This blog has featured international policy, economics, theology, and politics ... depending on the season. Check in daily for thoughts to ponder or argue.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Calling all opinions on property rights specifically as they apply to the power of a municipality to take property with emminent domain.
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I dont have a problem with emminent domain with regards to serving the greater good or public safety. what scares me is trusting politicians to determine the greater good. I'd hate to see someone lose property because of a backroom deal with elected officials when the only good is for political gain. Clearly its neccesary but should be limited
This power is going down the road as the greatest threat to our liberty in a generation. In the recent Kelo case the Supremes said that a city could seize private property, with compensation, if the land was needed for a larger corporation that would enhance economic development and tax revenues more than the smaller one. In other words, bulldoze Motel 6 so you can build a Hilton! That Synergy subdivision is gone so that Lennox can build a subdivision that generates more tax revenues. Those of us who pride ourselves as conservatives should be greatly concerned about this expansion of government power and threat to our property rights.
The other issue with this ruling is that it puts Americans at odds with the government that is the closest with them, the local municipalities. It is easy to rail about the mess in Washington, but this rulings effectively sets the local government against its own citizens. Did you see that a bunch of guys up in new Hampshire filed papers to seize David Souter's farm so they could build a hotel that would generate more tax revenues than the farm. I love it! That Souter is the worst mistake that Bush ever made.
4 comments:
I dont have a problem with emminent domain with regards to serving the greater good or public safety. what scares me is trusting politicians to determine the greater good. I'd hate to see someone lose property because of a backroom deal with elected officials when the only good is for political gain. Clearly its neccesary but should be limited
This power is going down the road as the greatest threat to our liberty in a generation. In the recent Kelo case the Supremes said that a city could seize private property, with compensation, if the land was needed for a larger corporation that would enhance economic development and tax revenues more than the smaller one. In other words, bulldoze Motel 6 so you can build a Hilton! That Synergy subdivision is gone so that Lennox can build a subdivision that generates more tax revenues. Those of us who pride ourselves as conservatives should be greatly concerned about this expansion of government power and threat to our property rights.
You're right on
The key question is "who determines that the use would be better?"
What about a limit that would only allow cities to take property that was proven to be blighted?
The other issue with this ruling is that it puts Americans at odds with the government that is the closest with them, the local municipalities. It is easy to rail about the mess in Washington, but this rulings effectively sets the local government against its own citizens. Did you see that a bunch of guys up in new Hampshire filed papers to seize David Souter's farm so they could build a hotel that would generate more tax revenues than the farm. I love it! That Souter is the worst mistake that Bush ever made.
Post a Comment