Post by TNRighty on Jun 24, 2005 17:26:40 GMT -5
Is anyone out there aware of the Supreme Court ruling yesterday that gives local government a judicial precedent to seize private property and turn it over to other private corporations and developers?
If not, I'll give you a brief history lesson. Here are the facts.
Eminent Domain and the fifth ammendment. A common misperception is that the fifth ammendment to the Constitution GRANTS eminent domain rights to local governments. This is not true. The right of Eminent Domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The fifth ammendment RESTRICTS Eminent Domain.
The restrictions set forth in the fifth ammendment limit eminent domain powers for the purpose of PUBLIC use, i.e. roads, schools, power lines, utilities, parks, etc.
The case on which the Supreme Court ruled began in New London, Connecticut when a PRIVATE developer sold his development idea to the local government on the basis that his development (an office complex, apartments, and a health club) would generate more local tax revenue than the existing residences currently do. The local government ruled to use eminent domain to seize private property and turn it over to another private entity. This my friends, is unconstitutional, and our Supreme Court upheld the decision by a 5-4 vote.
Voting in favor of private property rights were four conservative judges, O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist. Voting in favor of Eminent domain were four liberals and one Reagan appointee, Anthony Kennedy, a supposed conservative with whom I am very disappointed.
This ruling could in effect signal the end of private property rights in America. It basically sends the message that you own your property at the pleasure of the government so long as someone else doesn't come along and pitch an idea that would increase government tax revenues from that property.
Here's the quandry liberals now face. With the exception of Anthony Kennedy, the vote was pretty much down the party line, conservatives in favor of private property rights, liberals in favor of eminent domain abuse. Liberals on the Supreme Court have voted IN FAVOR of wealthy corporations and developers. I'm eager to see how they will reconcile that with their anti-business base.
The opinion of the justices who voted in favor of eminent domain abuse have basically been that if it is in the best economic interest of the community, then the property should be given to the person who will produce the most tax revenue for the community. This is an outrage. You can't pretend to do what is best for the community without first protecting the rights of individuals in that community.
One of the foundations of a free society is private property ownership, and under this ruling your home and property no longer has private market value. It is worth no more than what the government will force you to sell it for.
Lets say you live on a farm that has been in the family for decades. A home-builder shows up at your door and makes an offer for your land, and you decline. Perhaps the offer isn't good enough or perhaps you just do not want to sell that land period. There is now a judicial precedent where that developer can go to the local officials and say, "Hey, I've found 100 acres on which I could build 100 houses and thus generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue, but the land owner isn't cooperating." In walks the local government to offer you "fair market value" for your land and sell it to the developer. This could happen, and IT IS WRONG!!!
When you hear a local politician say something like, "This land could much better serve the public good if Joe Homebuilder were allowed to develop it", substitute the word "public" with "government". Never underestimate the desire for government to get its hands on as much money as possible.
My advice to you all is to call your local officials and stop just shy of threatening their lives if they ever even think of infringing on your property rights.
If not, I'll give you a brief history lesson. Here are the facts.
Eminent Domain and the fifth ammendment. A common misperception is that the fifth ammendment to the Constitution GRANTS eminent domain rights to local governments. This is not true. The right of Eminent Domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The fifth ammendment RESTRICTS Eminent Domain.
The restrictions set forth in the fifth ammendment limit eminent domain powers for the purpose of PUBLIC use, i.e. roads, schools, power lines, utilities, parks, etc.
The case on which the Supreme Court ruled began in New London, Connecticut when a PRIVATE developer sold his development idea to the local government on the basis that his development (an office complex, apartments, and a health club) would generate more local tax revenue than the existing residences currently do. The local government ruled to use eminent domain to seize private property and turn it over to another private entity. This my friends, is unconstitutional, and our Supreme Court upheld the decision by a 5-4 vote.
Voting in favor of private property rights were four conservative judges, O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist. Voting in favor of Eminent domain were four liberals and one Reagan appointee, Anthony Kennedy, a supposed conservative with whom I am very disappointed.
This ruling could in effect signal the end of private property rights in America. It basically sends the message that you own your property at the pleasure of the government so long as someone else doesn't come along and pitch an idea that would increase government tax revenues from that property.
Here's the quandry liberals now face. With the exception of Anthony Kennedy, the vote was pretty much down the party line, conservatives in favor of private property rights, liberals in favor of eminent domain abuse. Liberals on the Supreme Court have voted IN FAVOR of wealthy corporations and developers. I'm eager to see how they will reconcile that with their anti-business base.
The opinion of the justices who voted in favor of eminent domain abuse have basically been that if it is in the best economic interest of the community, then the property should be given to the person who will produce the most tax revenue for the community. This is an outrage. You can't pretend to do what is best for the community without first protecting the rights of individuals in that community.
One of the foundations of a free society is private property ownership, and under this ruling your home and property no longer has private market value. It is worth no more than what the government will force you to sell it for.
Lets say you live on a farm that has been in the family for decades. A home-builder shows up at your door and makes an offer for your land, and you decline. Perhaps the offer isn't good enough or perhaps you just do not want to sell that land period. There is now a judicial precedent where that developer can go to the local officials and say, "Hey, I've found 100 acres on which I could build 100 houses and thus generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue, but the land owner isn't cooperating." In walks the local government to offer you "fair market value" for your land and sell it to the developer. This could happen, and IT IS WRONG!!!
When you hear a local politician say something like, "This land could much better serve the public good if Joe Homebuilder were allowed to develop it", substitute the word "public" with "government". Never underestimate the desire for government to get its hands on as much money as possible.
My advice to you all is to call your local officials and stop just shy of threatening their lives if they ever even think of infringing on your property rights.
