Site of Suzette Kelo's house today
Posted on 03/19/2017 5:18:56 AM PDT by reaganaut1
That ruling was a travesty. Can someone challenge again and have it overturned?? ‘Taking’, just so the city can fatten their tax base, in UNAMERICAN. And true, patriotic Americans have risen again......it’s time to revisit all the ludicrous rulings the Libs on the SCOTUS have wrought on America.
Thanks for posting this- I did not realize a movie was being made about this legal issue and the situation in CT.
We had this happen just about a mile from us. A row of very nice houses looking out over our neighborhood golf course. They started tearing them down one by one. There are only three left. One of them is boarded up. I’m pretty sure that they had to take the old man who lived there out against his will. Sad.
OK, story timing coincides with the procurement of land along the southern border. Fishy. Political.
We had a discussion on this topic the other day at work. All of then thought it was the conservative judges that ruled for it. When I showed them how each justice voted, they were stunned.
Judicial tyranny. America’s robed mullahs ALERT! All of their assets and property should be seized. POS totalitarians.
Zero checks and balances on these TYRANTS.
From the article: In the end, the homes belonging to Susette Kelo and her neighbors were demolished for no purpose at all, since the hoped-for development collapsed. What was once a nice residential area is now acres of rubble.
I’ve come to believe that the root cause of much of the Eminent Domain abuse is property taxes.
Yes, property taxes.
By being able to tax private property the Government (Local, state and Federal), have a legitimate point in that the property you might think you own is actually the property of the government and what we call property taxes can be thought of as ‘Rent’.
We are all tenants on our own property and the Government owns everything.
I have the book. I’ll be real interested to see how the story is portrayed in the movie.
Big difference because Wall seizures are definitely for public use.
...interesting timing of the movie - just as Trump will need Eminent Domain to take the needed land for the Border Wall from a relative handful of leftists down there (virtually all of whom inherited the land from America-loving parents and grandparents).
Texas cities were doing this, in one case to benefit a ‘regional’ mall. Changes the law to stop the use of eminent domain for such uses.
I remember back then, being a strong proponent for ‘taking’ David Souter’s property in NH, for public use. I didn’t care what ‘public use’ NH might find for it, I just wanted the ‘Justices’ who voted for it to feel it’s power. Libs are always stunned when they realize that THEY are the bad guys. (and I realize GHWB didn’t know Souter would turn out to be a LIB, but Sununu should have somehow been held accountable for Souter’s hard LEFT rulings)
Different thing here. In Kelo, the city was taking so it could enrich itself. Takings for the Southern Border wall would fall under the Constitutional prescription for taking undere eminent domain, that being for roads, ports and forts. You are right, though as the timing is intended to create sympathy.
Agree 1000%!
The misuse of eminent domain is the problem and it all rests on what is the “public use” and how is it judged to be worthy. Here in rural New Jersey we have a case of the misapplication of eminent domain with the condemnation of a private airport, founded by Thor Solberg, who was a prize winning aviator who bought the property many years ago with his winnings. The local open space people decided to condemn the property and turn it into more open space. Our particular township has more open space( 25% ) than any township in New Jersey already, and we can’t take care of what we have.
The real reason is that the commissioners don’t like the airport close to where they live, although the airport has been there since the 30’s. The local board scared the voters with talk of a coming jetport on the property, and got a 20 million dollar bond approved to buy the property which wasn’t for sale at that price, and then they condemned it.
The Solbergs litigated and will probably ultimately win, but in the meantime it has cost both sides 11 million each to litigate the issue. We taxpayers will ultimately pay for the folly of this. It is the hubris of maybe a dozen elected officials that they know what’s best for land use, and so far we haven’t been able to vote them out.
I agree completely and have been called an idiot for pointing this out to people. Hope you continue to inform people of the fact property taxes mean we do not own our land.
Here in Arkansas some years back there was a movement to eliminate property taxes and replace the lost revenue with sales taxes. The State government resisted strongly. Eventually, the Arkansas supreme court ruled against it with what I thought was a very weakly reasoned ruling. Conclusion: Government wants property taxes even if their elimination results in no loss of revenue. Why? To control us!
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.