Posted on 06/25/2005 12:23:13 AM PDT by freespirited
A day after a ruling by the Supreme Court cleared the way for the city of New London to replace a residential neighborhood with a private development, Gov. Jodi Rell said on Friday that the Connecticut legislature "ought to consider" the state's eminent domain laws.
Mrs. Rell issued a cautious response to the closely watched court ruling, one that found economic development, not just blight removal, an appropriate use of the government's power of eminent domain. Last year, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld use of eminent domain to take 15 homes in New London that were condemned in 2000.
"The governor said it is an issue the legislature ought to consider," said Dennis Schain, Mrs. Rell's spokesman.
"It's one that's been controversial not just in Connecticut but around the country." He added that Mrs. Rell is mindful of "the need to strike a proper balance between economic development concerns and the rights of property owners."
On Thursday Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, praised the court's decision as "vindicating long established eminent domain principles." He tempered his remarks on Friday, saying Connecticut's eminent domain law "deserves serious, critical scrutinizing" to ensure that it protects property rights.
Robert M. Ward, a Republican who is the House minority leader, said he was "deeply disappointed" by the court's ruling. Mr. Ward said he will introduce legislation in the next session of the General Assembly in February to protect property owners from losing their homes or businesses in the name of economic development.
Mr. Ward tried to get a similar bill adopted in the last legislative session. It would have removed the economic development provision from the state's eminent domain laws, allowing the government to seize only blighted property. He said Utah adopted a similar bill in March. The Connecticut bill died in committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
See, even the evil socialists are starting to get the idea, that they went too far.
When those McMansions fall to half their value overnight, that does tend to hurt.
But I think the USSC just created one.
On the other side of the coin, my house is underdeveloped - it is the original house grandpa built, in the late forties.
It seems now that the city is free to boot me out, and give the land to anyone who offers to build a $2M McMansion.
Three generations, one house. Never knew I was renting.
In spite of the $9k/yr taxes.
Now if we could just get the SCOTUS's attention.
Oh, and Pfibeneezer Scrooge, too.
"...the rights of property owners."
Rights? Rights?!?! They got no stinking rights!
Bump
People will just sit on their collective backside in front of their TV's watching "news" reports from Aruba (Natalee Holloway's dissapearance is tragic, however) and do nothing. People are so wrapped up in their own microcosm of existence that they will not react or fight until the bulldozers and cops in tactical gear are forcing them from what was once their home. The greatest enemy of America is citizen apathy.
Exactly right. The courts are no places to decide this. Make legislators vote on the subject and stand for election based on their view of our property.
Sadly, you've nailed it.
You are absolutely right. However, will this be enough? Will this work? I emailed one of my senators (Santorum) and my rep (Melissa Hart). I didn't even waste my time with Arlen "Sphincter" Specter. I still have to question myself as to the utility of contacting them. Is it over? Is it too late?
I signed the petition. It is about the last peaceful effort towards resolving this issue I intend to make.
The "political system" to me, is little more than a deal you and I (and every other citizen who lives with us) agreed to, by the defaults of remaining here and accepting advantages brought by that same acceptance. I agree not to etc, etc, etc, in return for the same behavior from you.
This agreement presupposes the viability of certain infrastructure, commonly referred to as checks and balances, of which the Constitution and the Supreme Court are fundamental cornerstones.
I believe these cornerstones are now broken.
I believe that this particular transgression will be remedied, not by violent resistence as provided for by the Second Amendment, but through a conjunction of lucky circumstance. The opinion polls I have seen universally indicate roughly 90% vehement opposition to this travesty of justice, the media is largely squarely on our sides, and not only are several astute politicians at the state level jumping on this bandwagon, but there are similar rumbles even from the Connecticut state government in favor of an eminent domain review.
This does not mean that this fight is over. In at least 5 states, Colorado, Missouri, Texas, Indiana, and Lousiana, there are factions which have obviously been preparing for this decision, and are wasting no time in seizing attractive properties under this loophole. If we continue to stand united, I believe we will defeat them through generally peaceful avenues of protest.
This does not change my opinion that the system is fundamentally broken. The Supreme Court of the United States, in my opinion, has no higher duty than protecting fundamental freedoms, the right to bear arms, freedom of the press, protection of property rights, protection from illegal search and seizure, etc.
They have failed in this.
We should never have to depend on individual State governments to protect Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. We should never, ever, need to depend on luck, or popular opinion to protect these rights, but in this case, we have no other choice.
After literally decades of deliberation, I am regretfully advising all who express an interest in this issue to initiate or increase their affiliations with one or more "well regulated militias" and to arm themselves. In my opinion, the need for open rebellion is not here yet, but I believe that this decision makes those conditions nearly inevitable in the short or medium term future.
Freedom isn't free, and I do not intend to be caught unprepared in the event we are required to use all available options, up to and including armed resistence, to defend it.
I'm a fellow Pennsylvanian also. Have you heard anything from either Hart or Santorum? I occassionally Email Santorum and English but you never get any response. Maybe thier office deserves a call to determine thier stance.
Blumenthal's minor recant was for public edification only. In his office you can bet he's got champagne and caviar (Russian, of course) cheering on this decision.
On Thursday Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, praised the court's decision as "vindicating long established eminent domain principles." He tempered his remarks on Friday, saying Connecticut's eminent domain law "deserves serious, critical scrutinizing" to ensure that it protects property rights.
---
Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin backspin, backspin backspin
The DUErs are even outraged over this.
My opinion: 'Supreme Tyranny'
http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm
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.