'Eminent domain' fight goes before high court

[CodeRed68 Profile]

I think to take someone's personal property to generate taxes and revenue and even jobs through commercialization is very wrong. Especially a property that someone has had in thier famiy for generations. It shows no respect. People can get pushed only so far before they do something drastic, take up arms, etc.

[Sayntfuu Profile]

In this instance I would side with the fighters of city hall. I agree with Chacal on this that taking private property to reward business is a bad bad thing. Although from that article and others i ahve read on this, it seems that the "urban blight" rules make it ok. I dunno, I am not a lawyer.

Eminent domain got used here in Minneapolis a few years back to make way for the light rail system. The city cut down 5 trees that had been standing since Minneapolis was founded. people chained themselves to the trees and everything. In the end the rail line didn't even go through that space, it runs about .4 miles to the east, the trees could have stayed.

fuu

[[SYN] Qrazy Profile]

The difference fuu, is this isn't putting in rail systems. This is property near the waterfront that they can use to generate more tax revenue from businesses. TRUST ME when I tell you, there are far worse areas in New London than that area in terms of "BLIGHT". It is just an excuse to force people from their homes...

[Sayntfuu Profile]

Originally posted by Sayntfuu
In this instance I would side with the fighters of city hall. I agree with Chacal on this that taking private property to reward business is a bad bad thing.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I agree.

fuu

[flapjack]

Originally posted by Chacal
That's also my point. The initial question doesn't reflect the fact that this isn't seizure for the greater good. They're taking land away from private users and giving it to another private user: "city officials there argue that eminent domain also should apply to "economic development" even if done privately since it would increase tax revenue and improve the local economy".

This is of course the ugliest excuse ever. This would in effect autorize industry to have people booted out of valuable land whenever they feel like it. It's another small step towards complete control of your society by corporations.

The court should rule in a definitive way that this is not acceptable in any circumstance, regardless of the financial gain.

Yep, a favorable ruling by the court for New London would be like helping Wal-Mart build a DeathStar.

BTW- here is a link to the petitioners brief if anyone cares. The oral arguments should be up on the Supreme Court http://www.supremecourtus.gov website in a week or so.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb05.html

[[SYN] Qrazy Profile]

Originally posted by Sayntfuu
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I agree.

fuu

Sorry fuu...I was just making a point using your example....Sorry for any confuusion......

[Sayntfuu Profile]

Sorry I had just woken up on the whiney side of the bed.

I think this will be an important court decision, not that many of them aren't.

I love the supreme court. One of the last things that make me proud of this country.

fuu