The differences in this decision are:
1) there is no instance of urban blight identified whatsoever in the
Connecticut case, and, more importantly,
2) in this instance the public good is not a school, road, park, or any
such thing. The public good is simply higher taxes from ANOTHER PRIVATE
BUSINESS. In other words, if someone else could make more money doing
something else with your land, the city can take it away.
Under the old system, even Donald Trump lost property (the old
Ambassador Hotel in L.A.). This way, anyone can.
--J
On Jun 24, 2005, at 1:33 PM, David Coons wrote:
> This reminds me of a small predominantly black
> neighborhood in Manhattan Beach many years ago
> that was bulldozed to make a public park,
> as it remains today. Excuses were made, health
> hazards were identified. They were just trying to
> clean up their white bread community.
>
> dc
>
> Susan Oudiz wrote:
> > Eminent domain is scary. I never quite understood how
> > this could be justified.
> >
> > Not to mention the outrage of people being kicked out
> > of mobile homes because the landowner wants to develop
> > the area for something more lucrative. In addition,we
> > need rent control. My mom's rent went up by 25% here
> > in the South Bay a couple of years ago so that the
> > landlord could "renovate", so everyone had to move
> > out.
> >
> > Susan
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OliveStarlightOrchestra/
>
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
>
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2005-06-24 19:29:43