NFB- Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

It's not that simple.

Say your property's "fair market value" is $200,000 just for arguements sake. The government buys it from you, kicks you out and re-zones it commercial. Now they sell it to a private commercial developer for $500,000 and they keep the $300,000 difference!

See, once a plot of land is re-zoned its value changes drastically. They are cheating you out of that. I would have no problem with them taking my land if they gave me the value *after* the re-zone is applied. Why not just let me re-zone it and sell it myself? Why do they have to steel it from me and keep the profit for themselves? It is MY LAND, not theirs. That is why this is soooo wrong.

Because they re-zoned it, I didn't.

Tracy, what you are suggesting is like I buy a beat-up old '67 Camaro from you for $6K, I restore it and sell it for $17K. Why should I give you $17K for it just because you had it first? Just like the guy who bought my T/A for $17K and then sold it for $19K.

That's just business. Before the house is bulldozed and the land is re-zoned, this is a neighborhood... you can't sell it based on "could be" value... you have to sell it based on what it is. If my house is worth $200K fair market value and they take it from me for $225K and then sell it for $500K after it's been leveled and re-zoned, then more power to them. It's capitalism...

However, what is NOT capitalism is that I wouldn't have a say in the matter... the power this has is HUGE!

[TraceZ]

Because they re-zoned it, I didn't.

Tracy, what you are suggesting is like I buy a beat-up old '67 Camaro from you for $6K, I restore it and sell it for $17K. Why should I give you $17K for it just because you had it first? Just like the guy who bought my T/A for $17K and then sold it for $19K.

That's just business. Before the house is bulldozed and the land is re-zoned, this is a neighborhood... you can't sell it based on "could be" value... you have to sell it based on what it is. If my house is worth $200K fair market value and they take it from me for $225K and then sell it for $500K after it's been leveled and re-zoned, then more power to them. It's capitalism...

However, what is NOT capitalism is that I wouldn't have a say in the matter... the power this has is HUGE!

But it does not cost $300,000 to level a house. I've gone before the re-zoning comitee and spoken 3 times now, it is not hard to do. If my property is to be rezoned and developed for commercial use then I should be the one to profit from it, not the city.

Your arguement about the beat up Camaro is nonsense because restoring that Camaro would cost a lot of money. Having the city council re-zone my land will not cost anything. The beat up Camaro is only worth a whatever a beat up Camaro is worth... my land is already worth a fortune with just a simple signature on a re-zoning form. Even with the old house still on it any commercial developer would pay a fortune for it and remove the house themselves. Trust me, you're getting ripped off big time in this situation. My father and Uncle are both developers and I have also purchased a few rentals. I've also spoken before the Madison city council several times to discuss zoning matters. It is as simple as them approving it, it does not cost a fortune like restoring a beat up old Camaro.

What they are doing is theft. They take your land with full intentions of doing the re-zone (which costs them nothing) then they profiteer off your loss and make some big big developer a sweet deal. I bet they dont even raze the old structure. Why should they? The developer they sell it to will do it.

You are getting screwed here, trust me on this one. Not only does the city pocket *your* profit from *your* land, but now they can jack up the property taxes on it too.

If they are taking my property for commercial use, i'd expect to be paid the value of my property as a commercial site. It is only fair. If they want to take it for a highway project or some other "public" project then I am fine with getting the value as residential zoning would dictate.

Think about a farmer. He owns x amount of acres on the edge of town. Wal Mart approaches the city council to build a store in that town. It would bring in a ton of tax revenue and the city decides to take some of your farm land to sell to Wal Mart. They pay you whatever farm land is worth by the acre and then without spending a dime on it they re-zone it and sell it to Wal Mart for a few million dollars. The farmer just got screwed out of his families land and the city put his families money in their pockets.

These rezonings do not cost these city governments a thing. It is all just a big game to control development and now they are going to use it as a tool to legally steal your property for a fraction of what it is actually worth.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I told you Neal would have something to say about it. This is a good read. http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[Dave M]

I had been thinking about buying an acre or two of the farmland behind my house. There has been wharehouses and retail places popping up all over this one particular farm as they slowly sell off their land. I'd like to have a little buffer behind my home when they finally start building there. Now, what's the use? They'll just take that land from me, and maybe even my house too. After all, this property used to be part of the farm too. Nice going Supremes! Thanks!

