June 23, 2005

  • I don't often get into political matters here, but for this I'll make an exception.

    The Supreme Court has lost its little pink mind, or at least five of the nine justices have. 

    The ruling earlier today that local governments can happily grab
    anyone's property for the purpose of economic development is horrific,
    though not, if one lives in the Fort Worth area, unexpected.  Too
    well do many of us recall the township of Hurst exercising eminent
    domain to take homes in a perfectly nice, long established, middle
    class neighborhood so as to expand the parking lot at Northeast Mall.

    Can you imagine losing your home of thirty years to a mall parking lot?  

    The area to be bulldozed in New London includes "Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have
    been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London
    residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the
    same home for more than 50 years." (USAToday.com)

    Think about it.  We are none of us safe. Oh, the people living in
    big, expensive houses in ritzy neighborhoods are probably okay, but the
    rest of us?  Such as those of us who live a block off a major
    street and close to commercially zoned property already?  Our days
    could be numbered.

    The opportunities for bribery, graft and other malfeasance seems
    unlimited now.  Wonder what a city council member's vote will go
    for, once the big money developers get into gear? 

Comments (6)

  • Some times it works out to our advantage and sometimes it doesn't. Greed rules. Rats.

  • Surely every hamlet and village in this country has at least one church that sits on valuable land.  Let's just take that land and kill two birds with but a single Supreme Court ruling - use that land for a mall AND get rid of some pesky Christians.

  • First, the eminent domain ruling is horrible, terrible, awful.

    But I don't see how it can be used to get rid of churches.

    The churches would be compensated, and they can build or buy elsewhere. There would have to be a LOT of footholds removed on a LOT of "slippery slopes" before this could be used as a way of "getting rid of" anybody.

    I only wish the college across the street would offer us market value plus incentive for our house. We'd be out of here so fast....

  • I've seen just what you're talking about happen in a couple of areas in Colorado Springs. It is a sad sad thing for the people who lose their homes. Yes, they are "compensated" for their loss, but it's just not the same. For some, naturally, it was a great deal...but for others it wasn't.

  • The compensation often isn't market value.  If you don't want to spend years in court, you pretty much have to take what's offered.  And why couldn't it be used to get rid of a church if the church sat on prime property?  Replace a tax-free unit with a cash cow of a mall?  A no brainer. 

  • Because you can't get rid of a church that easily.

    You can take away its land, maybe impoverish it -- but unless you forbid it from meeting, you still haven't gotten rid of it.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment