SaintsOfTheDiamond wrote: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.