Supreme Court Justice's House to be Taken for Hotel

**Don Corleone** · 06-29-2005, 22:36

You guys do realize that this isn't going anywhere. SCOTUS would just issue another 5-4 ruling saying "Except when the land to be seized is owned by a member of SCOTUS, their family or friends".

All kidding aside, this guy better be careful. He doesn't know who he's f$^king with. SCOTUS themselves might not come after him, but their lackeys, a horde of trial attorneys, are about to bombard him a plague of frivalous lawsuits that he will bankrupt himself in an effort his efforts to defend.

**Proletariat** · 06-29-2005, 22:43

This is why the "public use" clause is so important. It is reasonable to allow the city to place what is in effect a ceiling on the amount they pay to acquire property, because holdouts would essentially be extracting rents from other taxpayers.

However, a private developer has no such claim. The phrase "Everybody has a price," is very true. If a private developer can truely enhance the value of a piece of private property, that developer should be willing to meet the prices the owners ask. And if the developer choses not to meet those prices, well then I guess the development was not all that much more valuable anyway.

The Kelo decision, in addition to being anti-freedom also preempts a perfectly well functioning market mechanism available to the private developers. Just pay the price required to get the homeowner to sell. Period.

But no, the liberal judges feel that markets are bad things, and as such they must be squashed. Government is all knowing and all powerful.

The end result of the recent liberal wing wins in Supreme Court cases: The town's police have no right to regulate what you do inside your bedroom, but the town's council can most certainly drive a bulldozer through it.

Thanks for ruining my 'just got off of work' feeling. I had almost forgotten about this tyrannical stupidity.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 06-29-2005, 23:02

You guys do realize that this isn't going anywhere. SCOTUS would just issue another 5-4 ruling saying "Except when the land to be seized is owned by a member of SCOTUS, their family or friends".

And you do realize that both cases about the ten comandments were also 5-4 desicions that came to opposite conclusions

These guys are clueless.

**Proletariat** · 06-29-2005, 23:13

For example, my house cost $222,000 three years ago. A comparable house sold for $750,000 recently. If a private developer offered $750,000 today as part of an eminent domain case, would I take it? Nope. Why should I? I could get $750,000 from anyone ... and if I wait another year, I might get $875,000.

The value in my condo is not in today's price, it's in its future price. Hell, if I stay here for ten more years it may be worth half a million.

And if the developer were able to acquire my unit through eminent domain along with all of the other units here, he would control one extremely valuable piece of property in the Northern Virginia area. Large pieces of property are practically priceless in this part of the booming state. So if he was able to convince the state or local government to force twenty owners to sell at $750,000, his investment would be 15.6 million, which he could parlay into a thirty-five million dollar property with the proper development. So who besides the developer benefits? Only the town, with a higher tax base.

On the other hand, if said developer were unable to convince the town to force me out, would I sell to him at for $1.2 mil right now? Yup, in a heartbeat because my gamble on whether the price would increase going forward will have been mitigated.

**Don Corleone** · 06-29-2005, 23:06

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Thanks for ruining my 'just got off of work' feeling. I had almost forgotten about this tyrannical stupidity.

Moi?

Sorry, guess I'll buy you a beer. SCOTUS hasn't outlawed that yet, have they?

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 06-29-2005, 23:10

Moi? Sorry, guess I'll buy you a beer. SCOTUS hasn't outlawed that yet, have they?

Only in public places while smoking.

You cant drink in a bar and smoke because the smoke is dangerous to others while you driving home after belting down a few is.............................

Why not just outlaw bars and booze and ciggarettes. Wait a minute I may be giving them ideas.

**Don Corleone** · 06-29-2005, 23:13

Naaah.... if there's a way to subjugate the people further, they've already had the idea. They're sitting back saying "I can't believe we've made it this far. They should have started rioting years ago. What should we try next?"

**Proletariat** · 06-29-2005, 23:13

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Moi?

Sorry, guess I'll buy you a beer. SCOTUS hasn't outlawed that yet, have they?

Not you, but I'll have a Duvel, thanks.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 06-29-2005, 23:16

Naaah.... if there's a way to subjugate the people further, they've already had the idea. They're sitting back saying "I can't believe we've made it this far. They should have started rioting years ago. What should we try next?"

Thats what Rush wa saying the other day. Their doing things slowly so you wont realize youve lost your liberty until its to late.

I believe the call setting precident.

**Proletariat** · 06-29-2005, 23:23

I keep hoping they'll strip us of a more fundamental freedom so that way people actually do something about it, but this is really the most fundamental.

Forget God, free speech, privacy and all of that stuff. If there's any principle that this country was built on, it's the Common Law concept of property rights.

Maybe if they outlaw Oprah and NASCAR this stupid country will get off their couches.

**sharrukin** · 06-30-2005, 00:06

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I keep hoping they'll strip us of a more fundamental freedom so that way people actually do something about it, but this is really the most fundamental.

Forget God, free speech, privacy and all of that stuff. If there's any principle that this country was built on, it's the Common Law concept of property rights.

Maybe if they outlaw Oprah and NASCAR this stupid country will get off their couches.

We in Canada are somewhat new to constitutions. Ours dates from around 1981 and I haven't really noticed any great upsurge of freedom and liberty since then. I personally think it would have been better if we didn't have a constitution as they seem to be more trouble than they are worth. Be that as it may, what do you see as an alternative? Someone must play Solomon. Do you think it should be the Senate, house of Representatives or the combined Congress? Or should the SCOTUS judges be directly elected?