Posted on 06/24/2005 3:23:50 PM PDT by ken21
The railroad issue is specifically mentioned in this ruling but the SC notes that was more clearly a public use / project than this redevelopment wet dream is.
I think the Crawford Ranch might be put to better use as a golf course.
-----
They should just move it to Mexico City.
About done, its been done for years. Even when families till the soil and toil with their hands, they are still usually vassals of Pioneer, Cargill, Con-Agra, ADM, Tyson, Cagles-Keystone, etc.
Time to take up arms to protect our property, before SCOTUS says we can't have them and gubmit comes in to confiscate them...
It won't, the mantra will be if it raises tax revenues it's good. And a gummint don't get a lot of such revenues from poor people, or any from a church.
The Whiskey Rebellion was the first of many causes where freedom was suppressed by the State; you have only as much freedom as you can defend or justice as you can afford.
Ever notice the American military has only been sent to invade countries without nuclear weapons? And you think no one else noticed?
Maybe we all need our own nukes in the basement-take my home, will you ?!
I begin to wonder if Revelations didn't even require divine inspiration,just a real understanding of man's nature and the recognition that those focused on wealth and power care little for morals and others' rights. Monopoly(tm) is after all, a game that teaches its players to enrich themselves on the explotation of others.Fascism is little more attractive than communism.
It's curious that you attempt to draw an analogy between transportation-energy and consumer shopping-condominium development in New London.
In most cases the railroads were not deeded property rights as much as they were rights-of-way. Further, when the railroad ceases to use/operate on those rights-of-way, the land usage falls back to the original owner who is often the neighboring property owner.
The legal basis of acquiring these rights-of-way used eminent domain principles but the property was rarely deeded to a new party, rather an easement was recorded.
This was evident when the City of Los Angeles began its Light-Rail development along the old Pacific Electric Red Car lines. The previous Red Car rights-of-way had been abandoned by Pacific Electric and so the land easements were reconveyed to their original adjoining properties. The City of Los Angeles had to compensate the landowners to reestablish the rights-of-way.
In any event, the electric grid and the railroads compensate the owners via lease payments to use established rights-of-way.
A current example is the use of cell phone towers. Many cell companies offer landowners lump sums of up to $100,000 or more for the 'right' to operate a tower on their property for a specified period of time. Should the cell company cease operating the tower, they are often required to remove equipment and return the tower site to its previous condition.
What the current ruling does is to take property, not just create a right-of-way.
The basis of the ruling was not intended to overturn property rights but to 'limit' the Supreme Court's role in the intervention of state level property disputes. This was an error as the fifth amendment of the Constitution clearly states the Federal role in eminent domain. So although the court attempted to take a position of limited power, it in fact weakened the Constitution by failing to uphold individual property rights.
.....Further, when the railroad ceases to use/operate on those rights-of-way, the land usage falls back to the original owner who is often the neighboring property owner......
Yes But..... In Southwest Virginia a battle has been ongoing for sevral years and was lost by the property owners in just such a case. The old railway bed was abandoned years ago but was claimed by the state who used it to make a bicycle trail.
This "ruling" has really gotten under my skin. Perhaps moreso than Roe v. Wade (though I was a bit young at that time and probably didn't understand the issue too well). These rogue judges need to be removed from the bench - the ruling is clearly and obviously unconstitutional.
One of the basic rules of economics is that fair market value in any transaction is determined by agreement between the buying and selling entities. If there is no agreement between the entities, then the transaction cannot, by definition, be based on fair market value.
Which will then be found unconstitutional. When the Federals exerted their power over this issue it became a federal issue and was taken away from states. You're wasting your time with state laws and amendments. Ole' Honest Abe ensured this when he put the dagger in the heart of state's rights.
Would you have any links at hand regarding this? I'm sure it is, and will continue to, happen.
Yet there are those who believe the opinion laid down by Souter & Co. in Kelo v. New London was only in the interest of "State's rights".
How ironic that states are now scrambling to protect themselves from their benevolent protectors on the U.S. Supreme Court!
Read the case. The Supremes explicitly stated that this issue could be addressed at the state level.
i fully agree with you.
but, the supremes have been making rulings that violate the u.s. constitution for some time.
IMHO they keep pushing the line further and further and the American public stands by and bitches and moans, calls talk shows, goes on FR, etc. but nothing ever turns the tide.
The country is lost - and has been since Waco. The only cure is not palatable to most citizens or just to scary because they have too much to lose.
The patriot movement is for all intentions dead. Most people who are a product of the school system in the last 20 years will only follow orders from "a person in authority". Yup shut up and get in line, serf.
Actually, that word is gubmint.
this issue only arose yesterday, after the infamous ruling the day before. legislators here were talking about legislation on the radio during the drive shows.
i'm sure the legislation will show up in the papers soon.
For everyone's information, the New York Times building sits on property that was seized by eminent domain.
If enough furor, most states will slam a lid on this. But what to do about Uncle Sam?
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.