Posted on 06/26/2005 4:22:57 AM PDT by Liz
The stereotype is that conservatives are heartless and in the tank to big business — while liberals are the ones who stand up for the little guy.
So how come the liberal Supreme Court justices just sold a bunch of New London, Conn., homeowners up the Thames River?
In essence, the court expanded the requirement of "public use" — the longtime limit on eminent domain — to anything that supposedly enhances economic activity. No more need for a truly public need — such as highways, parks and bridges.
The liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — joined with moderate Anthony Kennedy to state that economic development is a legitimate "public purpose" that can override private property rights.
The court's more conservative members — Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia — all dissented.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton......" wrote O'Connor.
Added Thomas: "Losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."
It's ironic that the conservative justices are the ones who sound like the New York liberal voices that rise to block almost any sort of economic development.
Kelo is the logical end product of a political philosophy that seeks generally to expand government power.
It did so this time, in spades.
Both Congress and state governments need immediately to consider what specific limits can be drawn on the concept of "public purpose" — and how best to mitigate the effects of this truly disturbing decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Perhaps I should have the city transfer the property to me so I can tear it down and build something more economically advantageous?
I'm sure you could -- you just have to find out which of your city fathers to advantage economically.
I would also add travesties like the Endangered Species Act.
The government can walk in and create de facto government nature reserves for critters on private property, piling on restriction on top of restriction. This illegal action effectively strips the owner of all property rights - the right to develop, to sub-divide, to use the property and to bar entry . Without paying a penny of compensation, of course.
So you're right. We are essentially serfs renting the king's land. And the king may walk in and take it at any time.
You are so correct Peach. My ex-husband sold our 5 Room, 1000 sq ft ranch style house on 1/3 acre in Wallingford, CT last year for $165,000. That's a far cry from a 10 room house on the water. These poor people are totally getting screwed - with the blessing of the 5 black robed tyrants of the supreme court.
To me, this means that the court has decided that working toward the common good, the means to be decided by higher authority, is now the guiding principle of the USA. Farewell to individual rights, personal liberty and all that. Farewell to the USA, as we once knew her.
I have never in my life suffered a greater loss of faith in our government.
The "stereotype" is self-serving bulls--t put out by the liberal MSM. It's a lie. The MSM "stereotype" about conservatives is also a lie. Anyone surprised?
I don't understand this either. I don't understand why those five don't give a damn about the basic philosophical issues, but I also can't get over the fact that they could make a ruling that is such an obvious invitation to graft and corruption. If nothing else, the founding fathers were very alert to these kinds of dangers.
Excerpted from Kiss Your House Goodbye
Exactly! Since the intended use is now for profit/commercial use, the value is no longer a residential value. The homeowners should of had a commercial appraisal done to assess true value. Probably worth around 1 million now. The profit makers know this and hope no one wises up1
I was thinking the same thing. Could the State legislators pass a law requiring that the displaced owners are granted 2 1/2 times commercial, plus moving expenses and tax exemption for life?
The descendants of displaced Indians get favorable tax status so why not displaced americans?
"Fortunately for Georgians, our state constitution and state judiciary have consistently held that condemnation for private purposes is not acceptable under state law, a position that will be unaffected by today’s federal court ruling."
"Georgia will remain one of the few states in the nation where a homeowner will not lose the family home or farm to make way for a private development boondoggle."
That would be a fabulous idea! Might make the developers actually use land already zoned commercial that they could acquire at market value. Would certainly be cheaper for them that way and leave home owners safe again. Love your idea!
They shouldn't be able to LEASE the land to a private entity either.
Hey, now that's a damn fine idea. Like you, I've thought that making the municipality pay a premium over market value would restrict the use of eminent domain to legitimate cases. I like the tax exemption for life thing, though! But if this ruling makes seizures more common, we'd need to have additional sweeteners for someone who got seized twice in different locations. Maybe they can purchase a SECOND residence and have that one tax exempt for life as well?
I agree, I would call a LEASE a scheme to transfer ownership, the problem here is trying to list every scheme they can contrive.
This has been going on since the beginning. The only change is that more people are semi-aware of it now.
If the voters in a town would simply let the millage rates expire by not renewing them, the towns claim on the land would expire. The problem is that people with out property voted to put a lean on your property. Similar to non-smokers voting to tax smokers, I don't smoke but I still feel it's rotten.
Some are just more equal than others.
There are more people in my town that own property than those who do not. The trouble is that they have been brainwashed into thinking the schools need an ever increasing amount of cash or the town's children will be reduced to a bunch of drooling idiots.
If the parents in town would take responsibility for educating their kids rather than handing their child's mind over to the state they may take their property rights back. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
Are they politically blind? All the press talks about is abortion rights, cuz they know a majority of people oppose overturning roe v wade. The press is spinning it and the admin are standing flat footed.
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.