Forget the Patriot Act, Private Property Rights Taken Away
The US Supreme Court today effectively ruled that local government can force anyone from their property in order to give it to a private developer. As a result of this ruling, cities now have wide power to raze entire neighborhoods for any project that generates better tax revenue.
Sandra Day O'Connor authored a blistering dissent saying "...cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers." and "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,.... The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Supporting her was Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Capitalist America will soon be on the ash heap of history. The communists in this country have won through the courts what the Soviets could not win with weapons.
Rest in peace America. Hello Amerika.
posted by RBM @ 11:07 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Since your blog is a NJ blog, you should be aware that your comments regarding taking away property rights are off a bit. NJ operates under the "Redevelopment and Housing Law," which lays out stricter standards for a taking than in most other states. While a local government can, and has, used eminent domain, a property owner has certain rights and options guaranteed by that law.
Yea, right just ask the people in the Cramer Hill section of Camden about how well New Jersey law protects people and their property.
The liberals view everyone and everything as a "tax" source. They know how to spend your money and use your property better than you.
The liberal judges are out of control. If you can't go to the Supreme Court to have your property rights protected, where can you go?
The case just decided was not one of states rights, it was about a basic constitutional right - the right to be protected from property seizure. The greater good, is no longer a road or hospital, it’s a greater tax base with a side benefit of big bucks for the politically connected.
As long as they are taking someone else's house or income it's just fine by the liberals and their fellow travelers. The whole thing makes me sick.
You can call me a liberal, if you want. But I'm not. But I understand the law, and your analysis might be right for the state of CT., where this case started. But the NJ law is different. And don't equate the taking of land in blighted areas with the taking of land in residential properties and home. That's an apples to oranges comparision.
Post a Comment
<< Home