Court: Cities May Seize Homes For Economic Development

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
[B]ktsnake, that is what is so interesting.

The Federal Govt. Will not usurp Local Laws. But, it seems to be happening more and more.

States rights are becoming about as ridiged as Individual rights. Right!

The case as I understand it just says that states, cities, counties, whatever can create laws to take land from private citizens for a more 'public' use. It would stand to reason that they could also create laws forbidding the practice.

What I'm saying Tom is that most communities already take land by eminent domain on a routine basis. My community actually takes land this way and then leases it to businesses at bargain basement prices -- they tell the public that this is good for everyone because of lower prices and increased tax revenue. In the case of Oklahoma City, I'd say that the Bass Pro Shops was a pretty decent deal that spurred some major growth in our "Bricktown" entertainment district.

I agree with I think Justice O'Connor in her assessment that the law puts the wealthy corporations at a major advantage over private landowners.

My hope is that this decision spurns public support and therefore legislative support for more laws protecting private property rights. In some communities, we actually may end up closing some of the loopholes that have been in use for quite awhile.

As for the Dallas example, unless Texas law says otherwise, it would have been legal before the decision because the stadium would probably have been owned by the city and leased to the Cowboys -- that is the deal that y'all have with Jones, isn't it?

[honeychile]

Originally posted by 33girl
As far as the Fifth-Forbes issue, if they would have spent the money they wasted on Lazarus and L & T and given it to the businesses to fix their storefronts etc, this wouldn't be an issue. If you're under the threat of Mayor Asshole whoops I mean Murphy stealing your business, you certainly aren't going to do anything to fix it and then have it taken from you.

That whole debacle was a racial thing, plain and simple. If Murphy wasn't such a @$%#ing racist we wouldn't have a downtown full of empty storefronts. Apparently he believes it's better to have no patrons than black patrons.

Absolutely. Now that the city has "last person leaving, please turn out the lights" written all over it, it will be interesting to see what happens. And no way is Onarato doing himself any favors by trying to get the rest of the county to bail out the city's bankruptcy. Washington County, here I come!

[moe.ron]

If this is true, the irony . . .

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Link to the Source

[Alpha Sig Scott]

^^^^^^^ Ah, sweet sweet irony^^^^^^^

[WCUgirl]

States Move to Protect Property

By Emily Bazar, USA TODAY
Wed Aug 3, 7:17 AM ET

States across the country are rushing to pass laws to counter the potential impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that allows state and local governments to seize homes for private development. (Related story: Ruling may doom homes)

In Alabama Wednesday, Gov. Bob Riley will sign a law that prohibits the state, cities and counties from taking private property for retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential development. "We don't like anybody messing with our dogs, our guns, our hunting rights or trying to take property from us," says state Sen. Jack Biddle, a sponsor of the law.

Delaware also has changed its law since the high court ruling on eminent domain. Legislatures in at least eight other states are weighing proposals this year. More may be coming. And Congress is considering action.

"When legislatures start new sessions in January, I expect the majority of states to take up bills that would restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes," said Larry Morandi, environmental program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The issue has spawned an unusual alliance among conservatives opposed to the principle of government seizing private property and liberals worried that poor people would be the most likely victims.

The actions are a swift response to a Supreme Court decision in a Connecticut case. For the first time, it ruled that condemnation of private property solely for economic development was constitutional.

In that case, the justices accepted New London, Conn., officials' plan to raze homes to make way for a hotel, office complexes and a marina.

But the court left the door open for states to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development.

[Optimist Prime]

um....

wasn't having a gauranteed place to live free that no one could take away from you the entire purpose of creating this country in the first place??


we've fallen.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
um....

wasn't having a gauranteed place to live free that no one could take away from you the entire purpose of creating this country in the first place??


we've fallen.

Actually, it was a tax evasion scheme.