--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > What do you think of the new Supreme Court ruling > > > > > that allows local governments to buy > > > > > out private landowners in order to allow some OTHER > > > > > private land owner to build a > > > > > business park? > > > > Of course, that is not what the SC ruled. It upheld 100 years of > > precedent where eminent domain is used for "public purpose" -- in > > this case a redevelopment project to revitalize the econonomy of > > the town/area. > > the distinction being in this case that the redevelopment project > is not in a blighted area, which had been part of the previous > standard for eminent domain seizures. > > The latest ruling by the SC sets a precedent for any city to go > after anyone's private property on the pretext that it is in the > public interest to do so.
Another distinction has to do with the definition of "public use." Is the land being taken to build a highway or a school, or is it being taken so a developer can build a hotel or luxury condominiums? Both those distinctions appear to have been set aside by the Supreme Court decision. Now all local government has to do is make a case that the redevelopment will create jobs, broaden the tax base, or otherwise improve the local economy. The opportunities for corruption are mind- boggling. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
