Posted on 02/05/2006 11:24:30 AM PST by LouAvul
LONG BRANCH, N.J. (AP) - The city wants Anna DeFaria's home, and if she doesn't sell willingly, officials are going to take it from the 80-year-old retired pre-school teacher.
In place of her "tiny slip of a bungalow" - and two dozen other weathered, working-class beachfront homes - city officials want private developers to build upscale townhouses.
Is this the work of a cruel government? Or the best hope for resurrecting an ocean resort town that is finally showing signs of reviving after decades of hard times?
Echoes of the debate are happening across the country, after a U.S. Supreme Court decision brought new attention to governments' ability to seize property through the tool of eminent domain. Some 40 states are re-examining their laws - with action in Congress, too - after the court's unpopular ruling.
"We thought this was going to be our home forever," said DeFaria, sitting in a kitchen cozy with photos of children and grandchildren, quotes from the Bible and a game of Scrabble that she plays against herself. "Now they want to take it away. It's unfair, it's criminal, it's unconstitutional."
Not according to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling last June that was greeted with widespread criticism, the court found that New London, Conn., had the authority to take homes for a private development project.
The Constitution says governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Governments have traditionally used eminent domain to build public projects such as roads, reservoirs and parks. But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
I hope that Souter gets booted....
The legacy of the Clinton Court.
Souter and most of the other idiots in black robes in the majority on Kelo were put on the court by Republican presidents. Clinton is responsible for many things...but not Souter et al.
And I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Look for much more of this IMHO. :-(
Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton. That's more than enough damage to The Constitution.
It's offical, America is now more communist than democracy. Taking away an old lady's house that she rightfully owns? What a line of crap that is. If they want to take my house for something like this, they'll have to kill me for it.
They are the ones who elected the government that is stealing the property.
The voters are the ones who chose to empower a government that is stealing the old woman's house.
If the voters are not held responsible for their decisions, then why vote?
Well, that just might be the reason this is being re-examined. Some politicians, I suspect, are truly outraged. Others are probably going along, knowing that the attitude as you stated is something that will be turned against the politicians--i.e., " While your minions are bulldozing my house, I will pay you a visit. "
She should be in line after and only after Souter.
"If they want to take my house for something like this, they'll have to kill me for it."
look into the future and see that they will.
imagine waco style attacks on those patriots who refuse to give up their property.
ping
It has nothing to do with 'voting', since democracy is the rule of fools by fools, but with the principles of the candidates and of the electors. The US is a Constitutional Republic that is being shown the errors of its little foray into the rule of the common idiot - cacocracy.
Please note that all the individuals having their homes taken are ordinary people whose ancestors ( or themselves in their youth) bought and built on prime property. I call that farseeing. What they did not forsee is that the govt. would decree that ordinary citizens could not own prime beachfront property, but must give over so that beachfront could only be occupied by the deserving rich.
What a crock of unspeakable matter. It should hit the fan while it is blowing at the "governing class."
vaudine
I disagree. The Voters could of chosen to elect people who respected private property rights, the Supreme Court be damned. They chose not to. They are responsible. Just because an action may be legal, does not make it right.
Why do you think Voters are not responsible for their decisions?
bump for publicity
I added NJ to the topics list.
Very elegantly phrased. Comps to you!
It may of been nicely phrased, but it completely avoided answering the point raised. Not every community is rushing to transfer property from one private citizen to another, the difference being in those elected to make such decisions. This is a result of the voters.
If voters are not held responsible for their decisions why vote?
The question as simple as it is was not answered at all.
Comps indeed.
How do you expect our system of self government to work without voting. It is in the constitution that we elect Representatives. Believe it or not. The responsibility lies with the people to elect proper representatives. This would mean representatives who respect private property rights. Believe it or not.
Comps indeed.
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.