[Speed Gibson,
Friday February 25, 2005 at 9:59pm]
Supreme Court to review Eminent Domain
The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the Kelo v. New London case, Kelo being a homeowner fighting the eminent domain acquisition of her property by her Connecticut city. She is opposing because the land is not going for a public purpose like a highway or school as both the Federal and State Constitutions appear to require. Instead, it will be going to a developer, a private party.
You can find many links to this via Google, or start with this blogger's account. Meanwhile, let's do a little logic.
Both Kelo and the developer are private parties, so the government's only role can be to force a sale that at least one of the parties finds unacceptable. Otherwise it happens voluntarily.
If both parties were unhappy, the City of New London would have no reason to force the sale. Therefore, only one party is unhappy, presumably Kelo who brought suit to stop the transaction. So therefore the developer must be the happy party. He is getting a subsidy in that the government is giving him something he could not otherwise obtain or afford.
Minnesota has experienced much of the same, when Richfield appropriated the land of a car dealer and several homeowners. The last I heard, the city had won, thanks to a 3-3 tie before the Minnesota Supreme Court. There, the issue of Tax Increment Financing (or "TIF") was also questioned, and here at least the courts were critical of the City of Richfield.
I, for one, hope the U. S. Supreme Court sides with the Constitutions, both Federal and State, putting an end to such abuse.
A decision is expected in June.
You can find many links to this via Google, or start with this blogger's account. Meanwhile, let's do a little logic.
Both Kelo and the developer are private parties, so the government's only role can be to force a sale that at least one of the parties finds unacceptable. Otherwise it happens voluntarily.
If both parties were unhappy, the City of New London would have no reason to force the sale. Therefore, only one party is unhappy, presumably Kelo who brought suit to stop the transaction. So therefore the developer must be the happy party. He is getting a subsidy in that the government is giving him something he could not otherwise obtain or afford.
Minnesota has experienced much of the same, when Richfield appropriated the land of a car dealer and several homeowners. The last I heard, the city had won, thanks to a 3-3 tie before the Minnesota Supreme Court. There, the issue of Tax Increment Financing (or "TIF") was also questioned, and here at least the courts were critical of the City of Richfield.
I, for one, hope the U. S. Supreme Court sides with the Constitutions, both Federal and State, putting an end to such abuse.
A decision is expected in June.