Posted on 06/23/2005 7:25:32 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.
The city of New London has fallen on hard times. In 1998 - when its population was at its lowest since 1920, and its unemployment rate was nearly twice the state average - an effort was begun to turn New London around. State and local officials put together a redevelopment plan, anchored by a $300 million Pfizer research facility, that would bring restaurants, stores and a new Coast Guard museum to one hard-hit neighborhood.
The city authorized a nonprofit development corporation to clear the necessary land by eminent domain, a forced sale in which the seller is given appropriate compensation. The development corporation got control of most of the land it needed, but a few people refused to sell.
Eminent domain allows governments to take property for a public use, such as building a road. The property owners in New London claimed that handing over private property to a private developer cannot be a public use, even if it is part of a comprehensive plan to turn around a depressed city.
...New London, the court held, was within its rights to decide that its development plan was a valid public use. (The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The NYTs is moving into a new building that was obtained by eminent domain. Nuff said.
I can't read anymore drivel about what the NY Times thinks about the limits of "property rights".....because of the limits of its interpretation of "fair use rights". This story takes me to a link which I have to register for. Which I refuse to do.
"Atlas Shrugged" is a great book. Not because Ayn Rand was a great writer (she wasn't), and not because the characters are believable (they aren't). It's a great book because it really captured the essence of the Left and their mania for redistribution. The idea that a private developer -- with friends in government -- could just reach out and take property away from a private owner is so totally ludicrous and un-American. And yet, here we are.
Somebody tell me the NY Times ran a disclaimer pointing out the fact that the city of New York did the exact same thing to make way for the NY Times new office building a couple of years ago.
The irony is the left has no problem with the "corporate fat cat" taking the little guys property, as long as it is the benevolent government acting as the middle man. I wonder if they would feel the same way if the developer was Haliburton.
And yet, what do we do? Can there be a movement to impeach those justices that are using international law to make decisions OVER AND ABOVE the United States Constitution?
Where is the White House on this? And the only Senator I have heard ANYTHING from is Tom McClintock.
It doesn't matter if big corporations are enriched by this looting (for now). Their day will come. Looters get looted too. Eventually, the political class can own and control everything. Voila! The socialist state.
a CALIFORNIA state senator
Is this why we have the 2nd Amendment?
THIS is why
Elvis Costello said "I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused." For me, it is the opposite. I used to hear people say that another Civil War was coming. I found that amusing. Tin-foil hat stuff, you know?
But now I think it is inevitable. Probably in my lifetime. The slavery issue was present from the very beginning of our country, but it really got hot and heavy from the Compromise of 1820 thru the Compromise of 1850 and the Dredd Scott decision of 1855. It took 40 years for people to abandon the political process and resort to guns.
It will happen again.
Ahh...yes. Irony abounds.
Theft is theft, no matter who the thief may be, nor how many vote to approve. By the Times' logic, slavery was justified by the majority votes in favor--since those who so voted justified their stance as being "in the public interest."
I found this sentence especially cavalier: New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated.
Perhaps not a one of these folks will be hurt; perhaps none of them have treasured family memories of the locale; perhaps not a single one had hoped to leave the home to their loved ones.
But this decision guarantees that this will happen other places. Now the family farms face yet more than just a few bad years bringing the wolf to the door: the lesser tax revenues from 100 acres of farmland will now be enough reason to displace what could be generations of family heritage.
What a disgusting decision. And how much more disgusting that the New York Times cheers it gleefully as it is proudly points out that it itself is the beneficiary of such an exercise in eminent domain.
New York Times shows again that Communism alive and well. They promote it at every opportunity.
you can't fight city hall
The New York Times is WAY out of touch with its constituents over at DU. They are as outraged as we are.
Does anybody at the times understand that this country was founded on property rights?
http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm
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.