Supreme Court is now in the Real Estate Business
By Ima_C_Suvaya
@Ima_C_Suvaya (431)
United States
February 18, 2009 1:25pm CST
Kelo v City of New London is a recent example of what the Liberal Supreme Court thinks of the Constitution and the rights of the individual. Essentially, they decided that a local municipality can take a private citizens land away from them. Not for a railroad, road, or power line, but to put something there that will generate more taxes like a strip mall or other tax revenue generating business. Am I wrong to be furious about this? Is anyone else mad about it? Where do we live now, China?
2 responses
@cobrateacher (8432)
• United States
21 Feb 09
While I think it was a really horrible thing to do, it depends upon the way the laws in that area are constructed. If they were within the law, then the law needs changing, obviously.
@Ima_C_Suvaya (431)
• United States
21 Feb 09
The 5th and 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says "private property shall not be taken for PUBLIC USE, without just compensation. The Supreme Court interpreted 'public use' to mean private companies who will pay more in taxes. How would you like it if the gov't took yer car and sold it to somebody willing to pay more for the registration.
And by the way, the city of New London still hasn't done anything with the property after taking it away from her. Most states have tightened the conditions in which eminent domain can be used (8 still haven't). But it peed me off, the way the supreme Court interpreted the law. Boo on them.
@cobrateacher (8432)
• United States
21 Feb 09
Big boo from me, too! The displaced owner should have been paid royally! They've done simillar things here in Miami, and they lost their fights about half the time. But anyone whose property was taken after all was paid reasonably.
@KatieDidit (989)
• United States
21 Feb 09
This isn't new. This type property taking under eminent domain has been going on for several years now. Since 2005 to be precise.
There was such an outcry about it at the time that several states enacted state laws to prevent their own state and city governments from doing it....but I wouldn't be the least surprised to see those states that put those safeguards in place for property owners to reverse themselves given our current economic situation. Likely they'll claim it's necessary to condemn and take private property to stimulate building, property taxes, bring in businesses and create jobs. So they'll take one person private property and basically give sell it at a profit to another private entity. 
@Ima_C_Suvaya (431)
• United States
21 Feb 09
The Seattle Times brought this back up about a week ago. The Washington state's attorney general, Rob Mckenna is tightening the definition of 'blight'. That is one of the reasons a gov't can grab land in Washington state. The problem was there is no concrete definition of 'blight'. He'll get my vote next election, unless a Libertarian runs as well.
