Must... Control... Fists... of Death
The Supreme Court has lost its mind! (Here's the full opinion in pdf format). Does the Supreme Court really think that a local government, even one with the best of intentions, should have the right to take property from one person or group and give it to another? Here's a line from the majority opinion:
"Those who govern the City were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference."
Why?
"The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including—but by no means limited to—new jobs and increased tax revenue."
Oookay, so if a farm isn't providing enough jobs and tax revenue, can the government take it away and let someone build a mall, an office park, and a high-end neighborhood with a park in its place? That's an "integrated development plan" (page 18) rather than a one-to-one exchange, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed.
Ugh.
Update: Jody's asking what you think the Worst Supreme Court Ever is. Taney was pretty bad, though the current court is doing it's darndest to compete. And now D.C. is jumping for joy over the decision. I bet the Richmond City Council could have some fun with this, too.
Update 2: Jody's arguments against the ruling. Because he had more time and patience to go through it than I did.
"Those who govern the City were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference."
Why?
"The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including—but by no means limited to—new jobs and increased tax revenue."
Oookay, so if a farm isn't providing enough jobs and tax revenue, can the government take it away and let someone build a mall, an office park, and a high-end neighborhood with a park in its place? That's an "integrated development plan" (page 18) rather than a one-to-one exchange, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed.
Ugh.
Update: Jody's asking what you think the Worst Supreme Court Ever is. Taney was pretty bad, though the current court is doing it's darndest to compete. And now D.C. is jumping for joy over the decision. I bet the Richmond City Council could have some fun with this, too.
Update 2: Jody's arguments against the ruling. Because he had more time and patience to go through it than I did.
posted by SpakKadi at 5:35 PM
1 Comments:
This case is less about the just compensation part and more about the public use part of that clause. Roads are for public use. Office parks are not. Though, apparently, the Supreme Court thinks they are. Just compensation is a whole 'nother can of worms. It's suppose to prevent the government from just taking your property and leaving you with nothing. Now, whether or not they give you what your property is actually worth...
Post a Comment
<< Home