[permaculture] CNN.com - High court OKs personal property seizures- Jun 23, 2005
rmwj at soonernet.com
Thu Jun 23 23:09:21 EDT 2005
This decision of the US Supreme Court is, well,
the politest thing I can think of to say about it
is that it is "UTTERLY DEPRAVED".
"Urban renewal" has been used for years as a way
to destroy poor and working class neighborhoods
and transfer the land use to purposes desired by
non-poor people. Here in OKC, a very nice 1950s
neighborhood was destroyed to put in a big box
store. Earlier, the historic heart of the African
American business and residential community was
destroyed in what amounted to a "due process riot"
by covetous white people who wanted the land
(close to downtown, thus potentially valuable) but
who did not want to pay market prices for the
land. So the City condemned the properties, paid
people cheap prices which were upheld by the
courts, and ethnically cleansed the area.
People in rural areas may think this only impacts
cities, but think again. Suppose Seaboard Farms
wants to put a giant Confined Animal Feeding
Operation in your area, but the neighbors object.
This won't be a problem in the future. Just
condemn their properties, force them to sell for
cheap price, and voila, "economic benefit" in the
form of a new Confined Animal Feeding Operation to
"support the local economy".
This is one of the most anti-permaculture,
anti-sustainable living decisions ever made by the
US SUpreme Court, it ranks with their decisions
legitimizing the "personhood" of corporations.
Robert Waldrop, who is very sad and scared about
this in Oklahoma City
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl at intrex.net>
To: <permaculture at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:14 AM
Subject: [permaculture] CNN.com - High court OKs
personal property seizures- Jun 23, 2005
> High court OKs personal property seizures
> Majority: Local officials know how best to
> Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT
> *WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on
Thursday ruled that local
> governments may seize people's homes and
> -- even against their will -- for private
> 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
> 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 have wide power to bulldoze
residences for projects
> such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to
generate tax revenue.
> Local officials, not federal judges, know best
in deciding whether a
> development project will benefit the community,
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the permaculture