Skip to comments.Supreme Court Gives New York the Go Ahead to Continue Eminent Domain Abuse [Empire State Land Grab]
Posted on 12/17/2010 12:58:32 PM PST by 92nina
...The appeal brought on by business owner, Nick Sprayregen, would have been a much needed challenge to the dreadful 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London which ruled the government may use the power of eminent domain to expropriate property for private to private transfer under the ambiguous title of economic development." As a result of the 2005 decision, the governments power of eminent domain has become almost limitless, providing victimized citizens with few means to protect their property.
Several states have independently passed legislation to limit their power to eminent domain, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio have barred the practice under their state constitutions...
(Excerpt) Read more at propertyrightsalliance.org ...
The property tax proves there is no such thing as private property. You pay rent on your property to the government for all eternity or they confiscate it from you as theirs.
What was the vote and who voted which way? Aren’t these votes as to what they will consider hearing done by a smaller panel, i.e. just a portion of the 9?
Harlem is not the only area around here to be affected. I just found out (hearsay—no link) that the blocks between Amsterdam and Columbus, and 97th Street to 100th Street, recently filled with high-rise apartment buildings and brand-new chain stores, were all changed through eminent domain.
We lost a popular diner, a very useful five-and-dime type store, a supermarket, a lumber yard, and various other small businesses. They left the library, the health department, the church, and the Mitchell-Lama buildings. I guess they weren’t considered “blighted.” We got instead Whole Foods, TJ Max, and Modell’s.
I have to wonder how these new stores and apartment buildings are doing, opening up in the shadow of the Frederick Douglass Houses in the middle of a recession.
The Supreme Court didn't hear the case, so there was no opinion. I do not believe anyone recorded a dissent from the refusal to hear the case.
Arent these votes as to what they will consider hearing done by a smaller panel, i.e. just a portion of the 9?
No, the full Court considers every cert. petition, but it takes only 4 votes out of 9 to agree to hear a case.
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.