Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Think at your own risk.
|
Thursday, June 23, 2005
In America?
I'm not sure which is more frightening: the notion that cities can decide, on their own (without even checking with a federal or other court), to seize an individual's home or property and hand it over to a private developer "for the greater public good," or the fact that the justices I agree with on this score are O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist. Are we so enamored and trusting of government -- local or otherwise -- that we're willing to take a "father knows best" attitude toward their decisions, pretending to ignore the inevitable influence of well-connected, rich developers versus the little people whose homes are on the block, and who now can be forced to sell to the city? This is an outrage that shouldn't be happening in America.

Quoting someone I never, ever, ever quote, Sandra Day O'Connor on today's SCOTUS ruling:
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
...as well as someone I normally find totally repulsive:
“The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,” Thomas wrote (in a separate opinion). “So-called ’urban renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.”
So what was the majority's excuse: that city's generally will act in the itnerests of the community -- particularly since many of the devlepment projects that are the "winners" in these property exchange schemes "benefit low income communities."

Writing for the court’s majority in Thursday’s ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.


“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Stevens wrote.


Bullsh**. So I should lose my home or business so Sam Walton can put up another Wal-Mart in the hood and create more $8 and hour jobs with no benefits? Give me a break! This is social engineering in the Twilight Zone! Cities and their developer friends should certainly be able to make their case for their being a better use for a given piece of property, and if one individual stands in the way of progress, say, for an entire neighborhood that badly needs it, the city should take them to court. The case of blighted or abandoned property is obvious and has nothing to do with this ruling. But at the end of the day, it seems to me that private property has no meaning if the government -- even supposedly do-gooder government -- can compel you to part with it.
posted by JReid @ 1:18 PM  


ReidBlog: The Obama Interview
Listen now:


Add to Technorati Favorites


Join the mailing list!
Enter your name and email address below:
Name:
Email:
Subscribe  Unsubscribe 


Home

Site Feed

Email Me

My FaceBook

My MySpace

Follow me on Twitter

Del.idio.us

BlackPlanet

Blogroll Me!

From the overwrought minds that brought you Mahatma Hillary, comes the new website devoted to America's Maverick...



Mahatma Hillary
"If it happened in the world,
Hillary was there!"


Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
Thanks to all who voted!



120x240 Direction 3 banner

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Listed on BlogShares
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com



BlogRankers.com
Search Popdex:


My blog is worth $31,614.24.
How much is your blog worth?

<% dim done done = request.form("done") if done = "" then done = "No" %> Tell a friend

Recommend ReidBlog:

<% Else if request.form("done") = "Yes" then 'sets variables dim email, sendmail email = request.form("email") Set sendmail = Server.CreateObject("CDONTS.NewMail") 'put the webmaster address here sendmail.From = "webmaster@aspbasics.com" 'The mail is sent to the address entered in the previous page. sendmail.To = email 'Enter the subject of your mail here sendmail.Subject = "Check out this website" 'send a specific page or send a site url dim url 'url = Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_REFERER") url = "http://www.aspbasics.net" 'This is the content of the message. sendmail.Body = "Site recommendation from a friend!" & _ vbCrlf & vbCrlf & "A friend has sent you this email and thought you would should check out this site." & _ vbCrlf & url & vbCrlf 'this sets mail priority.... 0=low 1=normal 2=high sendmail.Importance = 1 sendmail.Send 'Send the email! response.redirect Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_REFERER") 'Response.write ("Sent to ") & email End if End if %>

About Reidblog

Previous Posts
Title
"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.'
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, August, 1788
Links

Templates by
Free Blogger Templates