Posted on 06/23/2005 8:10:25 PM PDT by andie74
NEW LONDON, Conn. -- On Bill Von Winkle's side of town, word of the Supreme Court decision spread like the news of a passing relative. His cell phone rang incessantly.
"Hello," he answered. "Yeah, we lost. I know, hard to believe, huh?"
No sooner had he hung up the phone than his letter carrier walked by.
"Need a hug?" he asked.
Von Winkle is one of seven homeowners who learned Thursday that the city's plan to demolish their working class neighborhood in the name of economic development is constitutional.
On the other side of town, city leaders cheered the decision, calling it a victory for cash-strapped cities that want to spur redevelopment. The holdouts and their 15 homes were all that stood in the way of plans to build a hotel, office space and upscale homes.
"This case makes New London look good and you should be proud to live in New London," said the city's attorney, Wesley Horton, who argued the case before the high court.
Like New London, the high court was divided on the issue. Five justices sided with the city, saying economic revitalization qualifies as a public good and local officials know best when to use their eminent domain power for the community's benefit.
Four justices, led by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said the decision opened the doors for wealthy to developers to drive poor residents out of their homes.
"The U.S. Supreme Court destroyed everybody's lives today, everybody who owns a home," said Richard Beyer, who owns two rental properties in the once vibrant immigrant neighborhood that has largely been reduced to swaths of rutted grass. "This was America."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Wonder how much Pfizer contributed to these city councilmembers and their campaigns? Whose spouse works at Pfizer? Despite Justice Kennedy's insistence that this was above board, it smells funny. Wonder if Pfizer will pay the reduced appraised price?
Good work. Welcome to FR.
You DON'T get to pick and choose, cause the Constitution AIN'T Burger King!
If you wanna have it your way, you need an amendment. BTW, I love you on high octane!
Right. But if they were crack houses, forfeiture would have applied. No one was breaking any laws, so they had to find a legal way to do an illegal search and seizure.
Hopefully, those "City Leaders" will soon be looking for an honest day job.
I agree. Impeach them and send them packing!
And have your paper graded by whom? Ruth Ginsburg?
I was watching Cavuto last night, and I believe the initial offer by the "City Fathers", as one poster gratuiously put it, was $60,000! It has subsequently come up to $150,000, but where in that region, let alone the state of CT itself, can you buy a house with that kind of money???
CA....
I live in a bedroom burg of a major TX city.
Utilitarianism as Bentham intended it. It's good the public officials have brought themselves up to current on ethical theory as it was 150 years ago.
This is what I think they are ultimately after, another way to exterminate "religion" in America, all in the name of "economic development". Let em try to grab the land, I believe we will see voters across America kick any elected official in the ass and out of office who tries to ply this wicked scheme against the good people of America. Now is the time to keep track of what goes on in your neck of the woods. They make a grab for some land, kick em in the ass and tell them to get the hell out of our nation, then kick em out of office.
And they waste no time:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3240725
Freeport, Texas, is seizing property.
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.