Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures

[Occhidiangela]

The death of a thousand cuts. Who can afford the best, sharpest lawyers to steam roll a house here, a neighborhood there, all in the name of upping the city's or county's or state's tax revenue.

The problem here is acquisitioning the land not for public works -- school, highway, electric substation, easement -- but transferring the property from one private individual under another, via the State's action, not to the State for the common good.

There is a clear line being drawn here, and it smells of a bow to cronyism. There are five justices who need to be measured for tar and feather suits.

Occhi

Wow, there are people here who are a whole bunch of crazy.  Where do you guys live?  I want to move far far away.

I'll admit, this case makes me queasy.  But if you look at the history of the amendment and the deatails of the case, it sounds atleast reasonable, and not cause for stockpiling guns.

New London, CN, has been economically depressed since the navy left town.  They struck a complex deal with Pfizer to bring a ninefigure reseach facility to town, which would provide hundreds of good jobs to an area that needed it.  80 homes were in an area zoned "industrial", and would need to be moved for the project to move forward.  73 of them agreed, and were paid a fair price for their property.

Obviously, a massive source of jobs (and yes, tax revenues) is a common good for the city.  The people agree, since this has been brewing for 7 years now and they have not removed the politicians.

The fifth amendment was written to stop the King from siezing, without trial, the property of his enemies.  If some government tried siezing ONE house, because it belonged to a prominant political activist, and giving it to someone more friendly to the government, then it would violate the 5th.

Now if you want to bitch about drug siezures, then I'm on your side.
[right][snapback]81429[/snapback][/right]