ypsi~dixit

Olde West Side...here comes New More Taxable West Side.

In Ypsi's case, maybe we could use this to take over empty downtown buildings with lying signs that say "This building is occupied"?

:) That's a funny idea.

This is an unsettling ruling. In the Connecticut case that gave rise to it, at least one homeowner is vowing to stay in his home, even when the bulldozers come. We'll have to wait and see what happens then.

I find this ruling to be very upsetting, and frankly, I am flabbergasted that the supreme court found this sort of seizure of property to be constitutional.

All of our homes are vulnerable under this ruling.

They are indeed. O'Connor's dissent was called "blistering," though I have yet to read it.

Again, the "liberal" justices were in favor of this outrageous ruling (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Bryer, Kennedy), while the "conservative" justices (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) were against it.

I'm curious how this affects Michigan. It's possible that this overturns last summer's Hathcock ruling by the MI Supreme Court, which said, "No, must be a public _use_, not just public purpose."

On the other hand, it is possible for a state Constitution to ensure its citizens higher protection than the US Constitution does - e.g. there's not a clear right to privacy in the US Constitution, but there is a stated right to privacy under the Oregon Constitution. I'm not sure if "protected from having your home taken for a public purpose but not use" falls into that category; I imagine (hope) it does.

That is an interesting question; how states' rights would interact with the Supreme Court ruling, given the Hathcock ruling.

Nice summary on Hathcock by the way, Murph.

This is very, very bad.

More buildings to chain yourself too. You should be happy.

Developers have deep pockets. Unlike homeowners or county governments, developers wouldn't be overly bothered by legal fees in suits aimed to seize private land.

What about lands protected by perpetual trusts designed to keep the land in its natural state, forever? Those, it could be argued, are privately owned. What if one such parcel is an ideal site for a casino?

The funny thing, Anonymous, is that because you are anonymous, we cannot make ad hominem remarks like you can. I find you funny most of the time. This last one felt a little personal. Asshole.

I hope Anonymous was to some extent joking, otherwise his comment's anger seems a bit out of proportion, since I am sure he never met Charlie.

I really do find Anonymous funny most of the time. I guess this last one just rubbed me the wrong way because I felt singled out.

*cries, runs to room, slams door, throws himself angrily down on bed with comic book*

(slides backup comic book under door)

Take caution in your tone, Charlie. I'm a fair guy but this fucking heat is making me absolutely crazy. You wanna ask me about eminent domain? On the record, I tell you I discourage the practice in acordance with the directives; off the record, I tell you it`s an invaluable part of progress. And if it happens to go on without my knowledge, so be it. I run my unit how I run my unit. You wanna hassle me? Roll the dice and take your chances. I eat breakfast 300 yards from 4,000 Cubans that are trained to kill me, so don`t think for one second that you can come down here, flash your badge and make me nervous.

It would seem that Charlie needs you on that wall.

I find the whole thing extremly tragic.

I'll meet him back at the Idle Minute.

I didn't realize Jack Nicholson posted here under anonymous

If you go, you might want to avoid wearing white. The Idle Hourians see you wearing white, they think it might be someone they'd wanna take a shot at.

Gives me a whole new way of looking at the day.

I hear charles cannot surf.

Is that true?
I want answers.
I think I'm entitled.
I want the truth.

This thread has taken a turn for the bizarre!

I'm not coming out of my room. *throws Chewbacca doll at door and pouts*

We'll need a few good men to get Charlie out of there. Men?

what are you reading in there, young man?

"We'll need a few good men to get Charlie out of there. Men?"

Oh, this SO would have been a set-up for one of Raymond's bon-mots. Rest in peace, Ray. *pours out some of his Frog Island*

LF: I'm reading the issue of Marvel What If where Conan gets transported to 1970s New York and starts ruling the street gangs until he tangles with Captain America.

Been here a week now, waiting for a mission, getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger

LOL! Anonymous, you're an errand boy. Sent by the grocer. To collect the bill.

Hey, man, you don't talk to Charlie. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll, uh, well, you'll say hello to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you, and he won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say do you know that if is the middle word in life?

What are you gonna do, Laura, when you go out into space? Land on fractions?

(Doesn't anyone want to talk about eminent domain and the SCOTUS.)

As one who protects the common man, I am very disappointed in this eminent-domain verdict.

I think it sets a terrible precident. It means that any time land isn't serving its highest economic use, it can be taken by the state. Like your ocean-front land? The land that's been in your family for generations? Sorry -- a huge hotel there would make a lot more money for the city. Been cultivating a clientele at your family diner for three generations? Whoops, we need the lot for a Wal-Mart. Terrible, terrible. I have to say that O'Connor often surprises and impresses me.

Yes, one of the Connecticut homeowners said his house had been built by his great-grandfather and had been a gift to him from his father. He spoke of how the house was a snapshot of his mother, now gone, and how he was raising his own children here.

So, I've been skimming the opinion, and I don't think it's as bad as I first thought. It's 56 pages total, though, so I haven't had time to give it the appropriate attention it deserves. Check my page in the next day or two, and hopefully my thoughts will have assembled themselves into a coherant post.

Thank you Murph; I'll be sure to check it out at your site.

Wow, it's like a bad game of The Sims.

This is revolt/revolution inspiring. Democratic goverments can't and don't do this. 1800's Russia on the other...
Actions like this put us one giant leap closer to serfdom where we will be sold with the land.
That may sound mellow-dramatic but did you ever think our Supreme Court would rule that developers can take your land at any whim? It doesn't matter that your house may be beautiful or that you lived there for 50 years, if some business says "gimme" you're screwed? The right to own property has been sacred in this country. It's what we strive for. For most people it's their biggest investment and nest egg. It's a sense of accomplishment and security. And now that's been sold on the auction block too.
Where are they going with this? What else are they going to give away?

It is a disturbing enlargement of any podunk local government's power to strip away your most valuable asset, one which may contain a lifetime of memories.

Think Ann Arbor City government would propose putting a hotel in Barton Hills? I don't think so. How about in the neighborhood of tiny, rundown houses on the south end of Packard? Hey, that's a nice piece of land, there, isn't it?

Way back: I wouldn't call O'Conner "conservative" even if satan himself appointed her. Seems like this ruling would benefit the money-lined lobbyists and their developer bosses...hardly "liberals". And aren't "local / states' rights" usually "conservative" issues? Or do such "names" even count "here".

""

In a recent Free Press list of the most highly-paid execs in Michigan, numerous execs from Pulte Homes (which is putting in a development just north of Ypsi) figured prominently. Developers are needless to say swimming in money thanks to the supposed housing bubble. They have, as a result, plenty of say in DC.

Leighton,
This is why I put "liberal" and "conservative" in quotes. Many court decisions lately seem to split between justices who want to limit government power, and those who don't, although some justices like Scalia and O'Connor go back and forth depending on the issue. Thomas seems to be pretty consistent in trying limit the power of government, which is why he voted against the ban of medical marijuana, and against the City of New London in this case.

interesting observation.