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I had been thinking about buying an acre or two of the farmland behind my house. There has been wharehouses and retail places popping up all over this one particular farm as they slowly sell off their land. I'd like to have a little buffer behind my home when they finally start building there. Now, what's the use? They'll just take that land from me, and maybe even my house too. After all, this property used to be part of the farm too. Nice going Supremes! Thanks!

I'm glad to see you and me finally seeing eye to eye on something. That steak still awaits you.

I am so pissed about this supreme court thing.

The neighborhood I am in is the one I grew up in. I bought a house over here so my kids could go to a good school the same as my parents. There is a guy, a builder/contractor who is going around buying these houses, bulldozing them and building million dollar mansions on them. Just imagine how much this ruling made his life easier and all of my neighbors harder.

I agree with TraceZ. This will lead to blood shed.

[Steel2686]

At least we can do one thing... Tie it up in courts for a while. Even if they end up w/ my house, I'll make it real tough on them. It may cost me a bunch of money I don't have, but I'll be damned if they are just going to give me a check and 30 days to leave. Most contractors would end up just giving you an extra 100K to knock it off.

[ONLNTM5]

Hate to sound all doom and gloom, but expect this to be a trend. The world is not improving and neither is our country.

I hate to sound doom and gloom to, but that is right. People have been predicting this for a while. I bought a DVD video from Ebay by Alex Jones, called "911 The Road to Tyranny". http://www.infowars.com/tyranny.htmI I was stunned by what I saw on this video and a couple of others that were on this DVD. Some of it I don't even want to mention here, because the implications would seem like blasphemy to most everyone, as far as how our government has been involved in orchestrating terrible events in this country to bring about their plans for more control over the American people as well as control over the world. He shows a ton of information from many sources, like news reports, etc., that I didn't know or I guess I just didn't want to believe. He shows plenty of evidence though. I have found other information in my own research as well. I voted for Bush and as some may remember, I was very determined with my posts on this forum, back before this last election, in my efforts to get him elected. Of course I wouldn't have voted for Kerry, but now, I believe that if I knew then what I know now, I probably wouldn't have voted at all. I have become very skeptical of Bush's true agenda. One example of things not being quite right with Bush, is this most recent situation with the border (just look at Bush's recent poll numbers). This border problem that he simply refuses to do anything about, is really starting to get me irritated to put it mildly. I saw on CNN how these illegals are actually getting loans to buy houses, (they called it "Banking the Unbanked") as well as getting government assistance from programs like Medicaid, food stamps, etc., that are meant for legal Americans. I don't understand how this is possible. It just seems that there is some mysterious effort going on to literally screw Americans over, while rewarding illegal aliens, and the big corporations.

Its time that everyone in this country stop looking at the world with such a warm fuzzy view, and start researching what is really going on in this world, and start discussing it more, so everyone can be aware.

[95TransAm]

I told you Neal would have something to say about it. This is a good read. http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

A good read indeed.....
"There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida."

Maybe Illinois has something right going for them after all.....for now at least

For many years there have been legal battles here in Chicago for the expansion of O'Hare Airport. The battle basically has been the people who live around O'Hare who want to keep their houses vs. the city trying to take it away to expand. I wonder who's gonna win this one now in the years to come.

I still cannot believe that the government can just come and seize my propery if I don't take some offer that can actually hurt me financially.

This isn't America, the land of the free, the nation who's birth was based on getting away from a tyrannical government.....is it?

[Joe 1320]

The main issue is the seizure of land for commercial development, not public use. To force someone out of their home because of commercial property investment rather than allow the original property owner the right to capitalize on their investment seems unconsitiutional. Why are we even buying property and homes? Forcing someone out to build an expressway for public use is one thing, forcing them out so that the government can make a profit is another.

[95TransAm]

Forcing someone out to build an expressway for public use is one thing, forcing them out so that the government can make a profit is another.

Perfectly stated

[Dave M]

I've never once taken the time to write to my representative or congressmen, but I can darn well garauntee that's what I'll be doing in the next 20 minutes. The Supreme Court may have ruled on the national scale, but the state can still make it illegal.

One thing to keep in mind guys...... here's an exerpt from our Decleration of Independence:

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.

