It would be nice to see other local governments do something like this.Alarmed over a decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last month in Kelo v. New London, the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution at its Wednesday, July 6 meeting opposing “the condemnation of private property through eminent domain purely for economic development purposes.â€
you searched for kelo
Eminent Domain editorial
In 1954 the Supreme Court declared in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. But that same year it also ruled in Berman v. Parker that government’s power of eminent domain could be used to seize property in order to tear down “blighted” areas….Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned in her Kelo dissent “all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.” She added that the decision’s effect is to “wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”Read the entire editorial here.
Too good not to post
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H…. A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.

Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road.
A few Eminent Domain articles
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…. The properties to be seized and destroyed include Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations.When these Ed Schultz and Lars Larson are agreeing, the SCOTUS has done something really wrong.
Fighting The Power To Take Your Home
A case pending before the Supreme Court, Kelo v. New London , concerns a redevelopment plan in Connecticut; it questions the use of eminent domain when governments take the land from some property owners to make it available to other property owners, alleging that the private use makes the land transfer unconstitutional and illegal. The case’s success in reaching the Supreme Court has re-opened a policy debate that started in 1954, when a landmark case involving the redevelopment of Southwest Washington allowed governments to use eminent domain for urban renewal and slum removal projects.Eminent Domain is something about which everyone needs to be aware.