That would be a most excellent response. I am glad that Texas is trying to pass legislation that would fight this decision. I am not generally one to pose issues in a "have vs. have nots" position, but this one clearly means that the wealthier citizens of a town can in fact decide ownership over people that maybe only own their own home and little else. This is worse than taxation without representation; this is an abrogation of the principle of private property. What would be justice is if every one of those stuffy judges had THEIR property taken, each and every one of them, so that land developers could build hotels, shopping centers or low income housing units on thier properties.
one major problem with this... The decision in Kelo makes quite clear that Kelo applies as precedent only in like situations, where a comprehensive redevelopment plan in economically depressed areas exists..
This is much different than trying to condemn property in a Govt takes from A for B, so that B can convert it to higher tax production. This sort of thing got a specific mention of 'we'll deal with that when it gets to us' in the case. The court declined to draw a bright line - but dicta like that gives a hint as to what the court feels about such a practice.
I certainly can distinguish the two situations legally from each other.
Its a neat idea, but likely destined to go nowhere fast.
8 comments:
::snicker::
Only in the US...
That would be just poetic, isn''t it?
God I hope they do that. Jerk.
That would be a most excellent response. I am glad that Texas is trying to pass legislation that would fight this decision. I am not generally one to pose issues in a "have vs. have nots" position, but this one clearly means that the wealthier citizens of a town can in fact decide ownership over people that maybe only own their own home and little else. This is worse than taxation without representation; this is an abrogation of the principle of private property. What would be justice is if every one of those stuffy judges had THEIR property taken, each and every one of them, so that land developers could build hotels, shopping centers or low income housing units on thier properties.
JB
Phelonius, we are in perfect agreement...
one major problem with this... The decision in Kelo makes quite clear that Kelo applies as precedent only in like situations, where a comprehensive redevelopment plan in economically depressed areas exists..
This is much different than trying to condemn property in a Govt takes from A for B, so that B can convert it to higher tax production. This sort of thing got a specific mention of 'we'll deal with that when it gets to us' in the case. The court declined to draw a bright line - but dicta like that gives a hint as to what the court feels about such a practice.
I certainly can distinguish the two situations legally from each other.
Its a neat idea, but likely destined to go nowhere fast.
Depends on how you define economically depressed.... certainly, New London doesn't qualify by any normal person's standards...
I'm not expecting it to work. I'm expecting it to not work, and then get most folk even madder, along "different rules for the toffs, I see," lines.
Whatever works.
Precisely...
Post a Comment