Beware of Big Bro, he'll take your house
Just from the Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html
The Supreme Court favored the city in the eminent domian case. This is so wrong. I need to read more about how this happened and wtf were the judges thinking.
Update: Well I was going to drown my sorrows in the court decision at a bar with Nora, but she had other plans, so I stayed home and made pina colada ice cream. Take one pint of Haagen Daz Coconut Pineapple ice cream, add lotsa rum. After that and a game of Civilization, I felt less angry.
posted by Mari @ 23.6.05
2 Comments:
This ruling is what allows cities to take blighted houses and turn them over to developers and other gentrifiers.
Past takings cases have been about urban blight. Because the 5th amendment allows Takings for "public use" (with compensation), condemnation of blight was more understandable (but still controversial). In this case it was conceded that the Taking was for private, not public use. THe issue was whether private use can ever count as public use. The 4 "liberal" Justices plus Kennedy held that a public *benefit* counts as a public *use*. Kennedy hinted that there may be a case where the public benefit may be so small that it's not a public use, but that is basically what happened in this case. The neighborhood was condemned for a hotel, condos, and retail to adjoin a business park. It is a bad decision which will impact places where developers have local governments in their pockets. (Look to Loudon County for an example of how easy it was for developers to pack the council). See www.scotusblog.com for a lot of commentary and www.ij.org for the group that represented Kelo (the plaintiff).
Post a Comment
<< Home