Replies

That's a more detailed anaysis than I have, and a good one. Thanks.

Detroit argued before the Michigan Supreme Court that seizing the property would be a “public good” because it would bring more cash to the city’s coffers. This, of course, is an outlandish and illegal rewriting of the constitution by a prior Michigan court. The key here is expanding the phrase “public use” into the “public good.” Public use is taking property to build roads and schools for the public to use. Public good is stealing property based on ever-changing political whims for shopping malls, open space, biological diversity or whatever the politicians want it to mean.

Nonetheless, the court in 1981 thought this theft was a swell idea and ruled that it was okay to bulldoze 465 acres, destroying 1,400 homes, 140 businesses, and several churches.

Critics contended that this seizure destroyed more jobs than it created. Time proved them right. At its height, the plant employed less than 60 percent of the workers that the conniving politicians had promised.

In the July, 2004 ruling, the court correctly studied this matter from the view of original intent. In other words, what did the lawmakers originally mean when the law was written?

Justice Robert Young called this seizure of property under Poletown “a radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles.”

“In this case (The County of Wayne v. Hathcock ),” wrote the court, “Wayne County intends to transfer the condemned properties to private parties in a manner wholly inconsistent with the common understanding of ‘public use’ at the time our Constitution was ratified.”

The court rejected the argument of local governments that “a private entity’s pursuit of profit was a ‘public use’ for constitutional takings purposes simply because one entity’s profit maximization contributed to the health of the general economy.” Taking private property for the benefit of private investors is wrong.