Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Little Pink House Movie Exposes The Tyranny Of Eminent Domain
Forbes ^ | March 19, 2017 | George Leef

Posted on 03/19/2017 5:18:56 AM PDT by reaganaut1

The Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Kelo v. New London was that year’s blockbuster. Literally. The Court gave its blessing to the use of eminent domain to destroy blocks of housing so that city officials could pursue their dreams of a more wondrous community by seizing private property for a planned commercial development.

That taking had been challenged on the grounds that the precise wording of the Fifth Amendment’s provision allowing eminent domain – that the property had to be taken for “public use” – did not countenance takings where there was merely a purported “public purpose” in doing so. The Court’s “liberal” wing didn’t care either about the Constitution’s precise words or the harm its ruling would inflict on lots of “little guy” owners whose modest properties stood in the way of grandiose political projects.

Kelo is among the many cases demonstrating that ordinary Americans are served best by the strict rule of law rather than by “progressive” jurisprudence that empowers government officials.

And that is the message strongly conveyed by the recently released movie about Susette Kelo’s fight with the arrogant officials in New London, CT. Little Pink House premiered February 2 at the Santa Barbara film festival. In the film, Catherine Keener (who was nominated for an Oscar for her roles in Being John Malkovich and Capote) portrays Susette Kelo, the nurse who refused to meekly accept the city’s decision to force her out of the small home she had fixed up and loved.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: catherinekeener; eminentdomain; kelo; littlepinkhouse; movies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2017 5:18:56 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

That ruling was a travesty. Can someone challenge again and have it overturned?? ‘Taking’, just so the city can fatten their tax base, in UNAMERICAN. And true, patriotic Americans have risen again......it’s time to revisit all the ludicrous rulings the Libs on the SCOTUS have wrought on America.


2 posted on 03/19/2017 5:27:58 AM PDT by originalbuckeye ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Thanks for posting this- I did not realize a movie was being made about this legal issue and the situation in CT.


3 posted on 03/19/2017 5:30:13 AM PDT by Faith65 (Isaiah 40:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

We had this happen just about a mile from us. A row of very nice houses looking out over our neighborhood golf course. They started tearing them down one by one. There are only three left. One of them is boarded up. I’m pretty sure that they had to take the old man who lived there out against his will. Sad.


4 posted on 03/19/2017 5:34:13 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

OK, story timing coincides with the procurement of land along the southern border. Fishy. Political.


5 posted on 03/19/2017 5:35:59 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

We had a discussion on this topic the other day at work. All of then thought it was the conservative judges that ruled for it. When I showed them how each justice voted, they were stunned.


6 posted on 03/19/2017 5:40:03 AM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Judicial tyranny. America’s robed mullahs ALERT! All of their assets and property should be seized. POS totalitarians.

Zero checks and balances on these TYRANTS.


7 posted on 03/19/2017 5:42:08 AM PDT by PGalt (HOORAY President Donald J. Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

From the article: In the end, the homes belonging to Susette Kelo and her neighbors were demolished for no purpose at all, since the hoped-for development collapsed. What was once a nice residential area is now acres of rubble.


8 posted on 03/19/2017 5:44:56 AM PDT by GizzyGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I’ve come to believe that the root cause of much of the Eminent Domain abuse is property taxes.

Yes, property taxes.

By being able to tax private property the Government (Local, state and Federal), have a legitimate point in that the property you might think you own is actually the property of the government and what we call property taxes can be thought of as ‘Rent’.

We are all tenants on our own property and the Government owns everything.


9 posted on 03/19/2017 5:46:27 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I have the book. I’ll be real interested to see how the story is portrayed in the movie.


10 posted on 03/19/2017 5:51:19 AM PDT by sauropod (Beware the fury of a patient man. I've lost my patience!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Big difference because Wall seizures are definitely for public use.


11 posted on 03/19/2017 6:03:51 AM PDT by Lisbon1940 (No full-term Governors (at the time of election!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

...interesting timing of the movie - just as Trump will need Eminent Domain to take the needed land for the Border Wall from a relative handful of leftists down there (virtually all of whom inherited the land from America-loving parents and grandparents).


12 posted on 03/19/2017 6:04:38 AM PDT by BobL (In Honor of the NeverTrumpers, I declare myself as FR's first 'Imitation NeverTrumper')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

Texas cities were doing this, in one case to benefit a ‘regional’ mall. Changes the law to stop the use of eminent domain for such uses.


13 posted on 03/19/2017 6:05:43 AM PDT by rstrahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy

I remember back then, being a strong proponent for ‘taking’ David Souter’s property in NH, for public use. I didn’t care what ‘public use’ NH might find for it, I just wanted the ‘Justices’ who voted for it to feel it’s power. Libs are always stunned when they realize that THEY are the bad guys. (and I realize GHWB didn’t know Souter would turn out to be a LIB, but Sununu should have somehow been held accountable for Souter’s hard LEFT rulings)


14 posted on 03/19/2017 6:10:24 AM PDT by originalbuckeye ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Different thing here. In Kelo, the city was taking so it could enrich itself. Takings for the Southern Border wall would fall under the Constitutional prescription for taking undere eminent domain, that being for roads, ports and forts. You are right, though as the timing is intended to create sympathy.


15 posted on 03/19/2017 6:10:49 AM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rstrahan

Agree 1000%!


16 posted on 03/19/2017 6:23:12 AM PDT by sauropod (Beware the fury of a patient man. I've lost my patience!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BobL

The misuse of eminent domain is the problem and it all rests on what is the “public use” and how is it judged to be worthy. Here in rural New Jersey we have a case of the misapplication of eminent domain with the condemnation of a private airport, founded by Thor Solberg, who was a prize winning aviator who bought the property many years ago with his winnings. The local open space people decided to condemn the property and turn it into more open space. Our particular township has more open space( 25% ) than any township in New Jersey already, and we can’t take care of what we have.

The real reason is that the commissioners don’t like the airport close to where they live, although the airport has been there since the 30’s. The local board scared the voters with talk of a coming jetport on the property, and got a 20 million dollar bond approved to buy the property which wasn’t for sale at that price, and then they condemned it.

The Solbergs litigated and will probably ultimately win, but in the meantime it has cost both sides 11 million each to litigate the issue. We taxpayers will ultimately pay for the folly of this. It is the hubris of maybe a dozen elected officials that they know what’s best for land use, and so far we haven’t been able to vote them out.


17 posted on 03/19/2017 6:24:11 AM PDT by JeanLM (Obama proves melanin is just enough to win elections)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GizzyGirl

Site of Suzette Kelo's house today
18 posted on 03/19/2017 6:24:34 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

I agree completely and have been called an idiot for pointing this out to people. Hope you continue to inform people of the fact property taxes mean we do not own our land.

Here in Arkansas some years back there was a movement to eliminate property taxes and replace the lost revenue with sales taxes. The State government resisted strongly. Eventually, the Arkansas supreme court ruled against it with what I thought was a very weakly reasoned ruling. Conclusion: Government wants property taxes even if their elimination results in no loss of revenue. Why? To control us!


19 posted on 03/19/2017 6:27:13 AM PDT by rgboomers (This space purposely left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
I remember the cognitive dissonance at Democratic Underground about that. They hated the ruling when they thought the right wing justices voted for the theft. Then they got confused when they realized the leftists were the thieves and we were right. Then some tried to justify the taking.
20 posted on 03/19/2017 6:32:25 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity - Pres. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson