Personally I think they deserve a lot worse for trampling your rights, Mrs. Kelo.
Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 09/29/2009 1:38:40 PM PDT by grundle
Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project.
But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Remember when our enemies were portrayed as bad guys
Disney Short | 1943 | Disney / Spike Jones
Posted on 09/29/2009 1:20:02 PM PDT by Cowman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2351021/posts
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Wasn’t all of ‘em.
Re: “I would have hopelessly contaminated it. Poured motor oil in the ground. Burned any trees. Sprinkled arsenic into the soil. This looting can’t be allowed. Slash and burn it behind you before you let them steal it. Fight.”
I am in favor of scorched earth in these cases, but not illegal actions such as deploying poisons that might endanger innocent people like the developer’s construction workers. There are plenty of legal and nonviolent ways to screw up a development project, and most involve creative and aggressive application of environmental laws. The Left does this all the time to development projects it doesn’t like, even though the property was not taken by eminent domain.
Remember, the government can keep you from developing your own property if it finds an endangered species. If the land in question is inundated by rain, it might qualify as a wetland on which no development will be allowed. If you can’t do this with the property that was taken from you, the technique can be used against other projects that belong to the same developer. There are also regulations for demanding traffic impact studies, environmental impact studies, and so on, all of which run up the developer’s cost.
I called the City of New London, and sent their City Council an E-mail, to the effect that I was glad to see this happen to them and that they deserved it.
ps -- she agreed by the way.
How to balance an injustice?...1 Constitutional Amendment or 2 Write a new law allowing Eminent Domain, with a proviso that the land must be developed within 12 months, that the developer must secure a bond equal to five times the value of the property, and if the land is still undeveloped after 12 months, a default is declared, the land reverts back to the original owner, along with the Bond money, and the Bondsman can go after the developer who defaulted on the project and the municipality or county entity that declared eminent domain..um..make that bond 10 times the value of the property...
The Kelo ruling is right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson which allowed Separate but equal facilities as the worst in U S history.
After the infamous SCOTUS decision, Kelo and her fellow holdouts were left with limited alternatives. After years of confrontation with the city of New London (and, indirectly, the state of Connecticut), she finally made a deal to sell her property to the city for a price several times more than she was initially offered. It also included an agreement whereby the city would translocate and rebuild her old house at another site, to be used as a museum/memorial for the anti-eminent domain abuse movement. Not sure what the status of the house is now.
An excellent book on the entire confrontation is Little Pink House, by Jeff Benedict, published by Grand Central Publishing.
A constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits the use of eminent domain for private economic development. That issue was the crux of the Kelo case.
Great. These are the guys that put the goober in goobermint. “As your masters, we cannot do our job unless we have the power to steal your property JUST IN CASE we might ever want to use it.”
That’s right! I misremembered. I thought Kennedy was on the right side of that one and O’Connor was the one that sold us out.
It had been happening a LOT over the years regardless of the “law”, but this SC decision cemented it.
The only bright spot is that now many cities, states and local municipalities have legislated anti eminent domain legislation to prevent this type of theft.
I’ve always had a sense that they had a deal between them and Kelo was her turn to be the good guy ;)
they forget the Bugren’s land in Bristol, too
I actually sort of felt that way myself. Which would have been fine, if they had checked to make sure there were five votes on the RIGHT side of the issue first, instead of the WRONG side.
Not necessarily picking a bone with you, but this isn't a democracy, it a representative form of government.
The clowns (voters) may have empowered the city government but they should have known better and rejected the deal.
Now the court is truly guilty because they have to power to correct bad representative decisions and deny the will of a idiot mob when they made poor decisions.
On it's face the SCOTUS should have tossed the case.
Ah right...Thank you for explaining that...I just remembered that aspect of the case now when you mentioned it...
Republicans are too stupid to know which issues would resonate with voters. The Kelo decision, by all the liberals, is certainly one that should have been publicized over and over.
16 equals 2/3 of 90? Must be that new math
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.