Eminent Domain Leads to Blackmail

[reeeoga]

Nice Eye catching title don't you think?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0102/p02s01-usju.html

Big government taking away more of your rights

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I've always hated the ruling the Supreme Court gave regarding eminent domain. The only reason eminent domain should be used is for public projects.

 

[Lionqueen2]

I've always hated the ruling the Supreme Court gave regarding eminent domain. The only reason eminent domain should be used is for public projects.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I am not usually one for the "if you let them do this one thing, they will take it to the Nth degree"...but this is one case where you could see it coming!!!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Holy cow--especially in this case that is sooo wrong. All they want to do is be bribed to not put up a competitor. I am not certain how that is for the economic benefit of the public.

 

[noodleknitter]

Eminent Domain only sounds good to the people who have nothing to lose.

 

[DawnCt1]

Its only going to get worse. A developer promising 10,000 square ft Mc Mansions on oceanfront property will be able to weasle his project through and force the three bedroom ranch owners out of town. Just wait! Gee, I think something like that already happened in New London, Ct.

 

[Charade]

Holy crap!! That's just soooooo wrong.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I've always hated the ruling the Supreme Court gave regarding eminent domain. The only reason eminent domain should be used is for public projects.

ITA

I hope the Supreme Court does hear their case and does allow the CVS to be built without the bribe.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Eminent Domain only sounds good to the people who have nothing to lose.

You're right, it only sounds good to those who have nothing to loose, and right now I have nothing to loose. However, I'm always fearfull of something coming along and dislodging me. This is why eminent domain should only be used as a last resort and for specific projects.

 

[eclectics]

I've always hated the ruling the Supreme Court gave regarding eminent domain. The only reason eminent domain should be used is for public projects.

ITA. And even then, when all other avenues have been exhausted. The right to own our own land without fear of it being seized is a precious one, imho.

 

[ericamanda01]

The whole thing sounds like a plot to a bad Mob movie. The bad guys go to the owners of a business and want a bribe in one lump sum or they want 50% of the profits for protection money! It's ridiculous!

 

[punkin]

My Goodnes. The right and the left speaking with one voice. Will wonders never end?

I was furious when the Supreme Court decision first came down, and I am still mad as hornets.

 

[Charade]

My Goodnes. The right and the left speaking with one voice. Will wonders never end?

.

It's like a total eclipse. It happens, but not too often.

 

[reeeoga]

What have I started: Right and Left agreeing on something

 

[shirleyb]

IMO the supreme court was way off base on this one. For future reference, here's how they voted:

For the decision:
Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Bader Ginsberg
Breyer

Against:
O'Connor
Rehnquist
Scalia
Thomas

 

[CapeCodTenor]

What have I started: Right and Left agreeing on something

The beginning of the end...it was bound to happen at some point. Don't hold your breath, it'll only make it worse...just allow it to happen.

 

[cardaway]

ITA. And even then, when all other avenues have been exhausted. The right to own our own land without fear of it being seized is a precious one, imho.

I agree also. There might be somehting I don't know about it, some legit reason out there that people would use as an example of why we need this to be possible, but the problem is that people like us lose every time. I have NEVER heard of this working out such that the majority of individuals involved come out ahead.

 

[DancingBear]

Saying "only for public projects" sounds good but in reality it's not that simple. Is a highway interchange put in X spot because traffic demands it, or to benefit the owners of the adjacent land?

This particular instance sounds egregious, but I see shades of grey. First, remember that the CVS guy is still entitled to get "fair compensation" for his property, and he can make all sorts of arguments as to what that should be. Second, it's likely that CVS wouldn't have considered this location were it not for the other developer's activities in the area. And those activities would not have been taken without the assurances that the other developer got up front for taking on the redevelopment of a blighted area.

The courts may view this as an inappropriate transfer of the condemnation authority to the private developer, but, again, I don't think it's as black and white as it first appears.

 

[Heidict]

I'm sure the judges would have voted differently if it was their homes that were being threatened like the New Londoners where. I'm still mad about that decision.

I hope they don't let them get away with it this time.