WharfRat wrote:We'll probably see a lot of this type of thing as time goes on, I bet.
I sure hope so.
WharfRat wrote:Of course, I still think most local bodies will be blinded by power and the prospects of expanded tax bases. Dangle the carrot and these people can't resist. Maybe I'm a cynic.
No, you're not too cynical. When it comes to anything involving the common good, the government is the last entity that can be trusted.
Actually, I don't agree with this. I think the essence of this ruling isn't about the advancement of the common good - municipalities, and the residents of those municipalities, benefit, as a whole, from increased tax revenue from new business. I think it's safe to say that more often than not, a greater amount of people will benefit more from a commercial enterprise on a particular parcel of land than a residence. Hence, the common good might benefit in MANY different instances. I bet even the town in CT where this case originated could begin to offer improved services for its residents with the increased revenues.
The problem with this whole issue, then, is not that it won't contribute to the common good, but that it FORCES people to do so. People should have the right to say, "The community will be helped if I allow business to be created on my land. I'll sell it for...." whatever, a dollar if they want. But they also should have the constitutional right to say, "This is my land, and I don't want to sell it, common good be damned." Or charge outrageous prices. This is the right that's been screwed with by the Court, I think. At least that's how I've come to understand it. But either way, it's bogus whichever way you look at it.
WharfRat wrote:The problem with this whole issue, then, is not that it won't contribute to the common good, but that it FORCES people to do so. People should have the right to say, "The community will be helped if I allow business to be created on my land. I'll sell it for...." whatever, a dollar if they want. But they also should have the constitutional right to say, "This is my land, and I don't want to sell it, common good be damned." Or charge outrageous prices. This is the right that's been screwed with by the Court, I think. At least that's how I've come to understand it. But either way, it's bogus whichever way you look at it.
I think that is probably the most succinct, dead-on assessment of the situation that I've read so far. In one paragraph, you illustrated why the Court ruled the way it did while simultaneously showing why everyone hates their decision.
No, I completely see what you're saying, but I'm of the persuasion that any government action/intervention more than the absolute bare bones minimum is too much.
I didn't think I would even see a city restrict eminent domain. It is nice to hear.
Even if cities don't restrict it most states have been more than willing to move on it.
Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.
Within days of the Supreme Court decision, bills and amendments that would limit use of eminent domain have been submitted in state legislatures and Congress.
Pogotheostrich wrote:I didn't think I would even see a city restrict eminent domain. It is nice to hear.
Even if cities don't restrict it most states have been more than willing to move on it.
Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.
Within days of the Supreme Court decision, bills and amendments that would limit use of eminent domain have been submitted in state legislatures and Congress.
Dammit! Just another reason to be mad that I had to move to Missouri to avoid a 3-hour commute back-and-forth from work.
I hope MO gets its act together and passes a similar law.
Pogotheostrich wrote:I didn't think I would even see a city restrict eminent domain. It is nice to hear.
Even if cities don't restrict it most states have been more than willing to move on it.
Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.
Within days of the Supreme Court decision, bills and amendments that would limit use of eminent domain have been submitted in state legislatures and Congress.
Dammit! Just another reason to be mad that I had to move to Missouri to avoid a 3-hour commute back-and-forth from work.
I hope MO gets its act together and passes a similar law.
Hey, there's nothing preventing you from working for that. You should look around the Web for ideas, or for groups that might already be lobbying state legislators. It's your democracy too, bro.
WharfRat wrote:Hey, there's nothing preventing you from working for that. You should look around the Web for ideas, or for groups that might already be lobbying state legislators. It's your democracy too, bro.
Sorry, but FBB trumps political activisim. Maybe I'll talk to my representative in the off-season.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by WharfRat » Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:36 pm Maybe I'm a cynic.
