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 ...
The NYTs is moving into a new building that was obtained by eminent domain. Nuff said.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
a CALIFORNIA state senator
Is this why we have the 2nd Amendment?
THIS is why
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.
Ahh...yes. Irony abounds.
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."
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.
New York Times shows again that Communism alive and well. They promote it at every opportunity.
you can't fight city hall
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
This NY Times editorial will live in INFAMY. Just like their early 1900s editorial against the income tax.
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.
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!
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.
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)).
Law of the jungle says bigger gorilla wins. Government is the bigger gorilla.
David slew Goliath...
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."
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.
It is time for a Constituti0onal Amendment to protect property rights!!!!!!
Yup.
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. "
Has any elected official except Tom McClintock spoken out against this?
This is going to cause huge problems for the left and SCOTUS
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?
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!!
That's GOOD!
Ya, it's cute. I can't take credit for creating it though.
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?
I've not seen anyone else...so, unless they are circling the wagons, this is outrageous!
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.