Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know how to keep an idiot in suspense?
Kept you for two days so far.
Let me help you out here.
Kelo v. City of New London | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Yes or no, PC. Simple question.
Again you didn't ask me but I will respond anyway.
Yes based on what I've read so far, with one reservation. I don't know the compensation part of this equation for the Taking Clause. I'm not going to research this topic further. If you choose, show the compensation for the homes taken versus the data on the economic development that was gained for the property.
Kelo v City of New London
The city of New London (hereinafter City) sits at the junction of the Thames River and the Long Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a "distressed municipality." In 1996, the Federal Government closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had been located in the Fort Trumbull area of the City and had employed over 1,500 people. In 1998, the City's unemployment rate was nearly double that of the State, and its population of just under 24,000 residents was at its lowest since 1920.
These conditions prompted state and local officials to target New London, and particularly its Fort Trumbull area, for economic revitalization. To this end, respondent New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity established some years earlier to assist the City in planning economic development, was reactivated. In January 1998, the State authorized a $5.35 million bond issue to support the NLDC's planning activities and a $10 million bond issue toward the creation of a Fort Trumbull State Park. In February, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. announced that it would build a $300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbull; local planners hoped that Pfizer would draw new business to the area, thereby serving as a catalyst to the area's rejuvenation. After receiving initial approval from the city council, the NLDC continued its planning activities and held a series of neighborhood meetings to educate the public about the process. In May, the city council authorized the NLDC to formally submit its plans to the relevant state agencies for review. Upon obtaining state-level approval, the NLDC finalized an integrated development plan focused on 90 acres of the Fort Trumbull area.
The Fort Trumbull area is situated on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. The area comprises approximately 115 privately owned properties, as well as the 32 acres of land formerly occupied by the naval facility (Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres). The development plan encompasses seven parcels. Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a "small urban village" that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian "riverwalk" will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U. S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space. Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk. Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses.
Petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918; her husband, petitioner Charles Dery, moved into the house when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door with his family in the house he received as a wedding gift, and joins his parents in this suit. Two petitioners keep rental properties in the neighborhood.
In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London's city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here. The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed. Consistent with its mandate, the NLDC generated an ambitious plan for redeveloping 90 acres of Fort Trumbull in order to "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually 'build momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city."
Petitioners own properties in two of the plan's seven parcels--Parcel 3 and Parcel 4A. Under the plan, Parcel 3 is slated for the construction of research and office space as a market develops for such space. It will also retain the existing Italian Dramatic Club (a private cultural organization) though the homes of three plaintiffs in that parcel are to be demolished. Parcel 4A is slated, mysteriously, for " 'park support.' "At oral argument, counsel for respondents conceded the vagueness of this proposed use, and offered that the parcel might eventually be used for parking.
To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan. Petitioners are not hold-outs; they do not seek increased compensation, and none is opposed to new development in the area. Theirs is an objection in principle: They claim that the NLDC's proposed use for their confiscated property is not a "public" one for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. While the government may take their homes to build a road or a railroad or to eliminate a property use that harms the public, say petitioners, it cannot take their property for the private use of other owners simply because the new owners may make more productive use of the property.
Now that Taking Clause situation has both pros and cons. The rights of a few over the benefit of thousands. A new public park, piers, boat launches, museum, research facility, and large office spaces with a new modern subdivision for the one posted.
Now apply that to Nevada and using Judicial Justice to seize state land for the protection of the turtle forcing all the farmers basically out of business. Using the Endangered species act as justification.......................
The Cows and turtles co-existed for a very long time. The turtles even ate the cow dung. But the Gov't seized the land anyway. Saying it was to protect the species, that they later killed for their own good.
That would be a more suitable subject. Or the indian gals who lost their land, horses and cattle after the Gov't seized the property. Can't remember their names offhand now but could google it again........The Gov't starved their horses and cattle in the process.
Do you agree with these situations disir?
A simple yes or no, please.
Let me help you out here.
Kelo v. City of New London | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Yes or no, PC. Simple question.
Again you didn't ask me but I will respond anyway.
Yes based on what I've read so far, with one reservation. I don't know the compensation part of this equation for the Taking Clause. I'm not going to research this topic further. If you choose, show the compensation for the homes taken versus the data on the economic development that was gained for the property.
The issue was not about compensation.
Petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918; her husband, petitioner Charles Dery, moved into the house when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door with his family in the house he received as a wedding gift, and joins his parents in this suit. Two petitioners keep rental properties in the neighborhood.
In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London's city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here. The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed. Consistent with its mandate, the NLDC generated an ambitious plan for redeveloping 90 acres of Fort Trumbull in order to "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually 'build momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city."
Petitioners own properties in two of the plan's seven parcels--Parcel 3 and Parcel 4A. Under the plan, Parcel 3 is slated for the construction of research and office space as a market develops for such space. It will also retain the existing Italian Dramatic Club (a private cultural organization) though the homes of three plaintiffs in that parcel are to be demolished. Parcel 4A is slated, mysteriously, for " 'park support.' "At oral argument, counsel for respondents conceded the vagueness of this proposed use, and offered that the parcel might eventually be used for parking.
To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan. Petitioners are not hold-outs; they do not seek increased compensation, and none is opposed to new development in the area. Theirs is an objection in principle: They claim that the NLDC's proposed use for their confiscated property is not a "public" one for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. While the government may take their homes to build a road or a railroad or to eliminate a property use that harms the public, say petitioners, it cannot take their property for the private use of other owners simply because the new owners may make more productive use of the property.
As an aside, Pfitzer booked in 2010. All of that which was proposed didn't happen.
I just posted that.
Hang on to this one. It's US v Bundy (1998)
http://dohiyimir.typepad.com/bundy-1998-court.pdf
And yet, that one is different from the C Bundy case.
Have you seen this? Do you find it bothersome?
Did You Know That Antonin Scalia's Son Is Sabotaging Wall Street Reform? | Mother Jones
That you're quoting fucking Mother Jones as though it's meaningful, relevant, and something that should be taken seriously? Yeah, that's bothersome. I flush more intelligent and interesting content than they publish.
What you should be thinking about is how the PC ID is taking one or two lines from material and not linking to it and then string the crap together as if it's coherent and random thoughts of its own. Since that does not seem to bother you, you aren't intelligent enough for this conversation either. Go back to leaving bird droppings on threads.
That you're quoting fucking Mother Jones as though it's meaningful, relevant, and something that should be taken seriously? Yeah, that's bothersome. I flush more intelligent and interesting content than they publish.
What you should be thinking about is how the PC ID is taking one or two lines from material and not linking to it and then string the crap together as if it's coherent and random thoughts of its own. Since that does not seem to bother you, you aren't intelligent enough for this conversation either. Go back to leaving bird droppings on threads.
I should think about any damned thing I choose to think about, and I don't need permission from someone who wastes time reading Mother Jones to do it. Can you comprehend the fact that your citation of that rag automatically labeled every post with your avatar on it as "Utter bullshit from someone who should be arrested for oxygen theft"?
Let me simple this up for you:
You read Mother Jones. Your existence is invalid. Case closed.
In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.
