Replies

I say don't just complain here but email your house rep and senators and demand a new constitutional amendment so that the 5 idiots on the SC will now know what "Public Use" means in the 5th amendment. Here is the text I used, use or abuse as you see fit

As a Republican who very much believes in the power of individual freedom and the right to own property which has been a Constitutional guarantee and a bedrock of our American society. I am appalled by today's Supreme Court decision - "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes" that allows a private developer to seize a persons land/home via a city's (or States) eminent domain power just so they can put a office building or shopping mall on it.

By the logic used, anybody with the help of the City Council or County Board could grab any other person's home & land if they are just willing to build a more expensive home on it or apartment units or a store etc. that makes the property more valuable, and thereby increase city/county tax revenues.

Please consider sponsoring a new Constitutional amendment better defining what is meant in the 5th amendment the term “Public use” as only property fully owned by a State or Local Government entity and not otherwise leased, rented or transferred in anyway to a private company or person.

I say don't just complain here but email your house rep and senators and demand a new constitutional amendment so that the 5 idiots on the SC will now know what "Public Use" means in the 5th amendment.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Yeah, i'm sure they'll get right on it.

Thanks, Guy -- I copied this and am going to send my reps, etc. this letter. However, the senator in California is Barbara Boxer for my area -- little good it will do, but I will send it anyway.

By the logic used, anybody with the help of the City Council or County Board could grab any other person's home & land if they are just willing to build a more expensive home on it or apartment units or a store etc. that makes the property more valuable, and thereby increase city/county tax revenues.

In the special case of Proposition 13 protection in California, seizing the property and selling it to another person at current market value would yield an increase in property tax collections. What would constitute "just compensation" in that case? This is a major league pandora's box.