[IP] more on Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jon Urdan <jonu@preventsys.com>
Date: June 24, 2005 12:18:55 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes


No one has commented on the odd alignment of judges in this case.
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, generally friends of business and states'
rights, voted against this opinion.  In other words, they wanted the  
Federal
Judiciary to rule against the developers and overrule the state of
Connecticut and local New London government.  Meanwhile a coalition
including all the liberal judges chose to not to protect the rights  
of the
relatively powerless homeowners.

Does this seem odd to anyone else?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com] On  
Behalf Of
David Farber
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:56 PM
To: Ip ip
Subject: [IP] more on Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes




Begin forwarded message:

From: Nathan COCHRANE <NCOCHRANE@theage.com.au>
Date: June 23, 2005 8:02:25 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: RE: [IP] Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes


Hi Dave

The news out of the US gets weirder and weirder all the time. So much
for the US Constitution when might makes right.

What profit fighting for democracy in Iraq when you lose it at home?

But it could be an interesting angle on the copyright debate. If the
public benefit of piracy outweighed the private rights of
intellectual property ownership then, according to this judgement,
states should legalise open slather IP infringement.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com]On  
Behalf Of
David Farber
Sent: Friday, 24 June 2005 6:41 AM
To: Ip ip
Subject: [IP] Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes




Begin forwarded message:

From: eekid@aol.com
Date: June 23, 2005 10:55:46 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes


Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local  
governments may
seize people's homes and businesses ? even against their will ? for  
private
economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many
areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing
countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose
homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.  
They
argued that cities have no right to take their land except for  
projects with
a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted
areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for  
projects
such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax  
revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a
development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it  
believes
will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including ? but  
by no
means limited to ? new jobs and increased tax
revenue," Justice     John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice     Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows  
governments to
take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public
use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class  
neighborhood in
New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to  
raze
their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans  
served a
public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the  
homeowners'
property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/
scotus_seizing_property_2



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as ncochrane@theage.fairfax.com.au
To manage your subscription, go to
   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/


************************************************************************
*********
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
files is or may be confidential.  If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or
copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-
mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced,
adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright
owner. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the
sender immediately by return e-mail, or telephone and delete all
copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of
any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet
communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept
legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.
************************************************************************
*********





-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as jonu@preventsys.com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/



-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/