All it says is the governement has the right to govern because WE GIVE it that right. If that government becomes harmful to us, we have the right to remove it and start a new one.

I hate to say it, I really do, because I love this country, but there may be a time in the not so distant future when another Revolution may have to come about. We are now at a point in this country where the government can take your house at it's sheer will, and speaking out against said government and it's policies gets you labeled "un-patriotic" or worse. What happened to free speach and the right to petition with a redress of our greivances? And the right to life, liberty, and property? These are the foundations this country was built on and they're all but gone.

[TraceZ]

I've never once taken the time to write to my representative or congressmen, but I can darn well garauntee that's what I'll be doing in the next 20 minutes. The Supreme Court may have ruled on the national scale, but the state can still make it illegal.

I just took the time to write mine. here is what I sent to reps. Feingold, Risser, Berceau, Baldwin and Kohl ...

I am writing you for the first time today out of concern for our private property. My family has for generations made the majority of its income from property rentals. I am very alarmed now that the supreme court has ruled that city governments may seize this property for no reason but their own financial gain. This financial gain is clouded in the guise of "public interest" because the proceeds *stolen* from property owners would be placed with the government, supposedly representing to good of the people. I have no issue with forcing someone out to build an expressway for public use. That is one thing, forcing them out so that the government can make a profit is another. This is un-American and I for one am shocked that the supreme court would make such a ruling. If anyone is to profit from the rezoning and sale of *my* investment in *my* property it should better well be *me*.

I call on you today to build legislation to protect us from this tyranny of government in Wisconsin. It is up to you folks now to pass laws to protect our private property. Apparently the supreme court has lost its common sense, please hear this to restore common sense to Wisconsin.



Tracy Bahr

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Notice the supreme court votes are straight down party lines. Democrats for it and republicans against it. Who you going to vote for next time.

Actually, that's not correct. 5 republicans, 4 dems on the Supreme Court, one republican voted for this.

[Dave M]

Here is the text of the letter I sent to my Congresswoman. My Representative did not have an email address listed, so I will be printing out a hard copy to send to him. Feel free to borrow from this if you will be sending your own letters. I'll let you all know if/when I get a response.

Dear Senator Vance;

I am writing to you in regard to the recent Supreme Court decision that allows local government to seize an indivisual's home for commercial development. I, and I imagine most homeowners, do not agree with the Supreme Court decision on this matter. Homes that have been in families for generations can be taken away at the whime of local politicians seeking a higher tax base. What if it was your home, or your child's home, in Wal-Mart's sights. Our community is heavily agricultural, as you well know. Farmers pay very little in the way of property taxes, often only a few hundred dollars a year or less. This property will now become prime targets for local governments who see the potential of tens of thousands of dollars in additional tax money from that same property if they would only seize it and hand it over to large corporations for "public use". Our farmland and agricultural culture is already an endagered species, and it now may be dead in the water.

Several other states already have laws on the books that make it all but illegal in that state to take property for commercial development. Pennsylvania, however, does not. I encourage you to support any bill that may come before you that restricts the government's eminent domain rights when it comes to commercial development; or sponser a bill if that's what it takes.

I have not brought myself to vote very often, but this issue alone will garauntee that I go to the polls from here on out. This Supreme Court ruling has instantly moved it to the top of the list of dangers facing the average American. I, and many other voters, will be watching our Congress' actions on this issue, and they will be remembered come election day.

Thank you for your time,

David Moore
Resident of the 31st District

[Dave M]

Here's a scary question for you. The editorial cited above states that 8 states have laws against this type of seizure. But now that the Supreme Court has said that this practice is Consitutional, could this force states to go along with the practice? For example, say you live in Florida, a state that purpotedly bans the seizure of property for commercial enterprises. Or for that matter, any state that would refuse to take property from it's citizens for this reason. A developer comes to you and offers you x dollars for your property and you decline. The developer then goes to the municipality, asking them to seize the property through eminent domain so that they may develop it. The municipality declines to seize the property. Could the developer sue the municipality in Federal Court to force it to seize the property, claiming that it has a constitutional right to do so. Somehow I don't think it would come down in there favor, but then I never thought we'd see yesterday's decision either.

All those state laws banning this practice may now be unconstitutional!