Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: moving closer to cyberpunk...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
nick012000
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court has effectively abolished what remained of private property rights. In an extreme deviation from the original intent of "for public use", the court has vastly expanded the scope of Eminent Domain by ruling that "as long as officials hope to create jobs or raise tax collections, they can seize the homes of unwilling sellers".

That's right, folks, your US home can be seized if the government decides that an office building or shopping center will create more jobs and/or taxes than you do. Sure, property owners are entitled to "just compensation", but this is also essentially decided by the government.

In the words of dissenting justices, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party," and, "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." (O'Conner)

And this is a Supreme Court ruling! There is no further chance of appeal short of reversal by a subsequent Supreme Court!

If you still do not fully grasp the implications of this, let me put it this way: Since all property is now potentially subject to seizure, government officials and politically connected people can now use Eminent Domain to target and harass specific groups and individuals. A person or an organization -- even a church can now be forcibly removed from an area by drawing up the appropriate development plans.

The essential (Natural) rights are life, liberty and property. These rights are interconnected. That is to say, a violation of property rights is tantamount to encroachment on the other two rights of life and liberty, because this is essentially a violation of free choice (liberty) and the time and effort (your life) it took to create or obtain that property.

You have no rights.
The Supreme Court just said so.

(taken from here with permission)
mfb
not according to the Bill of Rights. the three natural rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. "property" didn't make it in because the crown personally owned all the land the colonies lived on, so including "property" would be self-defeating--the whole point of the revolution was to steal the crown's land.

tangent aside, i agree--that is some scary shit, right there.
ShadowDragon8685
Y-woah.


Ooookay now. Time to start buying assualt rifles, ammo, and kevlars.

This is bull. BULLcrapicus.
ShadowDragon8685
As an aside, I wonder how long it is until Extraterritoriality? God I hope not...

This is some scary and insane crap... I'm sitting here and watching my nation flush itself right down the crapper.
Critias
Sweet! I can't wait to get a job as a jackbooted thug, able to pillage and roam where and how I please. This'll be great.
ShadowDragon8685
Hooo boy...

Where does the word Jackboot come from, and what does it mean, anyhow...

/me never got that.
Birdy
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
Hooo boy...

Where does the word Jackboot come from, and what does it mean, anyhow...

/me never got that.

Jackboots (Deutsch: Schaftstiefel) aka "Knobelbecher" (lit: Dice rolling cups) are long boots (mid-claf in the latest incarnation) without laces, held up by close fitting.

The latest users where some of the GoodGuys that is the Sowjet Army, the East German Peoples army (both at least on the dress uniform) and, until the 1943/44 uniform issue, the German Wehrmacht.

The latter, also featuring a hobnailed sole IIRC, are the common root of the "oppresiv Jackboot" quotes.

WWII Veterans always told us that the best piece of equipment introduced in the german Bundeswehr are the modern combat boots and that jackboots where a lousy footwear, even more so in the winter.

Birdy


ShadowDragon8685
Aaaaaah.

Enlightenment dawns. I thank you.

*bows to Birdy.*
Austere Emancipator
At least this explains corp enclaves etc. Why own your own home and the land it's on when the government can sieze both, build an Azzie mall in their place and give you $5 UCAS in "compensation"? I'd be begging to have my home owned by a megacorp.
Panzergeist
Not quite. The company building the office building doesn't sieze your home; The government does it on their behalf. The company would have to petition the local government to evict you, and so the local government would have to be willing to do so. I can't imagine this being done very often, but if the need for that specific plot of land is compelling enough, well, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
ShadowDragon8685
Wow Panzer. You're not getting it.

Yeah... This is frightening. VERY frightening.
Critias
Well, there's a difference between "not getting it" and "freaking out and running to the store to buy the necessary supplies for a tin foil hat."

I think he was spot no when he said "I don't imagine this sort of thing happening very often."

Yes, they can do it if they want to, now, and there's nothing you can do about it. No, I don't think that means it'll happen with amazing frequency and without good reason. Yes, I try to think the best of my government. No, I know I'm not right very often about that. wink.gif
ShadowDragon8685
Forget the tinfoil hat, I'm stocking up on ammo and food and water.

