The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing local governments to seize anyone’s property for essentially any reason, even if that reason happens to be “business developer would like to build a hotel there.”
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city’s plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters’ projects also serve a public good.
Sure, they pay lip service to “serving the public good” but who thinks this ruling isn’t a dandy way of getting “undesirables” out of the way for a nice new strip mall? It serves the public good, right? What serves the public good more, a multi-family tenement dwelling housing the poor or a commercial building housing the latest dot coms and a Starbucks?
If this doesn’t prove that this country is sliding from the “land of the free” and “government of the people, by the people and for the people” into “he who has the most money wins” I don’t know what does. What a travesty.
Updated: Actually the more I think about this the more pissed I get. You know what this really means, right? This means that that land that you “bought” is never going to be yours. Well, it wasn’t really “yours” before but now you have even less hold over it. Before this ruling it was only the government that could decide “hey, we really need an expressway here and we’re going to do it right through your neighborhood.” Now, if Walmart decides that my block would be ideal for a Superstore, they can have my land condemned and taken way from me.
The case they’re ruling on wasn’t even the typical Liberal “they’re burning down slums to build resorts” case. These were ordinary landowners on waterfront property. Their city felt that, by golly, that property is pretty valuable! Let’s develop it for the “public good!” Those of us with dreams of owning a little place on a lake somewhere when we retire can just hang it up. The bigger fish will simply “convince” the city council — and if you think these deals won’t be absolutely rife with corruption you’re likely deluding yourself — that the “public interest” would be better served with a host of retail establishments instead of those quaint summer homes.
I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that this ruling has killed the American Dream as it once existed. Welcome to Americorp.
More commentary on this ruling.
[...] 5 | Posted at 12:50 am | Posted in In the News I just thought I would point out that Coldforged provides some interesting commentary [...]
It’s this kind of thing that makes me wonder if when I served, if I was fighting for freedom, or to give freedom to the government to do crap like this. How much do you think these judges are being paid? No, I don’t mean their salaries, I mean what was in that envelope hidden between the papers that got slid across the table to them…
I couldn’t agree with you more. It is interesting that it was the liberal “Constitution is a living document” justices that made this ruling. It seems that there is some truth to the argument that the judiciary is out of control and needs to be reined in.