Check out the link in the title. Although this was not a local issue, the ramifications may be far reaching. Here's an excerpt from the article.
"WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that localgovernments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited incommunities where economic growth often is at war with individualproperty rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residentswhose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an officecomplex. They argued that cities have no right to take their landexcept for projects with a clear public use, such as roads orschools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences forprojects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order togenerate tax revenue."
What do you think of this?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Supreme Court Rules on Property Rights Issue
Posted by Thure at 1:21 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 Comment:
It's hard to come down on both sides in this issue, but here goes:
If the land is essentially laying fallow, then I can see why this would be a good idea. If you aren't taking advantage of the land you have, then it should be restored to the city, county, state, country, whatever...but
You should be paid for it. If it reaches a point where the domain decides that the land can be better used for the public good, then the land owner had better be given a reasonable amount.
And, let's be honest here, some dirt-hole in the middle of the woods is not what is being discussed in this decision. If the land is important enough to fight for, then it should be used. I guarantee that if the land was used for the public good, then there would be little reason for the city/county/state to take it.
Oh, and this:
http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html
struck me funny.
But then, I have a weird sense of humor.
Post a Comment