A few Eminent Domain articles

In lieu of extended commentary this afternoon, here are a few interesting links. Stay informed so that you aren’t surprised when the government tries to take your home to put up an office building. Or an ampitheatre. Or a gas station.

Reason.

Opinionjournal.
That protection was immensely diminished by yesterday’s 5-4 decision, which effectively erased the requirement that eminent domain be invoked for “public use.” The Court said that the city of New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting a group of plaintiffs led by homeowner Susette Kelo from their properties to make way for private development including a hotel and a Pfizer Corp. office. (Yes, the pharmaceutical Pfizer.) The properties to be seized and destroyed include Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations.

When Ed Schultz and Lars Larson are agreeing, something is wrong (or perhaps right?).

Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, said the action now turns to state supreme courts where the public use battle will be fought under state constitutions. “The Institute for Justice will be there every step of the way with homeowners and small businesses to protect what is rightfully theirs. Today’s decision in no way binds those courts,” he said in a statement Thursday. From Inman (paid subscription required).

(Visited 6 times, 1 visits today)

1 Comment

  1. Arin June 27, 2005 at 11:18

    As I was just posting on my personal blog [Link removed as it was broken – 6/24/13 – jed), a real estate agent I spoke with this morning agreed most real estate people are angry about this as well as most Americans.

    Destroying property rights can only hurt speculative real estate investment and the real estate industry as a whole.