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

Skip to comments.

The Limits of Property Rights
New York Times ^ | June 24, 2005

Posted on 06/24/2005 3:23:50 PM PDT by ken21

Editorial The Limits of Property Rights Published: June 24, 2005 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.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bastards; confiscators; eminentdomain; kelo; propertyrights; theyaretheenemy; thieves; tryanny; ussupremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2005 3:23:50 PM PDT by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

as you requested.


2 posted on 06/24/2005 3:26:00 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

"Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain."

No, it is merely correct thinking, not the result of the ruling.


3 posted on 06/24/2005 3:26:23 PM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21
I suppose the next thing is that my state will decide that they can invest my savings better than I can, and therefore gain more in income taxes--and then they'll seize my savings?

That's the same theory, as far as I can tell.

This is such a blow to Freedom and the Rule of Law.

4 posted on 06/24/2005 3:27:12 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

Not surprising the NYT would agree with the Supremes' decision. I heard that the NYT got the land for their new office building in Manhattan through eminent domain.


5 posted on 06/24/2005 3:27:41 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (L'chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I don't remember where I saw it (possibly polipundit) but the best quote I've seen about this is:

"The state is not allowed in the bedroom, but they can drive a bulldozer through it."


6 posted on 06/24/2005 3:29:22 PM PDT by stylin_geek (Liberalism: comparable to a chicken with its head cut off, but with more spastic motions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ken21

"Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain."

Well if you agree with that then what is your point NYtimes?


7 posted on 06/24/2005 3:29:37 PM PDT by Betaille ("Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face." -Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion

No, it is merely correct thinking, not the result of the ruling.
-----
More than that, it is about the protection of Constitutional rights of ownership. This ruling is a direct attack on the Constitution in an attempt to broaden the power of government property seizure. It will open the door to every corrupt local government and property developers for the purpose of taxation revenue enhancement and captial gain. It is Pandora's Box for the citizenry of this country.


8 posted on 06/24/2005 3:30:34 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
this is the same point of view that i heard on the radio expressed by judge kennedy.

they're trying to justify it by saying it's first in the best interest of the community, and that the community will ensure that it's not abused. this is b.s.

"it takes a village to raise a child to steal your house."

9 posted on 06/24/2005 3:30:45 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

some states are already planning legislation to stop the damage by the u.s. supreme court.


10 posted on 06/24/2005 3:31:59 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

that's their cover up. they're trying to reassure people it's ok, when it's not ok, as you are aware.


11 posted on 06/24/2005 3:33:18 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ken21
The New York Times lauds judicial activism and celebrates the nullification of private property rights in this country. I could spot this reaction of the Grey Lady as soon as Kelo came out. It must be wonderful to lord liberal power over the Little Guy.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
12 posted on 06/24/2005 3:33:54 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA; ken21

You would not BELIEVE it, but there's FReepers here that think this is no big deal... I think they're either in denial, or they enjoy p*ssing some of off...


13 posted on 06/24/2005 3:34:55 PM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ken21

"the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations."

No bias here. It is interesting that so many liberals now support commercial developers, aka corporate America, the right to take people's property for economic gain. They must feel confident in their ability to corrupt the local decision makers.


14 posted on 06/24/2005 3:35:08 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

many little guys no longer read their paper.


15 posted on 06/24/2005 3:35:19 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ken21
My City Was Gone
by The Pretenders

I WENT BACK TO OHIO
BUT MY CITY WAS GONE
THERE WAS NO TRAIN STATION
THERE WAS NO DOWNTOWN
SOUTH HOWARD HAD DISAPPEARED
ALL MY FAVORITE PLACES
MY CITY HAD BEEN PULLED DOWN
REDUCED TO PARKING SPACES
A, O, WAY TO GO OHIO

WELL I WENT BACK TO OHIO
BUT MY FAMILY WAS GONE
I STOOD ON THE BACK PORCH
THERE WAS NOBODY HOME
I WAS STUNNED AND AMAZED
MY CHILDHOOD MEMORIES
SLOWLY SWIRLED PAST
LIKE THE WIND THROUGH THE TREES
A, O, OH WAY TO GO OHIO

I WENT BACK TO OHIO
BUT MY PRETTY COUNTRYSIDE
HAD BEEN PAVED DOWN THE MIDDLE
BY A GOVERNMENT THAT HAD NO PRIDE
THE FARMS OF OHIO
HAD BEEN REPLACED BY SHOPPING MALLS
AND MUZAK FILLED THE AIR
FROM SENECA TO CUYAHOGA FALLS
SAID, A, O, OH WAY TO GO OHIO

The Post had an online discussion with a Georgetown Law Prof about the ruling. He seems to think the ruling will bring about affordable housing to the cities' poor. Living in the DC area, I've not encountered an instance where blighted neighborhoods were replaced with reasonably-priced housing. Alexandria is selling new-construction studio condos from the $300,000s.

16 posted on 06/24/2005 3:35:57 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie
I heard that the NYT got the land for their new office building in Manhattan through eminent domain.

