|
February 21, 2005
Private apparatchiks?
I'm glad to see the issue of takings of private property for private use is finally before the U.S. Supreme Court: In New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere around the country, public officials are increasingly moving to seize property through eminent domain. The idea is to let private developers bulldoze the property and erect upscale condos, offices and shops in hopes of infusing new life into a vacant shopping center, a neighborhood or an entire town.The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment says this about the taking of property: Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation.It beats me how "public use" has been translated into private use, and I think it's another example of how the plain language of the Constitution has been twisted beyond all meaning. I grew up near the suburban town of Ardmore, Pennsylvania, which has a number of commercial buildings built before and after World War I. I consider them part of Ardmore's charm. They're old, but mostly pretty, and above all, they have character. They're all are occupied with thriving, relatively upscale businesses too. This, however, has not stopped local bureaucrats from declaring the area "blighted" -- a move towards condemning these older buildings in favor of larger, fat-cat type private developers: There is one "blighted" urban neighborhood where the sophisticated shopper can still find a decent cappuccino and a $6,000 hand-tailored business suit, all without ever leaving the Main Line.They did it anyway, and I think it's not only an abuse of government power, but a damned shame. Not that my sentimental feelings about the place where I grew up should be controlling. If the private owners of these buildings decide that they'd make more money tearing them down and putting up newer buildings, well, that's their right, and like it or not, it's called progress. But why should the government step in and decide to confiscate an older building and give it to Wal Mart? Why can't the big guys just offer a fair price to the owner? Constitutional violations aside, something about this process would seem to invite political chicanery, if not outright corruption. Want a good deal on a piece of property? Contribute large sums of money to the right guy's campaign, and it'll be yours for a song! I hope the Supremes slam-dunk this thing, but there's no way to tell . . . UPDATE (02/22/05): Eugene Volokh links to a revealing USAToday article on the case: A ruling in the New London case could have "ramifications for property owners and governments across the country," says Perry, who submitted a "friend of the court" brief for a California-based libertarian group, the Reason Foundation, that sides with Kelo.With libertarian groups and the NAACP on the same side, I'm more optimistic than I was. Noting that the Institute for Justice is behind the case (something an omission by USAToday failed to emphasize) Eugene Volokh also links to this more through Knight-Ridder report. The Institute for Justice (a great organization, BTW) has a lot more here. posted by Eric on 02.21.05 at 10:58 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2016 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Private apparatchiks?:
» In the meantime ... from Darleen's Place
One of my regular readers, fellow blogger Mieke, has nudged me via email to read Newsweek's Mommy Madness article and a few followup discussions. I actually wanted to avoid commenting because the first time I tried to read the article... [Read More] Tracked on February 21, 2005 02:35 PM
» Eminent Domain Round Up from SayUncle
With Kelo coming today (CNN has a summary), what's are blogs saying: Eric - Constitutional violations aside, something about this process would seem to invite political chicanery, if not outright corruption. Want a good deal on a piece of property?... [Read More] Tracked on February 22, 2005 11:03 AM
» The 127th Carnival of the Vanities from PunditGuy
Welcome to the 127th Carnival of the Vanities! First things first. I'd like to thank Silflay Hraka for creating this weekly event. Take some time to look around his site and if you'd like to host a future carnival, be sure to let him know. To join the ... [Read More] Tracked on February 23, 2005 04:19 AM
Comments
Over the years, public use had been turned into public good. As such, the increase in tax revenue benefits the public good. Or so the argument goes. This is arguably the most important property rights case ever. SayUncle · February 21, 2005 12:37 PM "Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation." Just compensation should be just that: the owners dispossessed should have a proportionate stake in all future use of their properties, including any income received and any taxes collected or levied. Otherwise it's called corruption. J. Peden · February 21, 2005 01:49 PM I don't suppose it would do any good to argue before the court: "Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation. But, your honor, we're not taking it for public use, we're taking it for private, which is clearly allowable here." Mike · February 21, 2005 02:33 PM I don't see how anybody can defend this outright robbery. Everybody on the Left should oppose it because it only benefits Big Business. Everybody on the Right should opposite as the epitome of Big Government violating sacred private property rights. Only the most corrupt corporate-statists will defend it. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato theElder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · February 21, 2005 05:30 PM You would never see this nonsense in Narberth! Im waiting for the state to condemn a few square feet behind my house so they can expand the road. This is public use. Damn them. mdmhvonpa · February 21, 2005 10:39 PM mdmhvonpa · February 22, 2005 12:49 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
hear hear!
IMHO "we" (most people, including myself) don't pay enough attention to local politics. We get so busy reading international/national news and concentrate on the names the MSM feature that our local mayors, city councils, county supervisors run largely under the radar.
And some of the most corrupt practices of bribery, kickback and sweetheart deals take deeper root than crabgrass.
The wink-wink nudge-nudge between local officials and developers should be stopped in its tracks.