Skip to comments.U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Eminent Domain Extortion Case
Posted on 01/18/2007 7:03:29 PM PST by STE=Q
Arlington, VaYour money or your property may soon become the mantra of politically connected developers nationwide as the result of the U.S. Supreme Courts announcement today that it will not consider the appeal of an eminent domain case involving attempted private extortion.
The case the Court declined to review arose out of the Village of Port Chester, N.Y., one of the nations worst eminent domain abusers. The Villages chosen developer approached property owner Bart Didden and his business partner with an offer they couldnt refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his propertyland the developer coveted for a Walgreensthe developer demanded that Didden either pay him $800,000 to make him go away or give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day, the Village of Port Chester condemned Diddens property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at ij.org ...
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke)
"The Villages chosen developer approached property owner ...partner with an offer they couldnt refuse." Port Chester? The quotes sum it all up.
Hey Ketcham! Where's Mitchum?
Bush's choices for the SC are showing their true colors!
DUmmies still are confused at why all the liberal commie judges were for this.
The black-robed dictators opened the can of worms, and now they're afraid to put the lid back on. Score - government 10, citizen 0.
You think that this is bad I have family in OK that cant control mineral rights that were bought and paid for over a century ago. Yes they will have to compensate for any gas or oil then recieve but you sure as hell will not make as much money they will off of the profits.
They contribute to the party that not so secretly embraces the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto and are surprised when one of the planks is implemented. Dummies indeed.
I would like to know which of the justice's were selected to decide if this case would be heard or not. Can I assume that our new Cheif justice was involved?
This is a press release.
Hey Village, don't let the rock salt hit you in the ass when you leave.
Seriously, my kids, bf, and I have a streak of juvenile delinquency. Potato up the exhaust pipe, etc. This is a disgusting turn of events when the Supreme Court won't hear this case!
"Didden and Bologna appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which also let the condemnation stand, saying the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London didn't allow Didden and Bologna to challenge a taking within a redevelopment district."
"The court said Didden and Bologna could only challenge the taking of their property by challenging the entire redevelopment plan, which had been expanded in 1999 to include their property, and that a statute of limitations prevented such a challenge to the plan."
Comes as no surprise. Probably too far down the slippery slope to climb back without a serious upheaval. Which is not going to happen. Government is adept at confiscating rights in increments. And the average person is incapable of extrapolating the future results.
What I don't get is why liberals seem to think that THEIR property rights will somehow be exempt from this sort of thing. They get all hot and bothered when boobie bars are not allowed to give lap dances (restricting free speech, right?), but snooze away when government confiscates private property (it's for the good of the community). Their priorities are in the Twilight Zone.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that the USSC does nothing or in some cases, does something.
With all these egregious eminent domain abuse cases, I keep wondering when a Constitutionally-minded victim will put out a call for the militia to help defend their property. And then I wonder if the militia would actually respond. It will be a beautiful day when a developer's bulldozers arrive at a seized property and are greeted by a few hundred rifle-toting citizens.
I don't think they want to put the lid back on. Lotsa land needed to build lotsa highways for the NAU.
I hope someone goes postal at a city council meeting. That's what it's going to take to put a stop to this.
"It will be a beautiful day when a developer's bulldozers arrive at a seized property and are greeted by a few hundred rifle-toting citizens."
Before that point is reached it my be to late.
Our rights are being removed in increments.
Read post number 16.
So where is Walgreens itself in the middle of this? That's ultimately why the city snatched the parcel, because it wanted a Walgreens rather than a CVS.
Walgreens has been virtually scandal free, with an ugly exception or two. I've been told they walk very carefully because being rich as they are, they consider themselves to be a potentially juicy lawsuit target. And they treasure the public view of their brand name. But I've also been told they have gone to greasing palms in the northeast because of corrupt governments there; note that there isn't (yet) a Walgreens in Maine.
If the facts are really as stated, I am surprised that SCOTUS did not grant cert. although just because an appellate court got it totally wrong, is not in and of itself a reason to grant cert. Granting cert is not about correcting errancy, but rather about effecting orderly jurisprudence. Having noted that, the action by the municipal authorities goes way beyond the scope of the Kelo decision, and indeed is the paradigmatic set of facts that Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, suggested was a bridge too far. Given the public policy importance of the scope of municipal authorities to effect condemnations, one would think that SCOTUS would act sooner rather than later. Maybe Justice Kennedy was being disingenuous, in his prose. Is that possible?
So in effect it was pre-seized. Is that cool or what. (BARF)
Procedure is king in the law. Thanks for the info. My other post was about substance, when apparently it was procedure that was the show stopper.
The Supremes take only some tiny percentage of all the cases tossed their way, I hear, and they are not known for being idle. It may have simply gotten bumped off the plate by what they considered bigger fish.
Cases where the procedural niceties were not adhered to, are not appetizing to SCOTUS. Apparently the subject lawsuit was not timely. Somebody failed to correctly run all the traps. Lawyers are well paid for a reason.
That may very well be the case. If so it speaks volumes about the court's priorities. Private property ownership and rights are (arguably) more important than free speech. Indeed, of far more importance than many of the cases the court hears.
I'll wager that this is an issue the court simply doesn't want to deal with. Either because the court places little value on property rights, or because it lacks the guts to confront the reality of how bad it has become. My bet goes with the former.
It's going to take more than one - it'll take many victims going "postal" at many city council meetings to put a stop to this. And when it happens (and it will some day), the RATS and RINOS and their accomplices in the news media will be working overtime to poo-poo the guns and their owners instead of attacking the root cause of the violence.
It would be quite beautiful if, after this unconstitutional taking occurred and the start of construction was under way, Walgreens backed out of the deal and left the city and the developer holding the costs. I don't know how they could do so, but I'd love to see that happen.
This could have an effect on where I shop for the occasional prescription.
We've been through this before where the rulers did not respect property rights. The resulting commotion did not end well for the British and their Tory supporters.
The reaction will depend on the circumstances. This happened at an HOA meeting a few years ago in my state, apparently as the culmination of a long-running dispute. The short-term result was a new reluctance by HOAs to indulge in bizarre excesses. The longterm result was a law change in the next legislative session, clamping down on HOA powers.
>>I would like to know which of the justice's were selected to decide if this case would be heard or not. Can I assume that our new Cheif justice was involved?<<\
That was my question too...
Is there a particular Justice who declined? Was there a vote or was it done without comment so we'll never know?
Ayn Rand figured all of this out in "Atlas Shrugged" and it is happening.
"Private property ownership and rights are (arguably) more important than free speech. Indeed, of far more importance than many of the cases the court hears."
Indeed, private property ownership is the sine qua non of all our freedoms... freedoms that have been eroding for some time now. If such a right is removed, then even ones very person could end up belonging to the state. Such would be no more than slavery.
Are we going to end up dreading the "knock on the door" hoping that the state is not coming to take OUR property; or are we going to understand that when rights are taken from a fellow citizen, our own freedoms are thereby diminished?
"Probably too far down the slippery slope to climb back without a serious upheaval."
I think we're seeing the tip of the iceberg. Without proper outrage, the bar's going to continue lower.
Makes you wonder how we can promote "the rule of law" as part of the War.
The most laconic statement I've ever heard!
Allow me to "ditto" your ditto!
All congress needs to do is pass a law outlawing developers from taking the property via eminent domain. But congress is too busy passing laws outlawing online gambling to worry about our property rights.
And yet many people still don't get why many conservatives rebelled this last election cycle.