Re: Eminent Domain can take your land away

From: Henry_Reynolds <henry_reynolds_at_yahoo.com_at_hypermail.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:04:01 -0000

I agree that this really did not constitute "public use". But this isn't *that* horrible. The
local legislative and executive branch still have to sign off, even if the legislative won't
chime in.

And how does this injustice compare to, say:

1) a young diabetic who will lose vision and feet because she can't get proper healthcare
2) a small-time drug dealer's girlfriend takes a couple phone messages and spends 20
years in jail
3) the federal government can now monitor all the web pages you view, and therefore all
their content, without any judicial oversight
4) the president convinced the vast majority of Americans the Saddam was behind 9/11
when he knew this was false.

?

H.


--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "Georgie Hinklemyer"
<samoolives_at_y...> wrote:
> Sorry to interrupt the fun, gang. But this is serious. I want to
> fight the Supreme Court. How do I do it?
>
> Here's the history.
>
> <rant on>
>
> I cannot Fcking believe what the Supreme Court just did today. With
> one stroke they took away everything anybody owns.
>
> Today, in a 5 – 4 ruling, the Supreme Court said that Eminent Domain
> may now be extended for the purpose of economic benefit. The case
> centered around a small town called New London in Connecticut. About
> a half-dozen people, middle class, owned homes along a stretch of the
> river bordering the town. A big contractor came along and saw the
> river and the land and said, "What a great place to build a set of
> condominiums, a hotel, and a huge office complex." But no one wanted
> to sell. So they went to the mayor. It would be of tremendous
> economic benefit, the company said. Everyone would benefit, and think
> of the huge amount of new taxes the town would bring in.
>
> The landowners fought back. Court after court they fought. They'd
> lived there for 20, 30, even 50 years. They didn't want any
> compensation, whether someone else considered it "fair" or not. This
> was THEIR property. THEIR homes.
>
> It finally got to the Supreme Court. To paraphrase Star Trek, the
> needs of the money outweighed the needs of the few. And the town may
> now take the land away from the people.
>
> Congratulations, Scalia & Co. And welcome back to the time of King
> George. You just gave any governing body, large or small, the right
> to do whatever they please in the interest of "economic advantage."
> Not "public use," not "for public good," but pure, unadulterated
> money. Never mind blighted communities which no one should be forced
> to live in. Never mind that schools are struggling to find any kind
> of land to build on. Let's at least make sure the companies are
> well-fed with all the resources they need. Ship the people somewhere
> else. Who cares? There's plenty more who will buy at that location.
>
> Remember "Of the people, by the people, for the people"? Try Of the
> money, by the money, for the money. But you knew that already
>
> This is so dangerous, I'm totally blown away. Any neighborhood may
> now be demolished because the town mayor thinks a shopping mall would
> be better there. A community wiped out because we've got to have a
> new power plant for the rest of the city. Land ownership is now a
> pipe dream. It's gone at the whim of a bunch of idiots sitting around
> a gorgeously appointed conference room surrounded by pretty charts and
> graphs, piles of doughnuts, and the finest Starbuck's coffee.
>
> Can we Eminent Domain them the hell out of their offices and into the
> real world, please? Don't let them take everything we've ever worked
> for away!!
>
> <rant off>
>
> Personal rancor aside, the facts I've stated are true. And I'm deadly
> serious. How do we fight the Supreme Court?
Received on 2005-06-30 16:06:21