Posted on 06/23/2005 12:39:28 PM PDT by pabianice
On June 23, 2005, a divided US Supreme Court stunned most Americans when it ruled 5-4 that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision awaited by both local governments and property owners. The case under consideration was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for a private office complex re. Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for public projects such as roads or schools. As of this decision, however, cities may now destroy private residences and clubs for projects that will provide more taxes or other economic benefits.
This has to be a godsend for towns and cities that have been stymied so far in their attempts to shut-down any businesses, corporations, or private groups of which they disapprove. Private gun ranges, airfields, RV tracts, hunting preserves, fishing resources, minority religious congregations, newspapers -- all are now fair targets for seizure and closure "for the economic benefit of the people." Chicago Mayor Daley's unlawful seizure and bulldozing of Meigs Airport in 2003 is now moot since he can say he did it "to improve the local tax base." Numerous gun ranges and hunting clubs across the country can now finally be closed by NIMBY pressure on the local city council or board of selectmen. Don't like those awful ATVs buzzing every weekend? Presto! That ATV tract will certainly return more taxes as a new strip mall. Resentful of that weird religious group meeting house down the road? No problemo. Their church is now a McDonalds. Don't want a lawful gun dealer in the Peoples Workers Paradise of Cambridge, Massachusetts? I feel so much better now that it's the local Ben and Jerry's.
This ruling only reinforces the general and growing consensus that the US court system is broken and that activist judges are dismantling the country, the Constitution for most intents and purposes having been flushed. The fall-out from this inexplicible ruling will be fast, fierce, and tragic. Stand by.
(c) ltn72@charter.net, 2005
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
AMENDMENT IV TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
AMENDMENT V TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
I'd like to see the majority and dissenting opinions on this.
I have a question.... does the state pay anything for this property? What happens when there is a mortage?
I just can't believe this!!!
I don't understand how a private business can be considered for public use. I really think the SC has gone off the deep end this time.
There is danger lurking. This decision almost seems like a dare... This whole thing bothers me on many levels. Just D*mn.
I look forward to the day when some creative government official uses this case as a precedent to support an initiative to "enhance property values" by forcing all racial/ethnic minorities out of their homes in town.
I was absolutely stunned to read about this. What the hell is the matter with the SC? First McCain Feingold now this. Our rights are being removed one by one by this court. What recourse do we have?
defied and ignored the court
What were headed for again
I just married recently and we have started a savings towards buying our first house. This really makes me wonder if we should not just continue renting and stockpile our money! Damn!!!
If the government can get more tax revenue from the new enterprise than what was there before, that's for the public good.
Which leads to another issue - besides using this ruling to close "unwanted" businesses, how long before some community looks at a church and thinks, "Hmm, they pay no taxes. But if we TAKE the land and put up a Denny's, we could get more tax revenue, which is good for the public"?
Sure! Whatever they feel like paying! It's sort of like haggling, with one side not able to make a response.
I know, I know... this just doesn't smell right. I mean, it's flat just not a good decision. What's next?
Guess who joined the majority in this case. Justice Kennedy once again...he's getting worse with every case. The case shows that replacing Rehnquist and O'Connor won't be enough. We also need to get rid of Stevens...
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.