Posted on 07/29/2005 12:23:48 PM PDT by nypokerface
mark
"In the spirit of the ruling, we're recreating the same use of eminent domain," said John Babiarz, the Libertarian Party's state chairman."
First time I agree with what "these" Libertarians are doing. Finally, they are (figuratively) putting the roach clip down and making the effort to walk their talk.
Just how is converting a property that pays taxes into a park that doesn't pay taxes fit into the Supreme Court decision? It was supposed to be that you could take peoples property and give it to someone else if the other person would pay more taxes.
Leave it to the Libertarians to get it a$$ backwards.
There is NOTHING more fundamental to individual liberty than property rights. The ruling by SCOTUS was an abomination. I know this is all talk and in the end Breyer and Souter won't be touched. I know it just as I know that I wish I was wrong.
Oh, so now the VOTERS have to approve a eminent domain project?
Unfortunately, or rather, fortunately for the Justices, NH's eminent domain laws are much tighter than Connecticut's, so what is happening in New London would not likely happen here.
While Selectboards and City Councils can eminent domain property here, in Weare the Selectboard has already refused to do so on Souters property, and Weare is a Senate Bill 2 jurisdiction. In Plainfield, the only other option is a ballot warrant article to be voted on at town meeting in the spring.
We are pursuing a more pure 'public use' application with Breyers property to help push the eminent domain limits back to the old time 'bridges and roads' domain where it belongs.
Those wishing to support the effort can join in at http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
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.