O/T: Supreme Court to hear Eminent Domain Case

I figure that most here are somewhat familiar with the term, "Eminent Domain", but for those that are not: Basically, the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution allows the government to seize private property for the good of the people as a whole, but must offer fair market value. That of course is not a direct quote of the 5th Amendment, but is basically how it works.

The reason that this is so important, is that so many municipalities have become cash strapped by their own doings, and look to generate revenue anywhere possible, however possible, at yours and my expense.

I"m not sure what sparked the need for the 5th Amendment, but know the municipal governments have abused Eminent Domain into the ground.

From 1998 until now, at least 10,000 private properties in these United States of America have been siezed by government agencies under Eminent Domain. The cases that I"m familiar have one thing in coomon, increased tax revenue for government agencies so that they can spend more.

Two cases that I noted in privious posts are a case in Lisle, IL. where a developer approached the owner of a working farm (appx 275 acres as I recall), wanting to purchase and develope the land, the owner (like 5th generation) declined, the developer approached the city of Lisle, whom then condemned the farm, and sold it of to the developer for increased tax revenue (stores and stuff). In another similiar case, The City of Naperville, IL. jumped IL. Rt59 into unincorporated Aurora, annexed a farm into Naperville, then condemned and sold it off to a developer that was turned down by the owner, then the developer turned the property into a mall, generating mega-tax revenue for the City of Naperville. Those are only two of more than 10,000 cases around the US.

Most of these case have one thing in common, municipal greed. I can understand them taking land for highway development, and things like that, although hard to swallow, but I can. But when a government condemns and seizes private property, often farmland which is becoming scarcer everyday, so that they can increase their tax base and spending, that is wrong, and a misuse and abuse of Eminent Domain.

The fact that someone might be paying $5,000 anually for property taxes, and then have some developer come along and convince a municipality to condemn and seize the property so that they can increase their tax base to $100,000 per year for the same property by developing it into a mall, apartment complex, subdivision, or whatever, is wrong.

I believe that it violates the spirit of the 5th Amendment, and is gross abuse of power.

Not long ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that Eminent Domain should be policed, or overseen by local governments. That was like putting a known bank robber in charge of the vault. Apparently the US Supreme Court has had time to reconsider their last decision, they are going to hear the Connecticut case.

This should be a very important ruling to all private property owners, and will show the US Supreme Court for it"s real value, good or bad. I would encourage all to look into this and ask questions. See if I"m lying or not. Tomorrow, yours or my farm may become a casino, whether we like it or not, for the good of the people (tax $$$$).

Walter Williams

American despotism>Link

The Fifth Amendment is very clear about takings. It says, in part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The key phrase is public use. Public use means uses such as roads, bridges, military installations and public buildings. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the only requirement for the taking of private property is that there be some public benefit. With that kind of reasoning, no one"s private property is safe because what"s a public benefit is subject to wide interpretation.

This kind of despotism is rife. John A. Rapanos, a 68-year-old Michigan landowner faces a 10-month federal imprisonment and up to $10 million in fines. Rapanos cleared and graded 175 acres of fallow farmland that he had owned since 1950 with the intention of constructing a shopping center. When the shopping center deal fell through, he leased the land to a local grain farmer. What was his crime?

Under the Clean Water Act, no person may discharge, dredge or put fill material into the navigable waters of the United States without a permit. The closest navigable waters to Rapanos" land are in Saginaw Bay, some 20 miles away. Rapanos" crime in the eyes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was that he filled in depressions on his land without permission.

According to his defense at the California-based Pacific Legal Foundation, "the Corps has argued that isolated pools and puddles were magically transformed into "navigable waters," and subject to regulations, merely by the stopover of "migratory" birds." With the Corps" reasoning, you could go to jail if you had a tree stump ground out and filled the hole.

In the early stages of Rapanos" case, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff — noting that a drug dealer had been before him that day — said rebelliously, "Here we have a person ... who commits crimes of selling dope, and the government asks me to put him in prison for 10 months. And then we have an American citizen, who buys land, pays for it with his own money, and he moves sand from one end to the other, and the government wants me to give him 63 months in prison. Now if that isn"t our system gone crazy, I don"t know what is. And I am not going to do it."

Rapanos" sentencing has been delayed because the constitutionality of federal criminal sentencing guidelines, in another case, will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in October.

President John Adams (1797-1801) said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of G-d, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

Unfortunately, our courts have increasingly become tools for powerful vested interests, and the constitutional protections of private property mean less and less each day. The good news is that we have energetic minds at organizations such as the Institute for Justice (www.ij.org) and the Pacific Legal Foundation (www.pacificlegal.org) who are fighting against the emasculation of our Fifth Amendment rights and other constitutional guarantees.

But they cannot do it alone; we must help them. Remember Benjamin Franklin"s admonition: "Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you."

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It"s free. Just click here.

Walter Williams Archives

If you don't know what that was, it was to find Top Quarks and other sub atomic matter that the scientists had mathmethically proven to exist but hadn't effectively proven physically.

Well it was a 10' underground tunnel 54 miles in circumference that was (to be) packed with magnets cooled to 4 degrees Kelvin (bout absolute zero). Inside the magnets were (to be)a bunch of ions going in opposite directions (2 pipes) and when ready, they would "side track" them and they would smash into each other. Scientists would then "find" their missing "Quarks".

You wouldn't believe how much it was gonna cost.

Anway, they ripped up a bunch of homes on acreage, that were in the way, and put them on steel beamed wheeled dollys and just left them sit on the property for months.

Property owners that had lived there for many years had to agonize over their homes being "beheaded" so to speak and left for public exposure.

Collider crapped out but the damage was done.

However, there is a silver lining. The US taxpayer saved a ton of money in the process (for it closing). The light bill alone.....light bill....annual cost was estimated to be $200 million. That doesn't cover any thing else.

(I was employed there for 2 years; opening to closing.)

Mark

What exactly do you mean by "condemning" the land. Simply the act of expropriation? This sounds more like legalised robbery to me. Like others have said, I can see expropriating a piece of land for a highway or other public service, but for the likes of Walmart? That's just plain criminal from my point of view. They want the land, buy it fair and square. Municipal government shouldn't be acting for them. Just my 2 cents.

Rod

Funny, though, how when I talked about this here a couple years ago, I got a bunch of flaming crap from people saying that it couldn"t be so and that I was misinformed, that the courts would never have allowed it, etc., etc.

Unlike some people think, the government isn"t there to take care of you and all your needs, it"s there to take from you to fulfill its needs.

Link

I was surprised that this received very little press, even though it really opens a can of worms for all of the Michigan cities and counties that have been using the Poletown precedent to justify their land grabs.

• Michigan Supreme Court Reverses Poletown Decision

I'm with you. Wrong use of that law. Utilities & parks & such, not 'better tax revenue'.

--->Paul