Please excuse this blog article. I haven't seen this news anywhere else.
Posted on 06/28/2005 4:06:06 AM PDT by oblomov
Harold Ford Jr., a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, has endorsed the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London, allowing local governments to seize provate property and give it to another private owner for purposes of econonmic development and to increase the government's tax revenue.
Blogging for Bryant has Ford's quote:
"I've always believed individual rights are a big thing..... but, I find value in the court's decision. As long as people are compensated fairly, I can appreciate the decision. Certain areas in our state are crying for development, if this decision helps - it's a positive."
Ford, it should be noted, consistently gets very low marks from the League of Private Property Voters. If you care about private property rights, you should not vote for Harold Ford Jr.
Ford, by the way, has so far not answered the six questions I posed to all six candidates - both Republicans and Democrats - running for their party's nomination to succeed Sen. Bill Frist in the U.S. Senate from Tennessee. Those questions were posted on this blog last Thursday also emailed to the candidates. Responses have come in from Republicans Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary and Democrat Rosalind Kurita.
It's worth noting that Kurita, Ford's rival for the Democratic nomination, has taken a position on Kelo that is much more friendly to private property rights than has Ford.
Besides Ford, Republicans Bob Corker and Beth Harwell have not yet responded.
MEMO TO THE MEDIA: As a former journalist I know that one thing political reporters look for in covering a campaign is points of difference between the candidates. Well, now you have one - and on a very hot issue. Harold Ford Jr. thinks government ought to be allowed to take property away from poor people and give it to rich people who can redevelop it and pay more taxes. Repubicans Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary and Ford's fellow Democrat, Rosalind Kurita, disagree with him.
UPDATE: Here are two audio clips from the show, in Mp3 format. The first clip, which lasts about one minute, features Ford's initial response to Teddy Bart's first question about his view on the Kelo decision. The second clip, which lasts 3:21, features comments from Bart, comments from Democratic strategist Bill Fletcher talking about how the Kelo decision could become "a huge issue" (and a good issue for libertarians and conservatives), followed by more comments from Ford explaining why Kelo is a good thing.
Ford's comments show that he really doesn't understand Kelo. Before the Kelo ruling, governments already had the right to use their power of eminent domain to condemn blighted property for redevelopment, and even to involve private-sector companies in that redevelopment, so long as the new development served a public use, generally accepted to be a road, school or public facility of some kind. What Kelo did was to pave the way for govermnent to take private property and give it to someone else solely on the basis that the new owner might redevelop it into something that would generate more tax revenue.
Because nearly any property can theoretically be redeveloped into a more valuable property, thus generating more property tax revenue, what Harold Ford Jr. has called a "positive" Supreme Court decision in essence means that the government of Memphis could condemn any privately-owned piece of real estate in the city of Memphis - from blighted inner-city crack houses to the Peabody Hotel - and give it to another owner who would redevelop it into something that would generate more taxes.
In practice, Kelo means any local government can now take property from the less well-to-do and give it to the more well-to-do solely to increase the government's tax revenue.
Harold Ford Jr., then, favors the gross enlargement of government power to force you to sell your property to it for what the government - not you - deem to be proper compensation, even if you don't want to sell at any price - so that government may give your property to someone else.
Here are the audio clips: Clip 1 | Clip 2 Right-click either link to download.
Please excuse this blog article. I haven't seen this news anywhere else.
So the socialists are rallying behind the socialist activists in the SCOTUS...this is to be expected from these anti-Americans.
So much for the party of "the little guy".
Such eloquence! Pure Shakespeare!
Actually it was his uncle, State Rep John Ford from Memphis. This clown has been corrupt since the beginning of time but was never busted until recently. He was arrested in an FBI sting taking bribes.
My guess is that 9 out of 10 ammerican didn't agree with the Supremes on this one. Time for new state laws and this will give the Pubs a little help in nominating a more conservative and property rights oriented Justice.
Litmus test..new one.
A lot of people could "find value" in this. Especially city leaders susceptible to bribes from developers.
The ones in Freeport, TX did...less than a day after the SCOTUS decision, if I heard Boortz correctly
The modern day Democrats are the sucessors of the Jacobins of the French Revolution.
They believe all the rights of citizens derive from the State, not from God, whom the great majority of them do not recognize anyway. They believe what the State has given the State can take away.
By pulling up the anchor of faith and demolishig the Judaeo-Christian rock upon which our nation founded, they are undermining our basic, God-given rights, which no society or state has the authority to deny.
And thus they are diammetrically opposed to the thinking of the Founding Fathers.
I heard somewhere that there are a lot of places where city governments and developers were eagerly watching this court case. Now, they have a green light.
The question then becomes (among many others, of course), what exactly does fair compensation mean. If a house worthy of condemnation is assessed at $25,000 but it costs $250,000 to move into a new one, is the government going to make up this difference?
The ability to take private property at governmental whim is more than socialist -- it is Communist, pure and simple.
Lest we forget .
How about if you own a mini-market or donut shop? And this is your livelihood? Per current guidelines, the govt does NOT have to make up for the lost income.
The fact that his name is Ford is the only thing any Tennessee voter with one good eye and a grain of sense needs to know. There aren't many of them in Memphis so he can keep his seat in the House, but I don't believe he has a chance in a statewide run for the Senate.
Bribes!!! This is something that the corrupt Ford's and every other black politician and black minister in the city of Memphis and County of Shelby Tennessee know everything about and, also know that the ignorant masses that live here will continue to let them get away with and keep them perpetually in office.
Wait until they snag some poor black persons land, Then Ford will change his tune.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.