Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Limits of Property Rights
New York Times ^ | June 24, 2005

Posted on 06/24/2005 3:23:50 PM PDT by ken21

Editorial The Limits of Property Rights Published: June 24, 2005 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bastards; confiscators; eminentdomain; kelo; propertyrights; theyaretheenemy; thieves; tryanny; ussupremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2005 3:23:50 PM PDT by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

as you requested.


2 posted on 06/24/2005 3:26:00 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

"Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain."

No, it is merely correct thinking, not the result of the ruling.


3 posted on 06/24/2005 3:26:23 PM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21
I suppose the next thing is that my state will decide that they can invest my savings better than I can, and therefore gain more in income taxes--and then they'll seize my savings?

That's the same theory, as far as I can tell.

This is such a blow to Freedom and the Rule of Law.

4 posted on 06/24/2005 3:27:12 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

Not surprising the NYT would agree with the Supremes' decision. I heard that the NYT got the land for their new office building in Manhattan through eminent domain.


5 posted on 06/24/2005 3:27:41 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (L'chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I don't remember where I saw it (possibly polipundit) but the best quote I've seen about this is:

"The state is not allowed in the bedroom, but they can drive a bulldozer through it."


6 posted on 06/24/2005 3:29:22 PM PDT by stylin_geek (Liberalism: comparable to a chicken with its head cut off, but with more spastic motions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ken21

"Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain."

Well if you agree with that then what is your point NYtimes?


7 posted on 06/24/2005 3:29:37 PM PDT by Betaille ("Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face." -Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion

No, it is merely correct thinking, not the result of the ruling.
-----
More than that, it is about the protection of Constitutional rights of ownership. This ruling is a direct attack on the Constitution in an attempt to broaden the power of government property seizure. It will open the door to every corrupt local government and property developers for the purpose of taxation revenue enhancement and captial gain. It is Pandora's Box for the citizenry of this country.


8 posted on 06/24/2005 3:30:34 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
this is the same point of view that i heard on the radio expressed by judge kennedy.

they're trying to justify it by saying it's first in the best interest of the community, and that the community will ensure that it's not abused. this is b.s.

"it takes a village to raise a child to steal your house."

9 posted on 06/24/2005 3:30:45 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

some states are already planning legislation to stop the damage by the u.s. supreme court.


10 posted on 06/24/2005 3:31:59 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

that's their cover up. they're trying to reassure people it's ok, when it's not ok, as you are aware.


11 posted on 06/24/2005 3:33:18 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ken21
The New York Times lauds judicial activism and celebrates the nullification of private property rights in this country. I could spot this reaction of the Grey Lady as soon as Kelo came out. It must be wonderful to lord liberal power over the Little Guy.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
12 posted on 06/24/2005 3:33:54 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA; ken21

You would not BELIEVE it, but there's FReepers here that think this is no big deal... I think they're either in denial, or they enjoy p*ssing some of off...


13 posted on 06/24/2005 3:34:55 PM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ken21

"the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations."

No bias here. It is interesting that so many liberals now support commercial developers, aka corporate America, the right to take people's property for economic gain. They must feel confident in their ability to corrupt the local decision makers.


14 posted on 06/24/2005 3:35:08 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

many little guys no longer read their paper.


15 posted on 06/24/2005 3:35:19 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ken21
My City Was Gone
by The Pretenders

I WENT BACK TO OHIO
BUT MY CITY WAS GONE
THERE WAS NO TRAIN STATION
THERE WAS NO DOWNTOWN
SOUTH HOWARD HAD DISAPPEARED
ALL MY FAVORITE PLACES
MY CITY HAD BEEN PULLED DOWN
REDUCED TO PARKING SPACES
A, O, WAY TO GO OHIO

WELL I WENT BACK TO OHIO
BUT MY FAMILY WAS GONE
I STOOD ON THE BACK PORCH
THERE WAS NOBODY HOME
I WAS STUNNED AND AMAZED
MY CHILDHOOD MEMORIES
SLOWLY SWIRLED PAST
LIKE THE WIND THROUGH THE TREES
A, O, OH WAY TO GO OHIO

I WENT BACK TO OHIO
BUT MY PRETTY COUNTRYSIDE
HAD BEEN PAVED DOWN THE MIDDLE
BY A GOVERNMENT THAT HAD NO PRIDE
THE FARMS OF OHIO
HAD BEEN REPLACED BY SHOPPING MALLS
AND MUZAK FILLED THE AIR
FROM SENECA TO CUYAHOGA FALLS
SAID, A, O, OH WAY TO GO OHIO

The Post had an online discussion with a Georgetown Law Prof about the ruling. He seems to think the ruling will bring about affordable housing to the cities' poor. Living in the DC area, I've not encountered an instance where blighted neighborhoods were replaced with reasonably-priced housing. Alexandria is selling new-construction studio condos from the $300,000s.

16 posted on 06/24/2005 3:35:57 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie
I heard that the NYT got the land for their new office building in Manhattan through eminent domain.

Looks like they're paying the bill with statist editorials.

17 posted on 06/24/2005 3:36:23 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion

You would not BELIEVE it, but there's FReepers here that think this is no big deal...
-----
Well, just wait and see what happens when every corrupt local government starts trampling on people's homes --- this is such a HUGE ISSUE relative to the OBSCENE AMOUNT OF POWER THIS GIVES to governments...this is very bad.


18 posted on 06/24/2005 3:37:00 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Spok

your reply is exactly what this is about.

as roger hedgecock said today to a caller,

>stop trying to identify the ruling with a political party. both political parties should be for the u.s. constitution.


19 posted on 06/24/2005 3:37:12 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ken21

So does this mean that Atlantic City can finally take that little old lady's house away from her and give it to Donald Trump?

http://www.ij.org/private_property/atlantic_city/


20 posted on 06/24/2005 3:40:12 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (L'chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson