Patrick Wiseman wrote: > OK, then you've bought the right-wing ranters' version of what the Kelo > decision said.
Yes, because we all know if it isn't mainstream it's right-wing. The
irony being, of course, that it was the right that was in the majority with
the left, O'Conner, writing the dissent.
> Have you read the Kelo decision? Apparently not. The Court made it
> abundantly clear that taking property from one private owner and giving
> it to another would violate the "public use" limitation (if that's what
> it is - textual analysis could go either way) of the Takings Clause, and
> that that is NOT what happened in New London. And it's not. The
> "taking" was part of a comprehensive land-use development.
In which the property in question was reapproriated FOR PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT. We're not talking about infrastructure or some other public use,
emphasis on public and use. It was for private development. No public. No
use. Period.
Have you read it? "After approving of an integrated development plan
designed to revitalize its ailing economy" is how it starts off. Page 2 gets
another nice damning sentence, "The city has carefully formulated a
development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the
community, including, but not limited to, *new jobs and increased tax revenue*."
Simply put if a developer comes along and decides that he can wring more
tax revenue out of a particular piece of property then it is considered
"public use". From private to private, that is not what eminent domain was for.
> Bull back at you, if that's the level on which you wish to conduct the
> discussion. The constitution _explicitly_ contemplates that private
> property _may_ be taken for public use upon payment of just compensation
> (i.e. fair market value). Who should make the decision whether exercise
> of the eminent domain power is appropriate?
Be taken *for* *public* *use*. Increasing the tax base doesn't qualify by
a long shot.
> So the owner can simply deny government's right to exercise the power of
> eminent domain?
When the government is trying to use eminent domain to hand it off to
another private individual, yes.
> You're no libertarian; you're an anarchist! (So be it - I'm not riding
> a horse here, just clarifying constitutional doctrine, and the US
> Constitution is not an anarchist document.)
Sorry, care to try that again. Do me a favor and do searches on Google on
the following two phrases, "libertarian kelo" and "cato kelo". Let's see,
CATO, often described as "A Libertarian thin-tank" wrote a brief on Kelo's
behalf arguing the city had violated the 5th amendment. LPVA's site states
they feel the ruling was incorrect for the same reasons as I have outlined.
NLP website is the same.
In fact so far I have found exactly one page in all those returned which
comes to the conclusion you've arrived. So I feel you're going to be hard
pressed to catagorize me as anarchist when my position falls in line with
those who are recognized as "libertarian".
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
