Tuesday, June 28, 2005

here again

So I am reading through the Kelo decision and I don't like it. Basically a city or a state just has to come up with a valid pretext to take your land. If they decide that your land would benefit the community through 'economic development' then you are screwed. The only thing is that they can't have a particular private party in mind before they take your land. So they decide to take your land and then they decide who gets it. That apparently makes it acceptable, but if they know who they want to give it to before hand then it isn't allright. Basically this paves the way for a community to say your area sucks, it is 'blighted', and it would be much better for us to have an industrial park there as part of a plan of making a lot in taxes. Then you lose your land. Yes you are paid 'just compensation' for it, but sometimes a house is a house and you want to live there. I imagine a married couple that has been living in their house for 60 years might have grown to like it. Apparently the judges in the majority are all about giving great deference to the decision of the legislatures of the states when it comes to taking your land. The problem is the same justices say that state legislatures get no deference in deciding whether or not substances will be legal in their home states. This is poo.


Post a Comment

<< Home