Posted on 02/22/2005 5:18:12 AM PST by beaureguard
I know you've grown tired of hearing me hammer this point home ... but in the history of civilization no culture based on freedom and economic liberty has survived without recognizing the individual's right to property and zealously protecting those rights. For many years now property rights have been under a clear assault from politicians seeking to solidify their positions of privilege and power through the misuse of eminent domain. Unfortunately, as has been documented numerous times in this space and on the air, a new national epidemic has emerged. Politicians, hungry for tax revenues at all costs, have started to see private property rights as a small inconvenience. So if you're a farmer who doesn't want to sell his land to build a new Wal-Mart: look out. Government agents could confiscate your land under eminent domain, give it to Wal-Mart and oh by the way- they get to decide how much to pay you for it. It's happening all to often across this country.
We're going to learn a lot in the next few months about the freedom of economic liberty in America. One of these hideous eminent domain cases is now in the U.S. Supreme Court. A New London, Connecticut case of eminent domain abuse goes before the Supreme Court today, finally bringing national attention to the growing problem of government land grabs in the name of private developers. It's about time.
Eminent domain is a holdout from the old English common law. The purpose of eminent domain was to acquire property for public uses like schools, highways, police or fire stations and the like. We've gone far beyond that now.
Which brings us to today's case before the United States Supreme Court. On one side, you have the government of New London, Connecticut. They argue that confiscating land and selling it to a private developer under eminent domain serves the public good because it provides much-needed government revenue. Don't you think that you should read that again? This city is saying that a person's right to their property ends when the government figures out that that property in the hands of another private owner would generate more tax revenue. When does this concept arrive at the doorstep of your local city council or county commission? How do you like the idea that your home is yours only so long as some developer doesn't convince a politician that if he could get his hands on that property he would build something that would be so much more valuable and pay many more dollars in taxes? What country do we live in again?
The basic facts of the case are that pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed to build a $270 million global research facility in New London in 1998. The developers wanted to build a conference center, hotel complex, offices, condos, etc. adjacent to the facility. Some of the homeowners didn't want to move. No problem, the government posted notices on their doors telling them they had four months to get out or police would remove them and their belongings.
It went all the way to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which sided with New London. Now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is called Kelo v. City of New London, Case Number 04-0108. A decision is expected in June. Keep an eye on this one. The decision made in this case will determine whether or not we truly live in a free society that respects property rights.
Boortz Ping!
If you want on or off the occasional Boortz Ping, FRmail me and let me know.
"This city is saying that a person's right to their property ends when the government figures out that that property in the hands of another private owner would generate more tax revenue."
This one sentence nails it. How is the greater good being served when basic rights are being compromised. This is abuse of power at the local level plain and simple. There needs to be a check & balance so one entity isn't making all of the decisions.
Boortz is awesome.
Having this case before the current court is a scary thing. Really scary.
Slippery slope doesn't begin to describe it....
May the high court have the wisdom to vote to stop this cruel abuse.
It is despicable this case has gotten this far. I hope like hell these people win & can keep their homes. That being said, If they lose, I hope my company gets the development contract.
What's the difference between these abuses and government imposed smoking bans? Socialism is as Fascism does!
If that is not clear, abuse will always be with us. It is very simple. The only thing necessary for an unjust society to exist is an endless supply of unjust and abusive bureaucrats.
Every society manages to have a reliable supply of them.
You really dont own property any more. The Government allows you to use it. I live in a place that is under what is called a critical area because of the Chesapeake Bay. I cant cut a tree on my own property without permission from the government and if they allow me to cut that one they can tell me how many I have to plant in order to make up for it. Not only that they tell me the size and type of trees they have to be. I cannot build a deck onto my house or add a toilet without permission. You call this property rights? No property rights are long gone, this is just another step in the wrong direction.
From your mouth to God's ear. And AMEN too!
My guess is Thomas and Scalia will do the right thing, but the rest are unpredictable. My guess is it will be a 5-4 decision, but not sure which way it will break.
Like they did with McCain/Feingold?
By the way, for anyone who's interested, the briefs are posted at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb05.html#kelo
The Petitioners' brief is up, and the Respondent's brief should be up soon. It doesn't look like anyone has filed an amicus.
bump
The difference is that these abuses go one step beyond smoking bans. Smoking bans tell you what you cannot do on personal private property. In this case the government is trying to take away that private property. Not that I agree with either of them.
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.