Posted on 05/20/2008 8:02:32 AM PDT by SmithL
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut city's right to seize through eminent domain the waterfront homes of long-time residents for private development. The court held that, like the construction of schools and roads, economic development itself constitutes a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Both liberals and conservatives were outraged. As dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "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."
Some 40 states responded by passing laws to tightly define "public use" so that the government could not take land from one taxpayer and hand it to a richer one. Despite strong voter disapproval of the Kelo decision, as the Connecticut case is known, California lawmakers have failed to act. Thanks to Sacramento's three-year void, various groups have placed three different initiatives on the ballot, including two voters must choose between on June 3.
The first, which property-rights advocates put together for 2006, was Proposition 90. It banned eminent-domain takings for private developers. California voters rejected the measure because it delved into other issues, and at an unpredictable cost.
Don't worry, groups representing local governments, such as the League of California Cities, told critics. They promised that if voters rejected Proposition 90, then they would work with the Legislature to craft a better measure that would correct the private-use abuse made infamous in Kelo. Didn't happen.
Instead, when the Legislature again failed to pass a reform bill, property-rights advocates and government groups trotted out rival measures, Propositions 98 and 99.
...But Proposition 99 does not protect business owners, the usual target of such takings.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This is easy to solve. Enact legislation that prohibits future tax generation from property seized through eminent domain. If a businesses, housing etc. are built on land seized through eminent domain, they operate tax free. Federal, state and local governments would not be near as willing to confiscate property.
I'd say YES to 99 any time.
Surely to God Immminent Domain abuse is an issue which liberals and conservatives in California can work TOGETHER to put a stop to, isn’t it?
Please?
On another tack, Supreme Court justices serve for life “during good behavior” (Article 3, Section 1).
I am an engineer. I serve at the pleasure of my employer, but presumably will keep my job “during good behavior”. As an engineer, I make my living with numbers. If I falsify numbers to force a desired outcome in one of my designs I have engaged in bad behavior (for an engineer) and should expect to be fired from my job.
Supreme Court Justices make their livings with WORDS. So, it stands to reason that falsifying the definition of words or phrases (like “public use”) to FORCE a desired outcome represents BAD behavior (for a Supreme Court Justice).
We ALL know what “public use” means, but five Supreme Court Justices CHOSE to twist the meaning of that phrase so that they could reach their pre-determined, government-friendly, citizen-be-damned decision.
Every justice who signed on to the majority opinion in Hartford vs. Kelo should be IMPEACHED for “bad behavior”
I know....I was surprised TOO!
While this statement may be true in large, for the SCOTUS, it clearly broke on the liberal/conservative fault line. On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Thus, once again we are reminded of the liberal's very real desire to increase governmental power, even at potential or real cost to the individual. Remember this when you vote, that it is not just the legislature or executive that can endanger you. Do not, in those states that have the privilege, ignore or meekly accept judicial election or retention. I automatically vote against UNLESS I KNOW that they are good people.
While I understand the loss of revenue from rent control, I know that there are alot of people who would be on the streets or in a hard place if it were repealed.
It's written by Debra J. Saunders, the Chronicle's token "conservative." (not as conservative as a conservative would like, but about the best we can expect from this "news"paper)
I'm sure that the City of Hartford has done things in the past, but if you will follow my post above, you will see that it was the City of New London, CT, that started this ball rolling.
Debra Saunders is the token sane person at the SF Chronicle (not 100% conservative; but sane).
After this editorial, they probably won't let her loose for another 6 months...
Thank you for the correction.
“We the Judges of the United States....”
This single event was the beginning of the end for the housing 'bubble' in the US! There was no housing 'bubble', simply the 'right' to private property. Now that right has been destroyed by the Supremes! Until the Supremes repeal that decision, the Housing 'bubble' will continue to evaporate in the US.
An intelligent Presidential Candidate would make the return of the individual 'right' to private property a key Party Platform.
Not a problem, I LOVE having broadband internet, research on Google goes very fast. I remember school/college when you trudged to the library, hoping the material you needed wasn't already taken and then all of those laborious notes that 2 weeks later you couldn't even read because you were up so late... Yeah, I LOVE this.
We need to start reminding friends, family and co-workers to make sure to get out and vote YES on Prop 98 and defeat the other phony measure.
I've heard some ads on radio, but they are misleading as usual. Hopefully there will be more voices like Saunders (vs. the McClatchey bilge).
the Howard Jarvis Prop 13 Committee says yes 98 - no 99. The govt unions say no on 98 and yes on 99. The Jarvis endorsement is good enough for me. I am marking my absentee ballot for the former.
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.