Replies

I didn’t know they reached those decisions using the “greater good of society” rationale. Doesn’t sound very “good” to me!

Kelo is one “greater good” decision that might one day prove very damaging in my neck of the woods.

In Massachusetts we have a state law that, when invoked after state approval, allows local officials to seize up to 25% of a city’s acreage for transfer to developers. I live in an oceanfront city which is a hotbed of development plans. Our local officials invoked this law, although they didn’t attempt to use the eminent-domain provisions. (There is another provision of the law which allows officials to take out multi-million-dollar loans guaranteed by the taxpayers and give the money to a developer. They were apparently looking at that provision, although they ended up gaving a developer millions of our money using another mechanism.)

One unsuccessful candidate for mayor suggested that they use eminent domain to move development forward. Though those in power now say they won’t seize private property, you never know. They treat the developers like gods and don’t want to answer questions about why they want certain zoning changes in a neighborhood where families have owned homes for generations. City Hall has been trying to incite a “lynch mob” mentality, charging that small property owners are preventing the rest of us from benefiting from an expanded tax base.

Thanks, Supreme Court, for your “greater good” trashing of the Constitution! Keep up the good work—NOT!