Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Limits of Property Rights
NY Times ^ | 6/24/05 | OP-ED

Posted on 06/23/2005 7:25:32 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.

The city of New London has fallen on hard times. In 1998 - when its population was at its lowest since 1920, and its unemployment rate was nearly twice the state average - an effort was begun to turn New London around. State and local officials put together a redevelopment plan, anchored by a $300 million Pfizer research facility, that would bring restaurants, stores and a new Coast Guard museum to one hard-hit neighborhood.

The city authorized a nonprofit development corporation to clear the necessary land by eminent domain, a forced sale in which the seller is given appropriate compensation. The development corporation got control of most of the land it needed, but a few people refused to sell.

Eminent domain allows governments to take property for a public use, such as building a road. The property owners in New London claimed that handing over private property to a private developer cannot be a public use, even if it is part of a comprehensive plan to turn around a depressed city.

...New London, the court held, was within its rights to decide that its development plan was a valid public use. (The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)...

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: communistfilth; eminentdomain; kelo; landgrab; news; scotus; tyranny; tyrrany
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 06/23/2005 7:25:32 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

The NYTs is moving into a new building that was obtained by eminent domain. Nuff said.


2 posted on 06/23/2005 7:27:10 PM PDT by ProudVet77 (NASCAR - Because it's the way Americans drive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I can't read anymore drivel about what the NY Times thinks about the limits of "property rights".....because of the limits of its interpretation of "fair use rights". This story takes me to a link which I have to register for. Which I refuse to do.


3 posted on 06/23/2005 7:29:20 PM PDT by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

"Atlas Shrugged" is a great book. Not because Ayn Rand was a great writer (she wasn't), and not because the characters are believable (they aren't). It's a great book because it really captured the essence of the Left and their mania for redistribution. The idea that a private developer -- with friends in government -- could just reach out and take property away from a private owner is so totally ludicrous and un-American. And yet, here we are.


4 posted on 06/23/2005 7:31:46 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Somebody tell me the NY Times ran a disclaimer pointing out the fact that the city of New York did the exact same thing to make way for the NY Times new office building a couple of years ago.


5 posted on 06/23/2005 7:32:49 PM PDT by NavVet (“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The irony is the left has no problem with the "corporate fat cat" taking the little guys property, as long as it is the benevolent government acting as the middle man. I wonder if they would feel the same way if the developer was Haliburton.


6 posted on 06/23/2005 7:34:31 PM PDT by NavVet (“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
The idea that a private developer -- with friends in government -- could just reach out and take property away from a private owner is so totally ludicrous and un-American. And yet, here we are.

And yet, what do we do? Can there be a movement to impeach those justices that are using international law to make decisions OVER AND ABOVE the United States Constitution?

Where is the White House on this? And the only Senator I have heard ANYTHING from is Tom McClintock.

7 posted on 06/23/2005 7:37:52 PM PDT by andie74 (I am not leaving my country; my country is leaving me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NavVet
You are correct. The important thing is that the following concept is established: "Little people cannot own anything. Government can act to take things away from you for your own good."

It doesn't matter if big corporations are enriched by this looting (for now). Their day will come. Looters get looted too. Eventually, the political class can own and control everything. Voila! The socialist state.

8 posted on 06/23/2005 7:38:51 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: andie74
And the only Senator I have heard ANYTHING from is Tom McClintock

a CALIFORNIA state senator

9 posted on 06/23/2005 7:39:10 PM PDT by clamper1797 (Advertisments contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Is this why we have the 2nd Amendment?


10 posted on 06/23/2005 7:39:26 PM PDT by etcetera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
Is this why we have the 2nd Amendment?

THIS is why

11 posted on 06/23/2005 7:40:16 PM PDT by clamper1797 (Advertisments contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: andie74
And yet, what do we do?

Elvis Costello said "I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused." For me, it is the opposite. I used to hear people say that another Civil War was coming. I found that amusing. Tin-foil hat stuff, you know?

But now I think it is inevitable. Probably in my lifetime. The slavery issue was present from the very beginning of our country, but it really got hot and heavy from the Compromise of 1820 thru the Compromise of 1850 and the Dredd Scott decision of 1855. It took 40 years for people to abandon the political process and resort to guns.

It will happen again.

12 posted on 06/23/2005 7:44:58 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797
a CALIFORNIA state senator

Ahh...yes. Irony abounds.

13 posted on 06/23/2005 7:45:20 PM PDT by andie74 (I am not leaving my country; my country is leaving me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

14 posted on 06/23/2005 7:45:22 PM PDT by austinmark (Torture? Koran abuse? I'd Rather Be A Koran In Gitmo THAN A Bible in Saudi Arabia !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest.

Theft is theft, no matter who the thief may be, nor how many vote to approve. By the Times' logic, slavery was justified by the majority votes in favor--since those who so voted justified their stance as being "in the public interest."