Looks like they're paying the bill with statist editorials.

17 posted on 06/24/2005 3:36:23 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion

You would not BELIEVE it, but there's FReepers here that think this is no big deal...
-----
Well, just wait and see what happens when every corrupt local government starts trampling on people's homes --- this is such a HUGE ISSUE relative to the OBSCENE AMOUNT OF POWER THIS GIVES to governments...this is very bad.


18 posted on 06/24/2005 3:37:00 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Spok

your reply is exactly what this is about.

as roger hedgecock said today to a caller,

>stop trying to identify the ruling with a political party. both political parties should be for the u.s. constitution.


19 posted on 06/24/2005 3:37:12 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ken21

So does this mean that Atlantic City can finally take that little old lady's house away from her and give it to Donald Trump?

http://www.ij.org/private_property/atlantic_city/


20 posted on 06/24/2005 3:40:12 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (L'chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

yes.

it's already happening across the u.s.


21 posted on 06/24/2005 3:41:52 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ken21
""Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain."

The only thing he got right was a statement of the glaringly obvious.

Why couldn't the drug company build it's offices just outside town? And when his home is torn down by the city to build a Wal Mart, I hope he is forced to live on the street, because the city isn't required to pay FULL market value.

22 posted on 06/24/2005 3:42:05 PM PDT by cake_crumb (Leftist Credo: "One Wing to Rule Them all and to the Dark Side Bind Them")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin_geek
"The state is not allowed in the bedroom, but they can drive a bulldozer through it."

That's one worth remembering.

23 posted on 06/24/2005 3:43:01 PM PDT by cake_crumb (Leftist Credo: "One Wing to Rule Them all and to the Dark Side Bind Them")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ken21

How about turning the Slimes building into a gay nightclub. The city would probably make more revenue from it. That building is big enough for a whole theme park.


24 posted on 06/24/2005 3:44:37 PM PDT by Mr. Keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph
J. Byrne: The Court did find that the Constitution does not prohibit a city from condemning homes as part of a much discussed, publicly approved redevelopment project. It does not mean that such actions will be frequent or widespread.

He fails to mention that it also does not mean that such actions WON'T be frequent or widespread.

25 posted on 06/24/2005 3:45:54 PM PDT by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ken21
What a delightful example of propaganda from the New York Times. And they wonder why they are hemorrhaging readers?

On another site, I got into a heated discussion with a socialists who kept insisting this supreme court travesty wasn't the result of socialism. He kept trying to blame it on "fascists". I tried to explain to him that socialism is just a vector to totalitarianism (be it fascist, communist, or whetever), but he refuses to admit it. yet he still bitches about how this is an unjust ruling.

The New York Times is, at best, the blind writing to the blind (or the blinkered). More likely, it's the socialist Judas Goat leading the blinkered (and the rest of us) into the totalitarian abattoir.

26 posted on 06/24/2005 3:46:33 PM PDT by pillbox_girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
You notice don't you that none of the councilmen lived in the neighborhood they stole from the owners who live there.

They salve their conscience (if they have one) by saying the owners received fair compensation. Fair by who's standards? Who decides what is a fair compensation for a family's home?

I just see blood being shed over these actions before it is all over.
27 posted on 06/24/2005 3:46:37 PM PDT by Americanexpat (A strong democracy through citizen oversight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pillbox_girl

>What a delightful example of propaganda from the New York Times. And they wonder why they are hemorrhaging readers?

yes! and they're college edjucated 2!


28 posted on 06/24/2005 3:48:10 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat

I just see blood being shed over these actions before it is all over.
-------
Well you may be right. If the oppressive socialists keep it up, there will be more and bigger problems. This issue is far from over.


29 posted on 06/24/2005 3:48:44 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph

"He seems to think the ruling will bring about affordable housing to the cities' poor."

The urban renewal crowd has been saying that for 50 years, and I agree with you, it NEVER happens.

In 1960, I watched my mother cry as she caught her first glimpse of what urban renewal had done to the West End of Boston where she grew up. What replaced it? Luxury apartments!

http://www.yale.edu/socdept/slc/urban/urban4.html


30 posted on 06/24/2005 3:49:19 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (L'chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Keys
How about turning the Slimes building into a gay nightclub.

That would change the NYTimes....how?
31 posted on 06/24/2005 3:49:47 PM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

You'd think that after what Robert Moses did, the urban renewel/eminent domain crowd would be too ashamed to show themselves in public.


32 posted on 06/24/2005 3:51:32 PM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ken21
Notice how the Times has transmogrified the explicit language of the Constitution?

Public use has somehow become anything that's not purely private. Those founding fathers; they sure wuz stoopid. Thank goodness the Supreme Court and the New York Times are around to correct their wording.

33 posted on 06/24/2005 3:59:59 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ken21

These people need to realize that when you get my property you will take the tools from my cold dead hands. If you don't like that I don't care because I am a Patriot and an American. These Communists that are comming out to do this to us can believe theyn will get a fight from me. God Bless America and all who defend HER!


