
One Conservative's thoughts on news, current events, books and politics.
Click on the ARCHIVE for a full list of entries!
Hope you post regularly, I'd like to read more.
There has always been a law that a city or state can take private property if the land is for public use. It is called EMINENT DOMAIN. Traditionally, this has meant the creation of highways or schools; projects that are obviously for public use and benefit. Some states expressly allow Eminent Domain for private economic development, but ONLY in order to eliminate blight.
In New London, CT, the city wants to increase their tax revenue, and want private corporations (the rich guys) to be able to use specific land along the Thames river for commercial development. They ENVISION a riverfront hotel, health club and offices (supposedly to attract tourists, but I'm hard pressed to see how a health club and offices would bring much in the way of tourism. I mean, have YOU ever spent your vacation days and hard earned money to travel long distances just to go to a health club or see a tall office building?).
Most of the families agreed to sell their property to the city, but seven families (with 15 houses between them) refused, citing their right to retain their homes in this once vibrant immigrant neighborhood, rather than be forced to sell for the profit of big business.
These seven families took this case all the way to the Supreme Court.
One of the most misleading things the Liberals have said over the years is that Conservatives are for big business and against the common man. Sadly, many who form their opinions based on what others say (rather than researching for themselves) have believed this.
How the Supreme Court justices voted clearly disproves this Liberal lie.
The Liberal wing of the Supreme Court - every one of them - voted AGAINST the families and FOR big business.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion, cited the Fifth Amendment (Eminent Domain), and said the city could take the private property of its residents because the project the city envisions (mind you, it's only a "vision" and they are forcing residents out of their homes) could bring more jobs and revenue.
Well, hell, John, any city in the country can now decide to level an entire neighborhood because it's in a coveted location, paying the homeowners the current fair market value, based on a "vision". The city could then sell the property at a premium to private businesses, as well as increase their tax revenue. So the city makes money off the sale of MY property PLUS gets more taxes. What a deal for the cities AND the billionaire property developers/mall owners/corporations.
The way it should work, if someone's lucky enough to own property in a coveted location, is that the private businesses approach the city council, ask for the property to be designated commercial, and then negotiate with the homeowners. In this sort of situation, the homeowners have the upper hand. It is their property after all. And usually, they can get a sizable price for their home (higher than fair market value in most cases), and then they can afford to move into a better neighborhood in a better house. Seems only fair since often the areas we're talking about are not the upperclass subdivisions, where the property owners would have connections and influence and money.
This decision is a developer's dream. With the promise of long term additional jobs and tax revenue, a city will sell them the property cheaper than they could have negotiated from the homeowner who had a vested interest (as its their future that's at stake, and all they've worked for over the years on the table).
For the record, David H. Souter, Stephen G. Greyer, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader (all Liberal justices) voted with John Paul Stevens.
Also for the record, ALL the Conservative Justices, including swing voter and Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, sided with the families. Justice O'Connor's scathing dissent stated that the decision favors rich corporations.
Heh.
Giving tax breaks to businesses in order to lessen their financial burden and thus help either create new jobs for the common man or increase the wages of their current employees (the common man) is what Republicans have done (with success). And it's this (and similar things) that the Democrats have pointed to when misleading the public and saying Republicans are for "big business".
Republicans believe in tax breaks for businesses so that new jobs and higher wagers are created. It may not work with every corporation that gets the tax break, but overall, more jobs are created and higher wages are paid.
But Liberals on the Supreme Court unanimously vote to force American families to sell their homes for (only) fair market value for the benefit of big business.
While the Conservative's trickle down theory has its ups and downs, this ruling by the Liberals in the Supreme Court helps no one but the cities and the billionaire developers. Meanwhile, the common man is forced to sell at price that is well below what they could get from said developers if the cities (and the court) kept their damned noses out of it.
I get it now. According to the Liberals, the common man - you and me - don't need jobs! We need more malls and health clubs while being forced out of our homes.
<slaps self on forehead>
Of course!