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

Skip to comments.

SAUNDERS: Another government taking
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/5/6 | Debra J. Saunders

Posted on 02/05/2006 8:12:29 AM PST by SmithL

CONAWAY RANCH is a 17,300-acre spread north of Davis. On property that sidles up to I-5 and provides a fine view of the Sacramento skyline, owners grow rice and alfalfa, boast rights to 50,000 acre-feet of water and extract natural gas. The gray sky and Sierra runoff are home to countless birds -- ducks, egrets and hawks -- some of which the owners hunt.

Yolo County wants the land. In 2004, county supervisors voted to seize the ranch by eminent domain. "We want to keep it from being developed," explained Supervisor Mike McGowan.

The owners are fighting back, and they're media savvy.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous Kelo decision -- which supported the seizure by New London, Conn., of taxpayers' waterfront homes so that the properties could be handed over to private development. Americans on the left and right were outraged at this expansive definition of a "public use" taking.

Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Now the owners -- a group of developers that calls itself the Conaway Preservation Group and bought the property after Yolo commenced the eminent-domain action -- are arguing that what Yolo wants to do is worse than Kelo.

Spokesman Tovey Giezentanner argues that while Kelo was outrageous -- for it allowed local governments to seize homes and hand them over to private developers -- if Yolo wins, it will be the first time the "government got into the business of trying to run an existing business." There will be nothing to stop the governments from seizing other profitable businesses -- parking garages, farms,

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: conawayranch; eminentdomain; governmenttheft; kelo; propertyrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
Property Rights?

Not Here!

1 posted on 02/05/2006 8:12:30 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Wow, and it may actually be a casino land grab.


2 posted on 02/05/2006 8:17:04 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
This issue definitely needs to be revisited by the SC.
3 posted on 02/05/2006 8:17:56 AM PST by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

When you give people power, you should not be surprised when they use it, even if they use it to do things you don't like.

You many even support this power, maybe out of ignorance, or that you don't think it will matter to you, or that you know your government only has the most sincere motives for the greater good.

None of those hopes and wishes will count in the day that you wake up to finding you are on the short end of the very stick you handed to your trusted officials.

Kelo is tyranny. It must not be allowed to stand.


4 posted on 02/05/2006 8:28:38 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Actually, there is something that will stop it: when the perpetrators - all of them - learn that their life expectancy bears a direct relationship to their thievery.

5 posted on 02/05/2006 8:35:38 AM PST by Noumenon (Liberal activist judges - out of touch, out of tune, but not out of reach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
Kelo is tyranny. It must not be allowed to stand.

Buck, you are so right. This is the implementation of the first tenant of the communist manifesto, NO PRIVATE PROPERTY. The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong. They've been wrong before, remember, it was the Supreme Court that said that slavery was OK.

6 posted on 02/05/2006 8:39:15 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

"We want to keep it from being developed," explained Supervisor Mike McGowan."

Who in the h*** is we? Does he speak for all the Supervisors? All the residents of the county? I know he doesn't speak for the property owners. He reminds me of people all over our country that move or live in an area and don't want anyone else to move in because it might spoil what they consider to be their's.


7 posted on 02/05/2006 8:39:53 AM PST by jazusamo (A Progressive is only a Socialist in a transparent disguise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I have property...it's worth what I believe it is.

All those who wish to take my property must make a calculation if it's worth the price that they will pay to take what is mine!

It is LONG past time that this country puts an end to the tyranny of the Ruling-Eeelites who make the rules that make us serfs on our own property, while they are shielded from the ramifications of their rulings (Souter's place is a prime example!).

The "Tree of Liberty" is mighty parched...

8 posted on 02/05/2006 9:05:02 AM PST by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Use to be able to just use zoning to accomplish this purpose, but in CA the Courts can get involded I reckon and allow developers to make their money while destroying whole enviornments and communites as in the case on my my hometown. These developers won't get any sympathy from me. This isn't a case of a homeowner getting thrown out of their home.
9 posted on 02/05/2006 9:07:01 AM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The key in these cases, and with which we must move into the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court involves the precision with which respect for the words, the language of the Constitution must be maintained, and, in the emanent domain cases, restored. They, the precise words, carry the intent of the actions that placed them in the Constitution.

And "use" is not "purpose" and a government or a government entity is not the "public". The Constitutional provision on emanent domain requires that the property will be taken only for "public use". This was clearly, by the founders, and by the courts until the 1950s, understood to mean - a road, a dam, a bridge - things that after the property is taken, will be "used" by "the public".

A group of elected officials that want to run a business do not constitute "the public".

Our emanent domain restriction, "public USE", was intended to permit putting private property where, afterwards, the public, everyone, will use it or obtain use from it (a dam).


10 posted on 02/05/2006 9:16:41 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
While I agree with your definition of "public use" and believe that was what the Framers intended, we must try and understand the mentality of those such as Supervisor McGowan who want to "preserve" this ranch.

To them, an unobstructed view of the Sacramento skyline (which, most likely, would be both lower and narrower had the no-growthers been in charge 50 years ago) is a public use. In their strange world, maintaining the status quo is progress and therefore of benefit to the public.

Even more unsettling is their attitude toward residential property.

The typical "green" politician pins his or her re-election hopes on home values going up 10-15% annually. This is a no-brainer if you have a rapidly-growing area and no cheap land to build on. Buy up farms for "open space" and impose an urban growth boundary and watch property values soar -- except in those areas excluded from further development.

While existing homeowners feel their new-found wealth and borrow against their equity for a Carribean cruise or two, young couples just getting started are often shut out of the housing market.

So you'll see many of these same anti-growth politicians climbing on the "affordable housing" bandwagon -- and imposing even more regulations on property owners and developers.

11 posted on 02/05/2006 9:54:10 AM PST by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

There's no election anytime soon so Debra J. is free to sound like a conservative for a while.


12 posted on 02/05/2006 10:14:41 AM PST by InABunkerUnderSF (Free the H1Bs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
All those who wish to take my property must make a calculation...

I'll keep my gun,but they can have my bullets,! :)

13 posted on 02/05/2006 10:15:41 AM PST by hschliemann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Republicans had better include Kelo prominently in their campaign for US Senate. While the Democrats complain about lost civil rights, real Constitutional rights have been taken away by Kelo.


14 posted on 02/05/2006 10:23:41 AM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Read it closer:

The Preservation group is a group of DEVELOPERS!!!!!


15 posted on 02/05/2006 10:34:07 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
My oldie but goldie:

I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.

I do not advocate revolution. I only think of what I foresee.

FMCDH(BITS)

16 posted on 02/05/2006 12:33:54 PM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon

Tyrants used to fear for their lives. Just ask Saddam Hussein.


17 posted on 02/05/2006 1:32:58 PM PST by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
California's answer to Canada's Crown Corporations.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

18 posted on 02/05/2006 2:14:45 PM PST 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: USS Alaska

This is the most unamerican thing I've ever seen.
The barbarians are at the gates.
There was far more constitutional justification for the Dredd Scott decision than there was for the Kelo decision.
Interesting that both cases were about property rights.
Hopefully this case will be the one that overturns Kelo.
Can't Congress do something? We need a court to say that: "taking of private property for private use is is a form of involuntary servitude"


19 posted on 02/05/2006 2:21:06 PM PST by H.Akston (It's all about property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Rober Mugabe of Zimbabwe made the taking of private property without just compensation legal. This is the kind of road that five supreme court justices can drag the country down?

IMPEACH THE FIVE!


20 posted on 02/05/2006 2:24:20 PM PST by H.Akston (It's all about property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 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