*very spooked.*
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Panzergeist)
The company building the office building doesn't sieze your home; The government does it on their behalf.
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
Why own your own home and the land it's on when the government can sieze both, build an Azzie mall in their place and give you $5 UCAS in "compensation"?

Reading is good for you. Try it some time.

QUOTE (Critias)
No, I don't think that means it'll happen with amazing frequency and without good reason.

IRL, in a civilized Western country, you're right. But assuming there's no legal restraing for governments to do so in the world of Shadowrun? Because we all know (semi-)cyberpunk governments aren't at all corrupt.
Kyuhan
It is pretty scary, I guess the big question is where does it end? We have similar laws here in Canada though with no major conflicts yet.

I imagine though if it begins a landslide of corporate takeovers, there might be civil war...maybe John Titor wasn't crazy afterall. nyahnyah.gif
Critias
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (Critias)
No, I don't think that means it'll happen with amazing frequency and without good reason.

IRL, in a civilized Western country, you're right. But assuming there's no legal restraing for governments to do so in the world of Shadowrun? Because we all know (semi-)cyberpunk governments aren't at all corrupt.

Err, yeah. Sorry. Thought we were all yakking about RL.

I mean, it's a great law to have on the books, and sets a fantastic precedence for anyone wanting to do cyberpunkish writing or whatever, sure. I agree with that totally. I don't, personally, find it all that "scary," though. I understand how it could be, but I don't think it will be.

Plus, well, I don't own all that much stuff. So I ent skeered.
SirBedevere
QUOTE (Panzergeist)
.......the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

No, the needs of the rich outweigh the needs of the poor!

Another application of the 'Golden Rule'. Whoever has the gold makes the rules. biggrin.gif
weblife
AFAIK the state, here in Denmark, has always had the privilege of apropriating land if the greater good was dependent on it. Fx for railroads and highways etc.

And yes, there have been cases where the public value of the land has mysteriously decreased in the years leading up to a takeover. These cases usually get whipped up in the media, and a compromise is found between the current owner and the city. - Usually it still ends up to the citys benefit.

Private person vs. The System = Automatic win for the System.
nezumi
QUOTE (weblife)
AFAIK the state, here in Denmark, has always had the privilege of apropriating land if the greater good was dependent on it. Fx for railroads and highways etc.

But a railway isn't the same as a strip mall, or beach condos. There have been quite a number of cases of a house owned by a family for generations getting bought for the low price end (since it's the gov't who pays the appraiser) and demolished for some big corp to move in 'because it's for the public good'.

Forget saving up for a house, I'm saving up for ammo!
Spark
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (weblife @ Jun 24 2005, 05:41 AM)
AFAIK the state, here in Denmark, has always had the privilege of apropriating land if the greater good was dependent on it. Fx for railroads and highways etc.

But a railway isn't the same as a strip mall, or beach condos. There have been quite a number of cases of a house owned by a family for generations getting bought for the low price end (since it's the gov't who pays the appraiser) and demolished for some big corp to move in 'because it's for the public good'.

Forget saving up for a house, I'm saving up for ammo!

dude ya! im with nezumi on this one. that is frickin scary! i'll be doing to things:
1. buying mucho guns (in like a couple months because then its legal)
2. buying corporate offic... i mean land. biggrin.gif
3. Complaing to my uncle as he is very well connected in DC.
4. playing shadowrun to get ready and to of course build up my soul for the coming crap! j.k. grinbig.gif
Rev
By the way this has been happening for decades, the supreme court just (stupidly) made it official.

Wal-Mart, Target and other big box stores are some of the more egregious examples, but just about every major city has a sports stadium where eminent domain was used to give a bunch of multi-millionaires and thier employers a place of business on prime real estate.

But yea, reminds me of the post on that thread about the lifestyle customization rules: real estate development is fertile ground for shadowruns.
Req
Dammit, I just closed on my first house YESTERDAY.

