Posted on 07/21/2005 10:25:15 AM PDT by calif_reaganite
In the days of the old Republic, Americans lived secure in their homes safe in the knowledge that the fundamental responsibility of government was to protect their lives and property from anyone who threatened them – no matter how rich, powerful or well-connected. If a widow didn’t want to sell her home to a developer, she didn’t have to.
That was the end of the matter, unless the developer sent in thugs to beat her up. And government was there to protect her from the thugs.
Under the Kelo decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, government has become the thug. Americans’ property rights have been eroded for many years, but Kelo represented the final collapse. It is now entirely permissible for government to seize the home of one person for pennies on the dollar to give it to another – not for some vital over-arching public necessity, but simply because the new owner can pay more taxes than the old.
The decision completes the transition from the old America of individual rights to a collectivist society where government apportions property from those it doesn’t like to those it does. Stripped of all its sophistries and euphemisms, that is the underlying principle that has replaced the property protections in the Bill of Rights.
It now falls to the states to restore to their own citizens the fundamental right to property that the federal government has rescinded. In California, an amendment to the state constitution – SCA 15 – has been introduced in the state legislature with the bipartisan support of 45 Senate and Assembly co-authors. It restores the original property protections of the Bill of Rights, and specifically prohibits the seizure of one person’s property for the private gain of another.
The measure is opposed by the “California Redevelopment Association,” a group of local officials who are responsible for an epidemic of abusive property seizures across California. In Yolo County, for example, the Board of Supervisors has combined with the Rumsey Indian tribe to seize 17,000 acres of private land to be divvied up between the county and the tribe.
They argue additional protections are unnecessary because California law already requires that a property must be “blighted” before government can seize it. But “blight” is so broadly defined as to apply to any neighborhood in California.
Ask Mohammed Mohanna, who came to America from Iran 35 years ago seeking the promise of a free life in a free land. He became a flag-waving American who has spent three decades purchasing and remodeling small storefronts in downtown Sacramento with the aim of ultimately consolidating them into a gleaming new commercial complex. Recently a politically connected tycoon decided upon the same goal – but rather than going to the trouble of finding willing sellers the way Mr. Mohanna has done, he is using his political influence to seize Mohanna’s painstakingly assembled holdings instead.
Mohanna’s story is a common one. Governments today have the power to take the property of ordinary citizens to give to the rich and powerful – and are using that power. And thanks to the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights no longer stands in their way.
SCA 15 still allows redevelopment officials to seize private property for a genuine public use such as a road or a school or a park.
It even allows them to acquire private property to give to a Walmart or a developer. The only difference is, in that case, they’re no longer allowed to use a gun. They have to do it the old-fashioned way, by negotiating a mutually agreeable price without making threats.
What can you do? Start by calling your local senator and assemblyman and find out if they are co-sponsors of SCA 15, and then let your friends and neighbors know. Because you can be sure of this: any public official who has no moral compunction of stealing your neighbor’s home or shop is also perfectly willing to steal yours.
So did I! I had to change my name to solve a login problem...I'm not trying to pull a fast one.
I could be wrong about McClintock. He rubs me the wrong way. Either way, I am a fan of personal proprerty rights. I am just usually not a fan of new laws.
LOL.. I hate it when logins and passwords go pooof.
If I had my way, I'd put a moratorium on any new laws and make legislators go back thru all the old laws and clean 'em up.
They might even learn something from a review of what came before and see their inefficacy and agree, we need reform. :)
They are all ultimately politicians and therefore difficult to trust.
And you are right, it is difficult to decide if lying is more admirable than ignorance. Tough call.
McClintock bump!
Here! Here!
The eminent domain issue is sticky business. My husband and I are currently in the crosshairs. Long story, but there are always many considerations when deciding legal issues.
In our case it will have to be decided if using the land in a good way, and holding title trumps some cousin coming out of the woodwork claiming his father has a right to 1/3 of current market value because he supposedly has a quit claim deed from 1948 showing he has a 1/3 interest.
Of course the relatives never claimed any interest in ownership when taxes were due or when repairs were needed.
Our lawyer thinks we have a strong case for adverse possession but thinks we should try to settle because it will cost us $50,000 to $250,000 to go to court.
Sorry to go into my long personal tale of woe, but this is why I have a special interest in what the courts are saying about use of land and right to title issues.
BTTT!
Sorry to go into my long personal tale of woe, but this is why I have a special interest in what the courts are saying about use of land and right to title issues.
---
Not a problem. My Dad, after years of working a 160 acre plot of land, dairy and grain farm mostly, ended up losing almost half of it to a local highway and an interestate freeway and later, hugh power lines came thru as well.
We lost what used to be some prime wildlife and woods area.
But that's progress, as they say.
The financial end of things, he got screwed as far as what he got for the land.
Today it has a number of motel/hotels,Target store and numerous toher businesses on it.
The moose, deer, ducks etc habe long snce moved on,, but mymemories of them as a kid are vivid. ;-)
Please add me to the McClintock Ping List.
That makes me sad. Our situation involves what is left of the family home and business. I know there are some things we can't do anything about but it is just so hard to see the end of a family legacy. I guess it is that thing "progress" I keep hearing about. Glad you have the memories.
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.