But I thought this was the one thing the Republicans were good for!

[fabrisse]

This link is to a NyTimes article.

I'm very glad that my finances got so bad that I had to sell my condominium to eat. Never thought I'd type that sentence.

For better or worse this country was founded on property and property rights. It was the fact that the British Crown was interfering with our rights as property owners (the whole "no taxation without representation" thing) that made us go to war.

So here we have the majority on the Supreme Court saying that the government may now condemn houses that aren't decrepit in order to award that property to a private developer because the local government think that hotels and water sports will be better for the town than homeownership.

I hope that every single house in that town is on the market for sale tomorrow.

Damn!

I thought Souter would be on the property rights side. I expect Breyer to be an idiot, but Souter!?

Comments

[moria923.livejournal.com]

I was practically screaming when I found out about the decision. What it really means is: we don't have any rights at all to our homes. I can't believe this was the intent of the Fifth Amendment. Well, we still own our home, which means . . . nothing. Aaaarrrrgh!

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

Fifth Amendment? I thought that one was just the incrimination one.

Still, this is overwhelmingly appalling. I'm glad you own your place, but be careful that the T doesn't decide they need your place for a bus route.

*sigh*

[thorbol.livejournal.com]

Yes, the privision is one of the fifth amendment's several parts.

Actually, the T probably always could take our property for a bus route--or, at least, the city or the state could. (I'm unclear just what kind of entity the T is.) Creating or revising a bus route for general use is at least a "public use." The particular outrage of this case is that the property's really being taken for private use, on the theory that this private use will bring in more tax (public) money.



Apparently, there's nothing qualitatively new about this outrage. If memory serves, the New York Times company got property for a new building in New York City by way of a similar taking, except that the victims were businesspeople.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

Just went and read the full text. You're absolutely right.

And while I'd deplore the idea of the city taking your house for the T, I could see the public good. If they tried to take your house to build a profitable Starbucks close to the T entrance, well, I might help you exercise the right to bear arms. *g*