Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 01/18/2007 7:03:29 PM PST by STE=Q
Arlington, Va—“Your money or your property” may soon become the mantra of politically connected developers nationwide as the result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 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 nation’s worst eminent domain abusers. The Village’s chosen developer approached property owner Bart Didden and his business partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the 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 Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at ij.org ...
.
"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.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
>>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.
Gunner
To All:
"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?
Ditto.
"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.
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.