15 posted on 06/23/2005 7:46:39 PM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
So the New York Times thinks this is just a dandy decision?

I found this sentence especially cavalier: New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated.

Perhaps not a one of these folks will be hurt; perhaps none of them have treasured family memories of the locale; perhaps not a single one had hoped to leave the home to their loved ones.

But this decision guarantees that this will happen other places. Now the family farms face yet more than just a few bad years bringing the wolf to the door: the lesser tax revenues from 100 acres of farmland will now be enough reason to displace what could be generations of family heritage.

What a disgusting decision. And how much more disgusting that the New York Times cheers it gleefully as it is proudly points out that it itself is the beneficiary of such an exercise in eminent domain.

16 posted on 06/23/2005 7:49:37 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

New York Times shows again that Communism alive and well. They promote it at every opportunity.


17 posted on 06/23/2005 7:49:51 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

you can't fight city hall


18 posted on 06/23/2005 7:57:19 PM PDT by mindwasp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
This was a "puke" decision period! It will erase the value of property more than any housing bubble ever will. What value is private property right now? It has no value anymore. Not when some cheap political hack that has been bought off will run a families out of town and build the next Widget Mart! Where are the "Conservatives" we voted into office?
19 posted on 06/23/2005 8:01:40 PM PDT by mr_hammer (I call them as I see them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

The New York Times is WAY out of touch with its constituents over at DU. They are as outraged as we are.

Does anybody at the times understand that this country was founded on property rights?

http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm


20 posted on 06/23/2005 8:04:40 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I see The New American Revolution looming on the not to distant horizon myself. We pay property taxes till we bleed...then the Government says that anyone with a larger bankroll than you can come along and take your land for the lamest of reasons. What would the State and Federal Gov'ts do if everyone just flat out stopped paying their property taxes? It would shut them down, period!

I used to think that it would be way cool if I could afford to pay my property taxes in advance for life, but now consider that being in arears might be the best couse after all...

Taxation without true representation and Government protection has finally shown it's ugly head!


21 posted on 06/23/2005 8:04:49 PM PDT by Birdsbane (If You Are Employed By A Liberal Democrat...Quit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mindwasp
you can't fight city hall

That thought process has gotten US into to the mess we're in. We can either live with it, change it, or move.

I hope enough knowledgeable people want to fight, and share ideas on how to do so.

22 posted on 06/23/2005 8:05:13 PM PDT by easonc52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
The idea that a private developer -- with friends in government -- could just reach out and take property away from a private owner is so totally ludicrous and un-American.

You got that one right! It's a good description of corruption in gov't. You know, a lot of that goes on in Africa and other backward areas. We shouldn't be involved in that practice unless we intend to become backward ourselves.

23 posted on 06/23/2005 8:07:09 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: andie74
How about starting with the state and local elected thieves who are actually doing the stealing? Throw the bums out! Then we can worry about the crap judges who collude with our legislative and executive branches.
24 posted on 06/23/2005 8:07:17 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NavVet
Yes but that is the essence of their entire movement. Socialism/Communism works if the right people are running it. Of course when they refer to "the right people" it always means the altruistic and benevolent people known to them as "myself." Elitists one and all.
25 posted on 06/23/2005 8:08:34 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mindwasp

I am for development and desire to see more in my economically depressed town in Ohio. Yet I find this ruling absolutely outrageous. I find it very scary that the people have no say in what the Supreme Court does. Yes we do have the option of impeachment but how likely is it that the Senate would ever do what is right for the people? We need to abolish the current Federal Court system. The Constitution only calls for a Supreme Court with as many inferior courts as needed. We are not obligated to have the current form of federal courts. I think we need to seriously urge a change.


26 posted on 06/23/2005 8:09:28 PM PDT by LandofGrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

This NY Times editorial will live in INFAMY. Just like their early 1900s editorial against the income tax.


27 posted on 06/23/2005 8:09:34 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ellery

Absolutely. And this includes so-called Republican conservatives who support these decisions with their silence.

I am with you. Let's put them on notice.


28 posted on 06/23/2005 8:13:16 PM PDT by andie74 (I am not leaving my country; my country is leaving me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I wonder how they feel about other ways in which land might be used to greater economic benefit such as, say, drilling in ANWR and other reserves for oil and gas.

Fire 'em up! Get those drills going! Time's a wastin' and the Supremes just said it was OKAY!


29 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:17 PM PDT by SlowBoat407 (A living affront to Islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection; ntnychik; devolve; MeekOneGOP; Happy2BMe; PhilDragoo; Smartass; Boazo
I think it's wrong except in VERY extraordinary circumstances. But then, I live in Texas where the wide open spaces are WIDE!

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

30 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:22 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander
I found this sentence especially cavalier: New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated.

Perhaps not a one of these folks will be hurt; perhaps none of them have treasured family memories of the locale; perhaps not a single one had hoped to leave the home to their loved ones.

