The Limits of Property Rights

New York Times ^ | June 24, 2005

[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.

[ken21]

yes.

it's already happening across the u.s.

[cake_crumb]

""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.

[cake_crumb]

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

That's one worth remembering.

[Mr. Keys]

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.

[nosofar]

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.

[pillbox_girl]

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.

[Americanexpat]

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.

[ken21]

>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!

[EagleUSA]

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.

[LibFreeOrDie]

"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

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

How about turning the Slimes building into a gay nightclub.

That would change the NYTimes....how?

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

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

[Mr. Lucky]

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.

[JOE43270]

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!

[Mr. Keys]

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

[rabidralph]

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."

[durasell]

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?

[SierraWasp]

"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!!!

[Bar-Face]

"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.

[durasell]

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