[IP] more on Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nathan COCHRANE <NCOCHRANE@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 23, 2005 8:02:25 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]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@xxxxxxx
Date: June 23, 2005 10:55:46 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/