Timing is everything. nyahnyah.gif
Charon
The "just compensation" might be decided by the government but now it's backed by a supreme court judgement. Expect the court to expand on exactly what "just compensation" means sooner or later. Whenever a property is seized and compensation ends up below market value, I'd assume the case will be taken to court.

All in all, nothing to get panicked about IMO. It doesn't really change the statu quo and if rules for "just compensation" becomes clarified and codified as a result of this ruling, it could improve it. In the states, anyway.
hyzmarca
The Supreme Court isn't the only court in the land. It is just the highest Federal Court. It can only rule on matters of Federal Inerest. If a State court determines that State law restricts eminent domain then the Supreme Court rulling doesn't matter at all in that State..
Wounded Ronin
This is only one component. The other component is political sustainability. If the Federal government were to go around seizing property left and right the question would become whether or not there'd be enough political opposition to change the law again or not.

I won't worry about it till abuses start happening.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Kelo v. New London)
MR. BULLOCK: Well, Your Honor, the limit is that there cannot be takings for private use.

JUSTICE BREYER: Of course, there can't, purely. But there is no taking for private use that you could imagine in reality that wouldn't also have a public benefit of some kind, whether it's increasing jobs or increasing taxes, et cetera.
That's a fact of the world. And so given that fact of the world, that is law, why shouldn't the law say, okay, virtually every taking is all right, as long as there is some public benefit which there always is and it's up to the legislature.

MR. BULLOCK: Your Honor, we think that 8 that cuts way too broadly.

JUSTICE BREYER: Because?

MR. BULLOCK: Because then every property, every home, every business can then be taken for any private use.

JUSTICE BREYER: No. It could only be taken if there is a public use and there almost always is. Now, do you agree with that, or do you not agree with my last empirical statement?


Ahh, a fine example of political sophistry in action...


-karma
Spark
THATS PLAIN SCARY!
Eldritch
Yeah we've had some of that her in Nor Cal. In fact recently, a local Indian Casino expanded thier operation so that they could handle more customers.

This meant that the roads had to be expanded. Well this old guy, retired, owned his house, and was living comforably. But he had the Gall to have his house right where they wanted the road.

Enter our friend Emminent Domain. He was paid crap for his house - no where near enough to buy another anywhere in northern californina, evicted , and his house torn down.

All so that the Casino could have a bigger road. In a state where gambling is illegal - unless you are a Soverign Nation.

It's a bunch of crap. irritates the hell outta me.

There was another recetly - in Boston? Not sure, but yeah, a whole area of old homes - some of which had been in the family for generations. E.D., bought out for crap, and then torn down for a condo.

Nice Uncle Sam *Two Thumbs Up*
Spark
hey eldritch where do you live in Nor. Cal? that sounds familiar.
Aku
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
The Supreme Court isn't the only court in the land. It is just the highest Federal Court. It can only rule on matters of Federal Inerest. If a State court determines that State law restricts eminent domain then the Supreme Court rulling doesn't matter at all in that State..

incorrect a bit. A federal law supercedes any state law that might be there, and a state can't limit the scope of a federal law. So now that the federal law has been approved, it seems like it doesnt matter what the states want to do. For instance, the federal gov't says that you have to be 18 to purchase tobacco products, a state can't reboke that and say otherwise (or, atleast they can't say younger than that.)

Drinking age, on the other hand, is a state regulated law, ofcourse, most states are set at 21, because the federal government is essentially bribing them with federal transportation money to improve roadways etc;if the state doesn't set their age to 21, then they don't gett a cut of those tax dollars.

Hurray for us!

Also, on this emminent domain thing, my dad used to talk about how, in NY, when things like this would be coming along, people would constantly have their homes for sale for rather large sums of money (or even just what they wanted for them) and that would remove the clause for "just compensation of unwilling sellers", since they were, technically willing sellers, it became the state that was an unwilling buyer.
Eldritch
QUOTE (Spark)
hey eldritch where do you live in Nor. Cal? that sounds familiar.

