The powerless have always been targets of eminent domain

The Orange County Register ^ | March 25, 2007 | Steven Greenhut

[Lorianne]

Isn't that nice?

The city of Manhattan Beach is renaming an oceanfront park, Bruces' Beach, after Charles A. and Willa Bruce, an African-American couple who had purchased the land in 1912 and developed it into a beachfront resort in the 1920s.

The Bruces were driven off their land in the mid-1920s, according to a Los Angeles Times article last week, after city officials became uncomfortable with the idea of numerous black people sunbathing and dining at Bruces' Lodge. At the urging of the local community, the officials discovered a compelling public interest in creating a public park on that very spot, and they used the power of eminent domain to drive the couple away.

The land sat vacant for years, but the goal was accomplished – keeping "them" out of the neighborhood.

I'm pleased to see today's council members recognize the evil deed of their predecessors. But it's about 80 years too late for the couple. And I can't help but laugh at one sentence that will be inscribed on the plaque that will soon grace the park: "Those tragic circumstances reflected the views of a different time."

Certainly, racial views have changed, but the fundamental view that allowed the "public" to steal the Bruces' property has not changed. In fact, the times are worse now than they were then with regard to property rights.

[SteveMcKing]

I so regret that Souter kept his mansion.

[haroldeveryman]

"The Supreme Court might obliterate even more of the Constitution by granting the government a "right" to harass, abuse, retaliate and threaten property owners who don't give agents a piece of their land for no cost."

If it comes to that there will no longer be even a pretense of rule of law.

[M203M4]

Well, if this is the standard to expect, it should not be referred to as "land ownership". Private property is a misnomer I suppose - all property is apparently government property, and the government just lets you tend it (not rent free either - property taxes scuttle that argument). You only get to keep your land until the collective decides that another group is more favored than you, at which point the area is rezoned, the value reappraised, and you are made an offer you cannot refuse (literally).

Yet, with the increasingly expansive interpretation of 'eminent domain' by the courts and legislatures, there seems to be no concurrent drop in the value of land (wrt inflation). After all, decreased liquidity of every other commodity results in a decrease in value. I imagine that this disconnect will persist, which is unfortunate, as increased population densities will lead to more obscene and more frequent abuses of eminent domain powers.

The sheeple trust the nanny-state, and it is pretty clear that the average person is willing to trade their individual liberty for the illusion of benefits derived from blind compulsory collectivism. From the large number of sycophants who support the broad use of eminent domain, it doesn't even look like it will be a bumpy decline.