Right...it's just the little people. Remember...all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

31 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:49 PM PDT by andie74 (I am not leaving my country; my country is leaving me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

The pinheads at the NYT have been whining and wringing their hands over the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to check out their "libury" cards. Now, here they are cheering the government for taking away some of our rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. ((Shrug)).


32 posted on 06/23/2005 8:15:26 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Mao se Tung understood the limits of property rights.

Law of the jungle says bigger gorilla wins. Government is the bigger gorilla.

33 posted on 06/23/2005 8:17:54 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

David slew Goliath...


34 posted on 06/23/2005 8:18:52 PM PDT by Birdsbane (If You Are Employed By A Liberal Democrat...Quit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Birdsbane
Atlas shrugged.

I hear you bro'. This was a(nother) bad decision. Many things are not meant to be reduced to money. What's the verse? IIRC, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

35 posted on 06/23/2005 8:23:41 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

If this kind of uproar continues to escalate, The US Neoprene Court, will begin to feel the heat of agitated millions. They are bitting the hands that feed them.


36 posted on 06/23/2005 8:29:45 PM PDT by Birdsbane (If You Are Employed By A Liberal Democrat...Quit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Birdsbane

It is time for a Constituti0onal Amendment to protect property rights!!!!!!


37 posted on 06/23/2005 8:45:26 PM PDT by Laserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If a city (or the NYT) can't exist without stealing peoples' property, then maybe it is time, like Babylon, Carthage, Ephesus, USSR, and untold others, to fade away.

They exist for those they serve, not the other way around, and do not have an intrinsic right to exist.

I expect to be evicted if I don't pay my annual rent to Da Gubbmint; but now my landlord can even kick me out onto the street at whim.
38 posted on 06/23/2005 8:56:37 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more work horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
Is this why we have the 2nd Amendment?

Yup.

39 posted on 06/23/2005 8:59:37 PM PDT by Marauder (Politicians use words the way a squid uses ink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Article 3 section 2 paragraph 2 gives The Congress the Power to limit any and all matters before any court including the Supreme Court. All Congress has to do for ANY LAW is to put "The Supreme Court Shall Remain Silent on This Issue" at the end.Now getting Congress to exercise their authority over the judiciary is another matter. The are a bunch of spineless whimps.

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "


40 posted on 06/23/2005 8:59:43 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andie74

Has any elected official except Tom McClintock spoken out against this?


41 posted on 06/23/2005 9:33:32 PM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: potlatch


This is going to cause huge problems for the left and SCOTUS


42 posted on 06/23/2005 9:52:30 PM PDT by devolve (-------------------------------------------------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
When and Where does SCOTUS derive the right to use international law in deciding the legality of American Law?

The uglier thing is that Sleezebag Kennedy used principles from Zimbabwe--home of fascist dictator Robert Mugabe.

For our edification, Mugabe is the same pile of human refuse who's put nearly a quarter million of his own people into utter homelessness and razes orphanages in his lust for absolute power.

What Part of "The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land" don't these charlatans understand?

And why is SCOTUS pulling plays out of Mugabe's playbook and telling the government it's perfectly OK?

Finally, as Michael Savage points out time after time again, there is a nasty stench on the bench. After this decision, I'm fully convinced this's the case.

Any ideas on how to Constitutionally rectify this situation--other than praying that Stevens, Breyer, and Kennedy retire from the bench?

43 posted on 06/23/2005 9:56:48 PM PDT by rzeznikj at stout (Liberalism: How can we stick our feet in our mouth today??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devolve
This is going to cause huge problems for the left and SCOTUS

I still can't believe the Supreme Court did this, I've watched too many TV stories of people losing their homes and land because the cities want to build something.

I won't mind if it causes a problem for the lefties!!

44 posted on 06/23/2005 10:17:53 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

That's GOOD!


45 posted on 06/23/2005 10:21:20 PM PDT by Boazo (From the mind of BOAZO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.

So the NY Times is scum too. Oh, but we already knew that....

New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated.


LOL...they are getting totally screwed as always happens in cases like this.
46 posted on 06/23/2005 10:27:11 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boazo

Ya, it's cute. I can't take credit for creating it though.


47 posted on 06/23/2005 10:27:14 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: devolve

I can't tell you how many times today I've had people say that this decision has made them rethink things, many from those who are fairly apolitical or lean left. Like advocating enforcement of the borders, this could be a hugely popular issue for conservatives who speak out. However, for many moderates (and conservatives) there is too great a temptation to raise revenues via ED redevelopments to avoid tax increases, as opposed to cutting spending. Will it become another opportunity missed?


48 posted on 06/23/2005 10:34:48 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: oblomov

I've not seen anyone else...so, unless they are circling the wagons, this is outrageous!


49 posted on 06/23/2005 10:54:26 PM PDT by andie74 (I am not leaving my country; my country is leaving me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Birdsbane

Can I have a last cigarette, Da-vey?
50 posted on 06/23/2005 11:34:31 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson