.

Obviously the property is still vacant due to the economy.
 
I guess if you're corrupt enough to actually do it, then it stands to reason you are incompetent enough to let the land sit there undeveloped. It all goes to character.
 
all the more reason that people should accept the fact that this is why we have guns. to kill gov members attempting to abuse their power like this.
 
Truth Detector said:
This was an outrage, still is an outrage and always will be an outrage.

Can you imagine the screeching by the leftstream media if one attempted this in a minority neighborhood?
Click to expand...

It was a minority neighborhood, retard. That's why the city did it in the first place. Furthermopre, a conservative; Souter wrote the opinion.
 
Rune said:
It was a minority neighborhood, retard. That's why the city did it in the first place.
Click to expand...

uh, no.......it was not....it was a 90 acre tract made up of property owned by eight or nine families....I don't know if any of them were minorities, but here's the lead plaintiff in the case, standing in front of her house.....
539w.jpg


you really need to stop making shit up and pretending you know what you're talking about.......
 
The response by democratic legislatures all over the country proves the self-correcting nature of democracy and that there was no need of the supreme court to intervene and make some misguided effort to place clear limits on the eminent domain power when the constitution doesn't specify any.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
all the more reason that people should accept the fact that this is why we have guns. to kill gov members attempting to abuse their power like this.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know SMY, armed mobs of zealots are the best and only solution to every problem. This has been your only contribution to every thread for the past few years.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
uh, no.......it was not....it was a 90 acre tract made up of property owned by eight or nine families....I don't know if any of them were minorities, but here's the lead plaintiff in the case, standing in front of her house.....
539w.jpg


you really need to stop making shit up and pretending you know what you're talking about.......
Click to expand...

You don't realize woman are considered minorities? :palm:
 
Rune said:
It was a minority neighborhood, retard. That's why the city did it in the first place. Furthermopre, a conservative; Souter wrote the opinion.
Click to expand...

You uninformed twit it was not a minority neighborhood and under what drug induced stupor are you under that you think Souter is a conservative?
 
Twerk Master Miley said:
Eminent domain is the worst precedent set of this century.
Click to expand...

That's a bit over-generalized, and eminent domain was a precedent set long before this century.,

If you read Robert Caro's Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Robert Moses, "The Powerbroker," you can see how without eminent domain, current New York City would be a planning nightmare. Basically every highway,every bridge, and every park required it. The highways stretching out onto Long Island allowed the suburbs to grow, but originally needed eminent domain to run through farmlands.

You name roads and bridges like the following to any New Yorker (all built by Moses and eminent domain) and ask them to imagine what NY would be like without them:

FDR Drive, Cross Bronx Expressway, Tri-Borough Bridge, Grand Central Parkway, Long Island Expressway, Throgs Neck Bridge, Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, Southern State Parkway, Northern State Parkway, Verranzano Bridge, Belt Parkway, Whitestone Bridge, Van Wyck Expressway, Henry Hudson Parkway, Major Deegan Expressway, Wantagh Parkway, Meadowbrook Parkway, Sunken Meadow Parkway, etc....

Essentially, the entire super-structure of NYC and surrounding areas would not exist were it not for eminent domain.
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
You don't realize woman are considered minorities? :palm:
Click to expand...

dude, you just doubled down on abject idiocy......lets just all agree you fucked up with your throw away comment and got caught......then you can go on with life a little bit less cocky but a lot less humiliated........
 
Rune said:
It was a minority neighborhood, retard. That's why the city did it in the first place. Furthermopre, a conservative; Souter wrote the opinion.
Click to expand...

Sorry to break it to you, but you're just plain wrong! Souter didn't write shit! He didn't even write a concurring opinion. The opinion was written by Justice Stevens. Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Souter was not a conservative in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. He was appointed by Bush I and by most accounts moderated during his tenure on the court. He was part of the mostly "liberal majority" that decided Kelo v. New London (2005) though. The judges who voted for this were mostly "liberal" whatever the hell that means on the U.S. Supreme Court. With your extensive knowledge of so many things I would think you would know all this. More importantly though, none of the other idiots here left or right knew enough to correct your mistake, including your latest BFF, the brilliant freedom fighter SmarterThanYou!

Here's the pertinent information--the facts mac--in the case that no one here seems capable or even interested in checking, and one of the reasons I packed out, the ignorance here is debilitating:

"On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test."

The conservatives at that time: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, were the 4 who voted against the decision. This shit isn't rocket science.

Here's everything you need to know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

And for all the rest of you fucking losers on this thread. Pull your collective heads out of your asses. I'm supposed to be the ignorant liberal here. What a fucking bunch of morons.

And for the record, I don't own any boats, houses, businesses nor do I even believe in or fetishize the concept of private property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top