 |
| |
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
This practice absolutely disgusts me.
George Will NYPost OPED
quote:
September 19, 2004 -- THE U.S. Constitution, prop erly construed by a vigilant Supreme Court, prevents untrammeled power, which is the definition of despotism. But the human propensity for abusing power — a propensity the Constitution's framers understood and tried to shackle with prudent language — is perennial. There always are people trying to carve crevices in constitutional terminology to allow scope for despotism. Such carving is occurring in Connecticut.
Soon — perhaps on the first Monday in October — the court will announce whether it will hear an appeal against a 4-3 ruling last March by Connecticut's Supreme Court. That ruling effectively repeals a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights. If you think the term "despotism" exaggerates what this repeal permits, consider the life-shattering power wielded by the government of New London, Conn.
That city, like many cities, needs more revenues. To enhance the Pfizer pharmaceutical company's $270 million research facility, it empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corp., to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn most of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. The aim: to make space for upscale condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenues than can be extracted from the area's middle-class homeowners.
The question is: Does the Constitution empower governments to seize a person's most precious property — a home, a business — and give it to more wealthy interests so that the government can reap, in taxes, ancillary benefits of that wealth? Connecticut's court says yes, which turns the Fifth Amendment from a protection of the individual against overbearing government into a license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests. Henceforth, what home or business will be safe from grasping governments pursuing their own convenience?
But the Fifth Amendment says, inter alia: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (emphasis added). Every state constitution also stipulates takings only for "public use." The framers of the Bill of Rights used language carefully; clearly they intended the adjective "public" to restrict government takings to uses that are directly owned or primarily used by the general public, such as roads, bridges or public buildings.
The Connecticut court, like the courts of six other states, says the "public use" restriction does not really restrict takings at all: It merely means a taking must have some anticipated public benefit, however indirect and derivative, at the end of some chain of causation. Hence New London can evict Wilhelmina Dery from the home in which she has lived since her birth there in 1918.
Fifty years have passed since the court considered whether the "public use" clause allows condemnation for private development. The 1954 case from Washington, D.C., concerned "urban renewal," as such social engineering was confidently called before it became accurately known as "Negro removal." To empower government to condemn slum property (most dwellings had no baths, indoor toilets or central heating; the neighborhood's tuberculosis and syphilis rates were high) the court held that "public use" can mean "public purpose" when the aim is to cure blight harmful to the larger community.
But the Fort Trumbull neighborhood — what remains of it; many residents have been bullied into moving — is middle class. That is the "problem": Residents are not rich enough to pay the sort of taxes that can be extracted from the wealthy interests to whom New London's government wants to give other people's property.
Another step in cutting the Constitution's leash on the awesome power of eminent domain came in 1981. Michigan's Supreme Court allowed the bulldozing of Detroit's Poletown neighborhood — more than 1,000 residences, 600 businesses and many churches — so the property could be given to a more lucrative revenue source, a General Motors plant. In the New London decision, Connecticut's Supreme Court relied on the Michigan decision.
But just 149 days after Connecticut's court ruled, Michigan's Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Poletown decision, denouncing it as "a radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles." In considering whether to take the New London case, the U.S. Supreme Court surely sees, at a minimum, the dangerous emptying of meaning from the Fifth Amendment's "public use" provision.
If the court refuses to review the Connecticut ruling, its silence will effectively ratify state-level judicial vandalism that is draining the phrase "public use" of its power to perform the framers' clearly intended function. That function is to prevent untrammeled government power — in a word, despotism.
E-mail: georgewill@washpost.com
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They did this in Chicago, when they built the new Kamiski Park (now called U.S. Cellular Field  ). IIRC, they also used it when they build the United Center, which replaced the old Chicago Stadium. |
At least with the stadium, "real" deals were made and kept. The neighborhood has seen great improvement, and while yes, some people had to move, it was handled well, and the community actually gained.
On the other hand, Comiski Park was a joke... promises were broken, and the community didn't gain a damn thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
Expropriation for public purposes exists in most democracies. I agree that the Nevada example is in accord with the purpose of those provisions .
here in Calgary, there are a large number of people that face expropriation of their homes as the 4 lane main east-west route through the centre of the city is far too small-- again this is what the provision is for- public need
The Conn. example gets a bit blurred if you had a city that saw a need for an industrial park ( what if it was a hospital needed)-- that seems little different from the need for a road-- But what seems to stink here is that they propose to hand the land over to one specific industry so it looks as if the powers of government are being used for the purposes of a specific private industry
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
The Connecticut court, like the courts of six other states, says the "public use" restriction does not really restrict takings at all: It merely means a taking must have some anticipated public benefit, however indirect and derivative, at the end of some chain of causation. Hence New London can evict Wilhelmina Dery from the home in which she has lived since her birth there in 1918. |
It's sorta the same argument that has been constructed to change the meaning of Interstate Commerce to mean any type of travel or transaction, any part of which could at some point have been taken across a state line in some form or fashion.
Basically, the Republicrats (because we all know both parties support it) are trying to enhance state power through the courts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
Yes and no, self - while in some ways it's the same thing, it isn't in a strictly legal sense, as far as I can see.
Indians weren't protected by the US Constitution (which doesn't make their treatment right, it just makes the situation different).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2004 00:54
Ballardi Ranch is one of the few open spaces remaining on the valley floor. UNR maintains a research farm over by Hidden Valley, or at least they did. I think they exchanged lands with someone a few months back. Double Diamond Ranch is still in the process of being developed, so that land is going to disappear. The area over by the Mount Rose Highway and the Arrowcreek subdivision is in the process of being developed. Reno continues to absorb land west along I-80 outside the valley floor. In fact, just the other day it was announced that they're in negotiations to annex some land right along the NV-CA border; up till now Reno's border came as close as 600 feet. But past western McCarran Blvd (Reno's ring road), you start leaving the valley proper and start getting into the Sierra Nevada mountains and the river valley carved by the Truckee River. There isn't much in the way of buildable space in there. Additionally, Reno has also climbed up into the North Valleys (beyond north McCarran Blvd) and is starting to gobble up yonder land for developement. So besides Ballardi Ranch, there isn't really any open space left inside the Truckee Meadows proper. There may be opportunites to preserve land in the North Valleys and out by Cold Springs (north along US395).
|