New York Town Threatens To Use Eminent Domain If Citizens Do Not Sell Out To Powerful Developer

jonathanturley.org ^ | 04/22/2010 | Jonathan Turley

[OldDeckHand]

Despite the criticism of the Supreme Court’s eminent domain ruling in Kelo, the city of Auburn, New York appears undeterred and is threatening to invoke eminent domain to seize private property for a private company. The Kelo opinion was wrongly decided in allowing a Connecticut town to seize homes to give the land to a private company. Putting that flawed legal logic aside, I am astonished that elected officials continue to abuse eminent domain powers in this way and shows the need for state laws barring the practice. Mayor Mike Quill insists that the interests of the majority (and one powerful developer) must trump the property rights of a few citizens.

Ironically, after selling out their fellow citizens, the people of New London, Connecticut never did reap the rewards that they sought, here. The city is threatening citizens that if they do not reach an agreement with a developer, the city will come in and take the land and give it to the developer.

Auburn Mayor Michael Quill admits “eminent domain, no one likes it.” Well . . . no they don’t, Mayor Quill, but particularly when you are coercing citizens to sell to powerful developers or face the seizure of their property by the city.

[Buckeye McFrog]

if it was my land I’d probably truck in a few dozen endangered species and some toxic waste and dump them all there

[BenKenobi]

So why don’t we write the script!

[OldDeckHand]

"So why don’t we write the script!"

I imagine it's not the script that the problem, but the $25 million (or more) needed to make a film of decent production value, to say nothing of attracting competent actors.

Hollywood - to include the lion's share of people working in it - as no desire to make anything other than vampire movies, or DNC propaganda masquerading as entertainment.

[xzins]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Private use is not public use.

Public purpose is not public use.

Only public use is public use.

I'm not real sure what is hard to understand about that. If they take my lot and give it to a hotel chain, they have not met the public use requirement.

[OldDeckHand]

"I'm not real sure what is hard to understand about that. If they take my lot and give it to a hotel chain, they have not met the public use requirement."

I agree completely. It's and absolute bastardization of the 5th Amendment amplified by the general welfare clause run amok. But, Kelo has screwed the pooch in this regard. Until we get Kennedy replaced by a real conservative, this is going to continue to happen throughout the country. It's sickening.

[SunkenCiv]

shows the need for state laws barring the practice

It also shows the need for recall campaigns. Thanks OldDeckHand.

[I got the rope]

I don’t understand this. Someone would have to kill me to remove me from my home.

These people need to stand up to the government and tell them the same thing. It will stop them in their tracks.

[OldDeckHand]

"Someone would have to kill me to remove me from my home."

Plenty of people died during the great railroad expansion doing precisely that. Such is the danger of defying a greedy and blood-thirsty imperial federal government when it wants the "thing" you own.

[freedomfiter2]

What kind of people would be so subservient that their local government wouldn’t fear to try something like this?

[M-cubed]

I just lost a hunting camp up here in Maine that my Grandfather (former Game warden) built in 1922 or there abouts....no deed... had been passed along thur generations..

Taxes paid to the state every yr (its in a township)..
New Paper co. took over the land around it...

Yeah...I'm sick about it...but not gonna pay thousands to fight them....Our time will come..

[Smokin' Joe]

While I am neither suggesting nor advocating such an action, there was a time when the mayor would have been dragged from office, tarred and feathered, and his property levelled as he rode out of town on a fence rail.

[Postman]

http://www.ij.org/ This is the group that has been fighting eminent domain abuse.

There was indeed a time when such action might have been taken against the mayor and, while I too am certainly not advocating or even suggesting such action, it bears repeating that history does tend to repeat itself and those who ignore history are blind, stupid fools, especially with the ready availability of fence rails in that part of NYS .

[murphE]

ping

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The people should use a little “eminent domain” against the developer and then against the town hall and then a little more on their neighbors who elected them so it doesn’t happen again.

[KoRn]

I can think of some things the citizens should do when backed into a corner on things like this. Most of them aren’t legal, but it may discourage such things in the future.

The SCOTUS ruling on this a few years ago has to be one of the worst things to happen to our right to Life Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness.....

[Ken H]

It's and absolute bastardization of the 5th Amendment amplified by the general welfare clause run amok.

And the worst offender of all, the New Deal Commerce Clause.

[dfwgator]

[neverdem]

thanks bamahead

[happinesswithoutpeace]

/