Eminent Domain, Part II

 

1. In Jeff Jacoby’s article, this statement caught my eye:

   “But that isn’t why New London wants to tear down the 112-year-old Victorian that Susette Kelo worked so hard to renovate, or the house at Walbach and East streets where Wilhelmina Dery has lived for all of her 87 years.”

   A number of years ago, there was quite a stink in Massa2shits about people wanting to renovate old houses - especially those 100 years old or older.
   They were declared ‘historical’ or ‘heritage’ homes and were subject to some pretty stringent LAWS governing the changing of the outward appearances of the homes.

   Aside from the obvious legal atrocity being perpetuated here, would these people not be able to contact their Historical Society or whatever, and get the properties listed as such - if they aren’t already?

   This is soooo bizarre.

   -Dan D,
   Canuckistan

   (PS - Jeff Jacoby is the same guy that wrote “Arafat The Monster” on 11/11/04 in the Boston Globe while the rest of the MSM was praising the prick.)

   Posted by Dan D       03/01/2005  at  04:14 AM  



2. “The condemnations in this case are an act of raw preference for one type of people, one type of housing, and higher tax dollars over the current residents. Cities may seek wealthy residents and higher taxes....”

   If I were one of those potential “wealthy residents,” and I saw the city seize the site of my potential residence from someone else, I would ask myself, “If they took it from Joe today, what is to keep them from taking it from me tomorrow?  All they care about is the taxes they can squeeze out of this property, anyway.  What happens when a higher bidder comes along?....”

   If I were a resident looking on from some other neighborhood, I would ask myself, “What is to keep some property looter from showing up here tomorrow and pulling the same trick on me?  I had better pull up stakes while I can still get something out of my property.  Once the panic starts, then....”

   What I want to know is, where are the realtors on this?  Where are the responsible developers?  Where is anyone with any vested interest in the stability of property values?  If safe ownership of the property cannot be assumed, then....

   

   Posted by Tannenberg       03/01/2005  at  08:58 AM  



3. Well, After reading the briefs, there is all kinds of ways the Supreme’s could rule on this. I have concerns because Renquist is currently not hearing any cases. He tends to be a strict reader of the constitution and his presence on the court would help.
   Anyway, the ruling should come out in 3 to 6 months. Will need to keep our eyes open for it.

   Posted by LC Geno       03/01/2005  at  11:26 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.