34 posted on 06/24/2005 4:00:06 PM PDT by JOE43270 (JOE43270 America voted and said we are One Nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

There would be more interest and the interior decorating would be nicer.


35 posted on 06/24/2005 4:02:21 PM PDT by Mr. Keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat

Maybe it's time to uparmor what's left of your home. All I can think of is Bette Davis in "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte."
36 posted on 06/24/2005 4:03:55 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ken21

Don't want to get labeled as a troll or worse -- but didn't they use the same rulings in the 1800s with the railroads?


37 posted on 06/24/2005 4:07:14 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA; Dog Gone; Grampa Dave; Ernest_at_the_Beach; BOBTHENAILER
"this is very bad."

And the very worst part of it is... With the old status quo, we didn't really feel like we had to trust government not to bulldoze our bedroom! We had a constitutional leg to stand on... Now that leg has been amputated and thrown into Saddam's plastics shredder!!!

Now we really are "subjects" and "serfs" and really "slaves" to the BLEEPIN COMYOOOOOONUTTY!!! Now we're all in one big miserable tyrannical Home Owners ASSosiation with Bobbie Doolie as el Presidente!!!

Screw this!!! This sucks untreated canal water!!!

38 posted on 06/24/2005 4:10:03 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Arnold Schwarzenrenegger is Cauleeforneeah's Greenievenator!!! He's infected with GANG-GREEN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat
"I just see blood being shed over these actions before it is all over."

It will not be the first time. Back in the 30s there were several farmers murdered by the Feds when they refused to leave their homes when the imperial federal government decided to build TVA dams.
TVA was a real honest to Roosevelt public project, but these murders happened when good people refused to surrender their homes.
You are right it will happen.
39 posted on 06/24/2005 4:11:29 PM PDT by Bar-Face (Impeach John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: durasell

...oh yes, and Robert Moses used similar laws in NYC.


40 posted on 06/24/2005 4:11:44 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: durasell

that's a good question.


i don't know about that specifically.

however, i have read of 20th property takings by corporations under questionable circumstances. i'm thinking specifically of a book by kai byrd "chairman mccloy". mccloy was a lawyer for an expensive law firm, and he was involved with taking the pensions of railroad workers.

it's a fascinating book. mccloy was in a lot of presidential administrations, a cfr guy, etc.


41 posted on 06/24/2005 4:13:16 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ken21

posted elsewhere and repeated...

I don't like the ruling and believe it is a bad turn of events for municipal governments to take property for private development, but.....

It has been the way of America for a very long time, at least 150 years.

The railroads aquired all their right ow ways by the eminent domain process and they were very private corporations. The same is true for the electric power companies. The process has great precedent


42 posted on 06/24/2005 4:14:07 PM PDT by bert (Rename Times Square......... Rudy Square. Just in.... rename the Washington Post March??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
It is Pandora's Box for the citizenry of this country.

Except that the wealth is being sucked into government, not allowed to escape.

43 posted on 06/24/2005 4:14:39 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

Any state can pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to prevent this abuse. In California, it will probably require a Proposition, since we can't count on CA legislature to do the will of the people.


44 posted on 06/24/2005 4:16:35 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ken21

This thing only happened yesterday. I'm not up to speed on it...but it does remind me of Robert "maniac/visionary" Moses and his impact on NYC...


45 posted on 06/24/2005 4:20:33 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: durasell
Naa I don't think you are a troll. You are kinda right about the railroads after the unCivil War. However the railroads were a public project for the common good and were for the most part constitutional. Were there abuses? Lord yes, the Jesse James legend comes to mind. but for the most part it was legal and constitutional.
46 posted on 06/24/2005 4:22:25 PM PDT by Bar-Face (Impeach John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

yes, you are right.


tom mcclintock was on kfi just last hour, saying he wants to enshrine judge thomas' statement as law.


just today on klbj a texas state legislator was saying that either gov. perry addresses this issue in the current reconvened legislature, or his opponents will.

texas has strong property rights inclinations.


47 posted on 06/24/2005 4:23:11 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Except that the wealth is being sucked into government, not allowed to escape.
------
Exactly right -- and it amounts to SOCIALISM positioning itself to fund itself...think about it. IMHO, this is by design, not by happenstance...


48 posted on 06/24/2005 4:23:50 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: durasell

yeah, i read that book 30 years ago.

unfortunately the book is used by radical left professors to undermine american society.


49 posted on 06/24/2005 4:25:02 PM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat
"Who decides what is a fair compensation for a family's home?"

After 4, or 5 generations, the home, or business location for that matter, may become a priceless historic monument for the family and maybe even the "Communutty!!!"

I'm waiting for the SCOTUS decision when the irresistabel force collides with the immovable object and the historical society takes the redevelopment agency all the way back to revisit this stupid decision!!!

I will literally laugh my A$$ off!!!

50 posted on 06/24/2005 4:26:15 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Arnold Schwarzenrenegger is Cauleeforneeah's Greenievenator!!! He's infected with GANG-GREEN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 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