A company says, 'Do I locate in China or do I locate in the Midwest? What are the advantages that I have?' One of the biggest advantages is being able to assemble land," Fiacano said.
---
What a poor argument. Glad this guy won. Most people will sell their homes for 20-30% more than they are worth. Wallmart doesn't seem to have trouble building anywhere and they don't use eminent domain.
articles, commentaery, links.. etc..
http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm
In china they have 'medievel battles' with rioting peasents cuz the thieving government steals their land.
A win for the Constitution!
>>>>One of the biggest advantages is being able to assemble land," Fiacano said.
Sorry Fiacano. I believe it is the prison labor in Jia Yang that attracts the companies to China. There is no loss of land in the USA.
I don't know about every American believing that, but Mr. Hathcock is absolutely correct.
Our Constitution should be amended so that property ("Land") is free of any and all taxation (fed, state and local), and eminent domain forbidden and banned.
"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny" --- Patrick Henry
Correction, except for greedy developers and crooked city councilmen, hardly anyone agrees with the Supreme Court.
BTW, I think this is the same Jeff Goldblatt who is a Freeper and who has a book, "Africa Speaks."
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
What's the Supreme Court going to do next? Rescind the Third Amendment? What they just did comes dangerously close to that.
He won in court. Not because he has sanctity in his land, and not because a politician might feel something or not. Pretty words, but useless.
Horsepucky! There's plenty of land.
What they want is LOCATION! In other words, they want already proven land.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/land31_20040731.htm
Poletown seizures are ruled unlawful
State Supreme Court restricts government rights to take land
July 31, 2004
BY JOHN GALLAGHER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
Reversing more than two decades of land-use law, the Michigan Supreme Court late Friday overturned its own landmark 1981 Poletown decision and sharply restricted governments such as Detroit and Wayne County from seizing private land to give to other private users.
The unanimous decision is a decisive victory for property owners who object to the government seizing their land, only to give it to another private owner to build stadiums, theaters, factories, housing subdivisions and other economic development projects the government deems worthwhile.
…Backers of the Poletown standard warned that Friday's decision could be a "significant blow" to revitalization efforts in blighted cities like Detroit. John Mogk, a professor of land-use law at Wayne State University, said Detroit needs to use its powers, known as eminent domain, to seize land to clear large tracts for new economic development, including retail centers, office parks and residential projects.
"Any limitation on the power of eminent domain will reduce the chances of the city accomplishing those kind of projects," Mogk said. "No other city with which Detroit competes has such limitations placed upon its ability to acquire tracts of land for future development."
In the original Poletown ruling, the court allowed the City of Detroit to seize private homes and businesses on the east side so General Motors Corp. could build an auto factory. The bitterly contested seizures and the court's ruling in favor of the city had national implications and led to similar rulings elsewhere.
Thousands of homes and dozens of churches and private businesses were bulldozed in Detroit's former Poletown neighborhood to make way for the GM plant.
Of 1,300 acres needed for Wayne County's Pinnacle project, property owners representing about 2 percent of the land have refused to sell. They have resisted, in part because much of the project would later be turned over to private developers and other entities.
In Friday's decision, known as Wayne County v. Hathcock after one of the landowners in the case, the court ruled that the sweeping powers to seize private land granted in the 1981 Poletown case violated the state's 1963 constitution.
Bump. Thanks for this post. Bravo!
It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.
For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.