More Emminent Domain Abuse

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by GePap
The power of eminent domain is a basic principal of a sovereign government, even a democratic one.

Doesn't mean that the government should have that power, or that the constitution gives it.

Why wouldn't it? If the state is soverign, some individual private landowner's stubborness does not stop projects for the public (state) benefit being moved forward.

It is a power the government needs, and I think the constitution does allow for it.

[Flubber]

Expropriation for public purposes exists in most democracies. I agree that the Nevada example is in accord with the purpose of those provisions .

here in Calgary, there are a large number of people that face expropriation of their homes as the 4 lane main east-west route through the centre of the city is far too small-- again this is what the provision is for- public need

The Conn. example gets a bit blurred if you had a city that saw a need for an industrial park ( what if it was a hospital needed)-- that seems little different from the need for a road-- But what seems to stink here is that they propose to hand the land over to one specific industry so it looks as if the powers of government are being used for the purposes of a specific private industry

[David Floyd]

The Connecticut court, like the courts of six other states, says the "public use" restriction does not really restrict takings at all: It merely means a taking must have some anticipated public benefit, however indirect and derivative, at the end of some chain of causation. Hence New London can evict Wilhelmina Dery from the home in which she has lived since her birth there in 1918.

It's sorta the same argument that has been constructed to change the meaning of Interstate Commerce to mean any type of travel or transaction, any part of which could at some point have been taken across a state line in some form or fashion.

Basically, the Republicrats (because we all know both parties support it) are trying to enhance state power through the courts.

[self biased]

doesn't this country have its roots in taking land that isn't theirs? why should it stop there?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Why wouldn't it? If the state is soverign, some individual private landowner's stubborness does not stop projects for the public (state) benefit being moved forward.

It is a power the government needs, and I think the constitution does allow for it.

Where did I say that it shouldn't have this power? I just said that that power being part of sovereignty didn't make it good.

[David Floyd]

Yes and no, self - while in some ways it's the same thing, it isn't in a strictly legal sense, as far as I can see.

Indians weren't protected by the US Constitution (which doesn't make their treatment right, it just makes the situation different).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by self biased
doesn't this country have its roots in taking land that isn't theirs? why should it stop there?

Because they're taking land from WHITE PEOPLE!!!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Where did I say that it shouldn't have this power? I just said that that power being part of sovereignty didn't make it good.

Who ever called it good?

Also, when people say

Doesn't mean that the government should have that power,

, that sounds suspiciously like "they shouldn't have it". I hope you see issue.

[David Floyd]

Well, I for one don't believe government should have the power to take my land without my consent, with or without (their definition of) just compensation.

Now, let ME decide what just compensation means, and we can talk

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Who ever called it good?

Why wouldn't it? If the state is soverign, some individual private landowner's stubborness does not stop projects for the public (state) benefit being moved forward.

It is a power the government needs, and I think the constitution does allow for it.

I said:

Where did I say that it shouldn't have this power?

Now, I hope you don't mind the liberty I took in assuming that "it is a power the government needs" meant that you thought it was a power the government should have

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Why wouldn't it? If the state is soverign, some individual private landowner's stubborness does not stop projects for the public (state) benefit being moved forward.

It is a power the government needs, and I think the constitution does allow for it.

I said:

Where did I say that it shouldn't have this power?

Now, I hope you don't mind the liberty I took in assuming that "it is a power the government needs" meant that you thought it was a power the government should have

Except my post you quote came after the post of yours I quoted, a quote in which you asked why the government should have it.

Get your posts straigh, man.

[Kuciwalker]

I was answering your post with another of your posts.

[GePap]

Well, you didn't answer it because that one post was a question on one of your posts, so putitng one of my posts to answer a question about your posts makes no sense at all.

Have you no decency, sir?

[Kidlicious]

How could city govts ever make improvements without eminent domain? It's the only way to create jobs? Fresno is making a huge industrial park here. Sure a few home owners complain, but with double digit unemployment no one else really cares. Most of the home owners who complain live alone in 4 bedroom houses.

[Kidlicious]

Oh, and George Will is a wacko.