Free enterprise and eminent domain, Private property and the angry mob Options

[madchenallein]

Let me ask my fellow 'social security payers/nonbenefitees' what they think about this: Eminent Domain.

Recently the Supreme Court made a 5-4 ruling essentially expanding the guidelines for the use of eminent domain.

Fox News quote from Justice Stevens who wrote for the majority:
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,"

What trash! The federal government is a necessary evil, it's function is accepted by this citizen/voter/taxpayer on a very limited basis, not as a 'super parent' or as a babysitter, or as a cautionary and preventative to protect me against myself. I don't agree that even one, much less a primary function of the federal government's purpose is to foster economic development. You know who fosters that? We do. The people. Hungry? Find someone with food and exchange something YOU have that s/he needs or wants. No brainer. Someone else hungry too? You better team up or you better find something yon food posessor needs more than what yon hungry person #2 can provide.

So, basically they are saying that the government (your city, your county, your state, your nation) can swipe your property and bulldoze or dig up what's on it to put a new grocery store, a new road, a new stadium on it.

How do you like that? Is that fair? Is it an exercise of 'the good of the many versus the good of the few'? Or is this a slide into socialism?

HELLO! We still live in the USA! Why, in our capitalist, free-enterprise society, should a private citizen who has acquired property be required to give it up for 'fair market value'? (Ha, 'fair', should s/he have to give it up for 'fair' when they may have bought the property as an investment and could get 'optimum' value, or if it's the family farm that has been in the family for 95 years, should they have to give it up at all? Last time I checked, Kelly Blue Book doesn't have a category for sentiment.)

This is just another excuse for the greedy, money worshiping cretins in our society to create more shrines to the 'almighty dollar'.

We must stop our government from thieving our rights in exchange for 'safety' and 'the good of everyone', a more socialist statement I've not heard. We don't live in the Star Trek universe.

[madchenallein]

Wah, wah. So, nothing that is difficult is worthwhile? If it's just *one* person's property, just *one* family's property, then it's no big deal. Well, it's a big deal to that person or that family and they're tax payers too. Let's carry this through in an illustration.

Happyville government is sick of the Mom and Pop grocery store, they want a nice big A&P so more folks from Bigshotville will come spend their money in Happyville (all that sales tax, yippee!). Oh no, Mr. S. Acid's house is only 10 feet off the main intersection and it would be the best place to build the new A&P, let's just 'take' it (we'll salve our consciences by giving him an average of what the nearby houses are worth and call it even). A year later, Mr. Acid has lost the home his mother left him when she died of cancer five years ago and he has restored and moved his new wife and 2 month old baby girl into, but, hey, Bigshotville residents now have a much smaller commute to contribute to the Happyville coffers, what's not to like?

Did the local government consider that he had planned to raise his daughter there? Did it reimburse him for what the renovations in progress would've made the house worth, especially since he had already sunk his own money into the project, willing to hunker down and wait until the pay off arrived with the completion of the work? How about moving expenses and finding a new place to live? Is the government also going to help him with the physical labor of moving? The answer to all these questions is NO.

Yeah, eminent domain sounds great, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT HAPPENING TO YOU.