TUGBrian
Administrator
and this just keeps on going!!!
http://m.startribune.com/widow-won-...are-giant-in-a-bind/441006843/?section=nation
http://m.startribune.com/widow-won-...are-giant-in-a-bind/441006843/?section=nation
ha...appears someone figured out the details of the settlement... 1.5million bucks!
On the contrary, the highly-controversial 2005 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London allowed for a private developer to declare eminent domain over a private property owner for the development of a retail and residential complex in a distressed part of the city of New London, Connecticut. This landmark ruling--which was narrowly decided on a 5-4 vote--pierced what had previously been a rock-solid wall excluding all but public agencies to exercise the incredibly powerful lever of eminent domain taking of private property.Private companies cannot use eminent domain. Only government agencies, and then it is supposed to be bona fide public use.
On the contrary, the highly-controversial 2005 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London allowed for a private developer to declare eminent domain over a private property owner for the development of a retail and residential complex in a distressed part of the city of New London, Connecticut. This landmark ruling--which was narrowly decided on a 5-4 vote--pierced what had previously been a rock-solid wall excluding all but public agencies to exercise the incredibly powerful lever of eminent domain taking of private property.
To this day--some 12 years later--it is still shocking to consider that such an action can be taken by a private developer. And the longer it does without a subsequent Supreme Court challenge, the more likely it is that it will eventually be considered "established law".
As x3 skier points out, it was the City of New London that exercised eminent domain. Quoting from the Wikipedia that you cited (emphasis added):As I have read Kelo, it was the City of New London that exercised the right of Eminent Domain, not a private party. The difference and expansion by the court was the City used the rationale of economic development to benefit the region to take property from one private party to benefit another private party using the City’s power of eminent domain. The developer ultimately benefited but the developer did not have any right to use eminent domain, nor do they today.
Many states have subsequently passed laws or amended their constitutions to prohibit the Kelo decision from being used by any City, government agency, etc.
Cheers
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London. The owners, including lead plaintiff Susette Kelo, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power.
And that is the big problem with the Kelo decision. While eminent domain can still only be done by governmental agencies, it endorses governmental agencies to operate in cahoots with private developers to seize private property and transfer ownership to private parties for nebulous public benefits.While it is true that the city exercised eminent domain, they ultimately did it for the benefit of a private corporation, under the cover of public benefit/use. It was after all private development that was being put there. The public benefit was more tax dollars for the government. Westgate possibly could have done something similar in this situation and had the city of Orlando exercise eminent domain in the quest for jobs and tax revenue.
Well said, and I heartily agree. There is nothing more basic to the foundations of our Republic than the preservation of private property rights. The Kelo decision blasted a huge hole in those rights 12 years ago, and those rights absolutely must be restored.And that is the big problem with the Kelo decision. While eminent domain can still only be done by governmental agencies, it endorses governmental agencies to operate in cahoots with private developers to seize private property and transfer ownership to private parties for nebulous public benefits.
The scope of eminent domain should be limited to public projects. Use of eminent domain for private development should be prohibited. Even if the taking can be "justified" by tax increment, that is not reason to usurp private ownership rights.