Sacramento Area

I can't remember if it was the Jasckon Casino, or the one up 50 heading to Tahoe
ShadowGhost
And just in case you don't think this happens often....
QUOTE
According to a study of court papers and published accounts covering a five-year period, the institute found more than 10,000 examples of property being condemned under eminent domain for the benefit of private parties.
Cynic project
QUOTE (Eldritch)
In a state where gambling is illegal - unless you are a Soverign Nation.

Unless you are at a horse/dog track, card club house, a convent store .....
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Aku @ Jun 24 2005, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jun 24 2005, 12:54 PM)
The Supreme Court isn't the only court in the land. It is just the highest Federal Court. It can only rule on matters of Federal Inerest. If a State court determines that State law restricts eminent domain then the Supreme Court rulling doesn't matter at all in that State..

incorrect a bit. A federal law supercedes any state law that might be there, and a state can't limit the scope of a federal law. So now that the federal law has been approved, it seems like it doesnt matter what the states want to do. For instance, the federal gov't says that you have to be 18 to purchase tobacco products, a state can't reboke that and say otherwise (or, atleast they can't say younger than that.)

Drinking age, on the other hand, is a state regulated law, ofcourse, most states are set at 21, because the federal government is essentially bribing them with federal transportation money to improve roadways etc;if the state doesn't set their age to 21, then they don't gett a cut of those tax dollars.

Hurray for us!

Also, on this emminent domain thing, my dad used to talk about how, in NY, when things like this would be coming along, people would constantly have their homes for sale for rather large sums of money (or even just what they wanted for them) and that would remove the clause for "just compensation of unwilling sellers", since they were, technically willing sellers, it became the state that was an unwilling buyer.

While Federal law does suprecede state law that only matters when events fall into the scope of federal law.

Local emminent domain cases only fall under federal law as a Constitutional issue. The Supreme Court says that the Constitution permits the seizing of property for the the purpose of promoting economic growth. It does not require state and local governments to seize lands. Local government can choose not to and State courts can decide that their Constitutions are more restrictive than the Federal Constitution.

Also, Federal law doesn't prohibit minors from purchasing tobacco. It prohibits selling tobacco to minors. There is a difference. A 10 year old can go out and buy a semi-load of Marlboros without any reprecussions on the Federal level, other than fines to the seller.

There is also the sticky issue and jurisdiction illustrated be medical marijuna. Possession of marijuna is a federal crime without exceptions. Growing marijuna is even worse. However, many states allow one to possess and even grow marijuna for medical purposes with a doctor's perscription.

These people are commiting a Federal crime but what they are doing is perfectly legal in their states and there is very little the Federal government can do about it. The DEA can possibly arrest them and charge them if there is some justification for Federal jurisdiction. Often this justification is interstate transport.

But this is a case where the States are perfectly able to flout and undermine federal law without any consequences at all.
Eldritch
QUOTE (Cynic project)
QUOTE (Eldritch @ Jun 24 2005, 01:48 PM)
In a state where gambling is illegal - unless you are a Soverign Nation.

Unless you are at a horse/dog track, card club house, a convent store .....

Touche smile.gif

However I'd shut those down as well. Or just make gambling Legal for all. Not just a select few.

IIRC only the Indian casions can have slots (Here in CA) but the Card houses and Race tracks wanted to get liscened for a few. The Indian Casinons led the political campagn to put a Nix on that. Oh no, they don't want anyone else muscling in on their slots. They've got a strangle hold monopoly on slots here.

Gmabiling is legal, or it is not. Screw the grey area.
Cynic project
Look, I love California. I think we should be own nation. See how much they bash us when they can't count on our money. But back to my point, we have a fucked up system that has problems. Gabling is one of them
Penta
Reality Check time:

The Supreme Court did not say "Go ahead". It did not say "This is a good idea." It did not say any such thing.

What it said is that where State and local law allow it, it is perfectly justifiable for this to happen under the US Constitution.

This does not mean it will happen. Indeed, what is very likely to happen is a stampede of state legislation banning the idea in most cases.

What this will end is the really stubborn types; Y'know, the folks in the middle of a proposed <whatever> who won't sell regardless of the sums after the rest of the neighborhood has done so.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012