Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I,
Section 28. That private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes, in the manner prescribed by law; and that when an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be public shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative declaration that the use is public.
HTTP Web Server: Couldn't find design note - stlouiscitycounty/story/896CC32920CE04F08625702300
My city is watching the CT case. They want to use eminent domain to force a BK out. People have to start fighting the improper, illegal and unconstitutional use of eminent domain for the project du jour. This was not our Founding Fathers' intention. But then again, those self-evident truths are seemingly not so self-evident to dumbed down Americans.
"I have a lot of empathy for the Thompsons. They plain don't want to give up their home," Villa said. "But we can't allow one property to derail the whole project."
Uh yeah we can Scooter.
They need to take their bloody shopping sprawl somewhere else and the Government needs to be made to stop this kind of crap NOW.
"...the Thompsons' battle is a long-shot effort..."
Just plain sad.....
The link doesn't work but the story is one we've heard again and again.
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on or off this list.
I don't think they should be allowed to take this person's property. That said, half the time I think these cases are just to squeeze more money out of the shopping center. If all your neighbors have sold, why would you stay there?
My guess is, if they were to abandon the project, the homeowner would not be as happy as she claims. I can see not wanting to give up a family farm. But a block house, with the neighborhood abandoned?
It's worth ten times whatever the current offer is - and the developers know it.
Eminent domain is just a way for developers to use the government to artificially deflate property prices - it's fundamentally anti-business.
"No person shall...be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
If the folks don't want to sell, feeling that no compensation in this case is "just", then they don't have to.
How much more of this can we take?
There's no state constitution that allows the government to take the property of one person and give it to another private owner.
Government may take private land for "public use" under eminent domain. Public use is just that - schools, roads, utility easements.
Courts and crooked politicians have redefined public use into the "public good." Public good is nothing more than the American version of the Marxist "common good."
The definition of public good can be expanded by crooked politicians into anything they want it to mean. If private property can be taken for the public good, private property ceases to exist and we'll soon be living in a totalitarian country.
The condemnation law as it has evolved in New Jersey.
And here I thought the Dims were the party of the little people, the underdogs, the givers of voice to the voiceless against the big, bad corporations....
The concept of "private property" is a sad joke nowadays.
The government can and will take your property if it is their best interest to do so.
Eminent domain is being used to push out owners in my corrupt small town, too, here in NJ. And isn't it a kicker how a city will use the family's tax dollars to subsidize the business that would kick them out of their home?!
It's terrible, but this MO family could find itself in the same situation as some homeowners I've noticed in Atlantic City where here and there you'll see a small home engulfed by huge casinos. The MO family might not like their property so much once the shopping center is up, but the decision should still be theirs.
What's large enough for the rich to covet ... is large enough for the poor to defend (Chesterton)