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

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 ]

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