Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Third, states laws have not been corrected to prevent localities from taking private property. All that the states have been able to do BECAUSE of the USSC ruling is to deny state monies to localities that take private property and give it to developers for 'revitalization'.
again, eminent domain has become nothing more than the majority denying private property rights to individuals based on an economic outcome. Anyone remember something about how a republic is dead when people realize that they can vote themselves the money of other people? Thats what this is.
|
I've been sitting on the sidelines of this thread because I'm probably one of the worst violators of the "acceptance" rant in the first paragraph of the Post #1, although I've been following along pretty closely. However, the above is incorrect.
First, this issue is strictly local, just like all real estate. If local/state governments don't like this application of eminent domain, they can change the law. The people of New London, CT are at fault in this case, not SCOTUS. It was the New London law that was tested, and it did not magically become the law of the land because SCOTUS approved it. The people of New London are welcome to throw out the bastards that wrote this law with its loopholes and have the replacements go back to the drawing board, but this ruling doesn't have any effect on the people of Alabama, who have already passed a ban on exactly this kind of use of eminent domain.
That brings me to my second point - several states (Illinois among them) had outlawed use of eminent domain except for cases of blight pre-Kelo. This ruling had no effect on Illinois, Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Montana since this kind of use was never allowed in the first place. Dksuddeth, are you aware that there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot in Texas to eliminate this loophole?
Again, any and all implications of this decision are local. That means that the "common man" has a whole lot more imput that he would if this was federal issue.
By the way, my ultimate employer won't lend money for any project that misuses eminent domain in this way.