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

To: WmCraven_Wk

This is even a worse case of eminent domain abuse. Both the municipality and the owner of the land want the proerty developed in the exact same manner. The only difference is that the municipality wants a local, politically connected firm to do the work instead of letting the local owner control the development. This is local politics at its worst. I just don't see how there can be a public use excuse, even for additional taxes, being an issue since the net benefit to the municipality is the same. Unless they want to press the issue that it is of greater economic impact if the local company does the development. If that is the case, the SCOTUS ruling has now dictated that municipalities can decide WHO develops the land and can use eminent domain, not just to take property for the purpose of enhancing tax revenues, but to take property strictly for the financial benefit of the developer of their choosing. No one will ever have control of development unless they have the local governments in their back pockets. Otherwise, they lose their land.


13 posted on 10/18/2005 6:41:57 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: doc30
Welcome to Soviet Socialist Sates of Amerika! Yep, take the property from the rich, tax them out of business, brainwash them with lies, kick the God out of their lives, nationalize the healthcare - red RATs "paradise" is coming.

This case should be blown up to show how corrupted democrats are.

Vote the bastRATs and Corzine out to oblivion. Time to turn NJ PUBs!
18 posted on 10/18/2005 6:59:00 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (FReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

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