Fifteen years ago the Supreme Court took away your property rights. And you didn't hear a word.
One of the many ways the Founders of this country decided to do things differently from the way the King of England did things was "takings." And if you're a college-age student you need to understand this. Seriously.
In a classic monarchy (as opposed to a ceremonial one) the king or queen is considered to own everything. If you had something the king or queen wanted, they took it, and that was that. As you might guess, the victims of such takings were less than thrilled, but had no recourse.
(I probably don't need to tell adult Americans--but apparently do need to tell students at east- and west-coast universities--that communism, socialism and other totalitarian regimes work the same way.)
To some extent the problem of "takings" by the monarch was addresed by the Magna Charta, but the fix wasn't complete. So when our Founders drew up our Constitution--which, we hasten to point out, was once considered the "supreme law of the land"--they included a provision that said if a citizen owned property, even the government of the United States couldn't take it away UNLESS it was for a "public good," like a highway or canal or similar thing that enabled the government to provide a useful service to all citizens.
And if the government's "need" passed that test, it still had to pay fair market value for whatever it took from the rightful owner. That's worked very well since then.
Fifteen years ago your [ha!] wretched Supreme Court utterly trashed that principle, in a decision that supported corruption and rolled your rights WAY back.
The decision was in the case of "Kelo v. City of New London," and you need to understand what the hell happened, and how much of your rights the rat-bastards-in-black stole from American citizens 15 years ago.
The last clause of the Fifth Amendment concludes "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Kelo case turned on the question of what the Founders meant by "public use."
One of the serious defects of the Constitution is that the authors didn't bother to explain definitions they thought were f'n' obvious. One of those definitions was "public use." The Founders meant something that would be owned by the government and would benefit everyone, like a road or canal. But inevitably, some dumb asshole in a city government would stretch this reasonable definition until it was unrecognizable.
The outrage isn't that the asshole did that, but that the damn Supreme f'n Court upheld this outrage.
New London, Connecticut, had an area of old homes adjacent to the water. Sharp developer goes to the corrupt city council and says Hey, the tax records show you're only gettin' X million per year from the 100 homes inside ths red rectangle. If you'll condemn all those homes and sell me the property for, oh, say, a dollar, I'll build a gazillion-dollar mall there, with faaaabulous stores!
"So not only will your city get a lot more in property taxes from that huuuuge new mall, your city will also get a gazillion dollars in SALES TAXES from all those faaaabulous stores! And besides, most of those homes are rentals, so the owners will be just as happy for you to buy 'em. So whaddya say, eh?"
The council seemed skeptical, so they took an off-the-record recess and retired to a meeting room with the developer. And when they re-convened and went back on the record everyone was smiling..
At which point the council voted to condemn all those homes.
But a few people who lived in the condemned area had a problem with this. They claimed that a) a mall was hardly in the same class as a road or canal, in the sense that stores were already everywhere, so this was hardly necessary; and b) that even if a mall was a "public good" it seemed as though the deal was using the power of eminent domain to corruptly benefit a private citizen--the developer--rather than the public. While the city could condemn property for, say, a highway, here the city was basically seizing property from a group of citizens and giving it to a private citizen.
Which was hard to rebut since it was absolutely true.
One occupant of one of the homes condemned by the corrupt council wasn't a renter but the owner, and had lived there her whole life. Her name was Suzie Kelo, and she sued.
Seeing his chance at millions slipping away, the developer lawyered up.. And his lawyers came up with an ingenious argument: Cities needed money to provide services, like police and firefighters, and to fund faaabulous social-welfare programs like midnight bakkebaw. Clearly these things were a public purpose. So the attorneys argued that the fact that the city forcibly seized and destroyed the homes of hundreds of residents, and gave their former land to a private entity for development, didn't alter the fact that the END GOAL was a "public good." And thus didn't violate the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment.
And amazingly, five black-robed morons agreed with this.
Polls showed that over 80% of the public disapproved of the Court's ruling. But of course it was too late. Having lost in the nation's highest court, there was nothing more the property owners could do but watch as their homes were bulldozed.
And of course the real ghastly result of this ghastly ruling is that it sets precedent, meaning in the future any other corrupt city council that tries the same bullshit can cite Kelo as a defense.
There are two bitter twists to this tale: First, the asshole judge (ironic that they're called "justices," eh?) later admitted that he'd made a huge error in applying the law relating to "takings." But in classic monarch fashion he claimed his ruling was still the right one! Amazing.
The second twist is that the promised mega-rich development never happened. The property remains empty to this day.
If every judge and politician were magically vaporized, and replaced by drawing names at random, I don't think the results would be any worse than now.
https://reason.com/2020/06/23/the-15th-anniversary-of-kelo-v-city-of-new-london/
In a classic monarchy (as opposed to a ceremonial one) the king or queen is considered to own everything. If you had something the king or queen wanted, they took it, and that was that. As you might guess, the victims of such takings were less than thrilled, but had no recourse.
(I probably don't need to tell adult Americans--but apparently do need to tell students at east- and west-coast universities--that communism, socialism and other totalitarian regimes work the same way.)
To some extent the problem of "takings" by the monarch was addresed by the Magna Charta, but the fix wasn't complete. So when our Founders drew up our Constitution--which, we hasten to point out, was once considered the "supreme law of the land"--they included a provision that said if a citizen owned property, even the government of the United States couldn't take it away UNLESS it was for a "public good," like a highway or canal or similar thing that enabled the government to provide a useful service to all citizens.
And if the government's "need" passed that test, it still had to pay fair market value for whatever it took from the rightful owner. That's worked very well since then.
Fifteen years ago your [ha!] wretched Supreme Court utterly trashed that principle, in a decision that supported corruption and rolled your rights WAY back.
The decision was in the case of "Kelo v. City of New London," and you need to understand what the hell happened, and how much of your rights the rat-bastards-in-black stole from American citizens 15 years ago.
The last clause of the Fifth Amendment concludes "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Kelo case turned on the question of what the Founders meant by "public use."
One of the serious defects of the Constitution is that the authors didn't bother to explain definitions they thought were f'n' obvious. One of those definitions was "public use." The Founders meant something that would be owned by the government and would benefit everyone, like a road or canal. But inevitably, some dumb asshole in a city government would stretch this reasonable definition until it was unrecognizable.
The outrage isn't that the asshole did that, but that the damn Supreme f'n Court upheld this outrage.
New London, Connecticut, had an area of old homes adjacent to the water. Sharp developer goes to the corrupt city council and says Hey, the tax records show you're only gettin' X million per year from the 100 homes inside ths red rectangle. If you'll condemn all those homes and sell me the property for, oh, say, a dollar, I'll build a gazillion-dollar mall there, with faaaabulous stores!
"So not only will your city get a lot more in property taxes from that huuuuge new mall, your city will also get a gazillion dollars in SALES TAXES from all those faaaabulous stores! And besides, most of those homes are rentals, so the owners will be just as happy for you to buy 'em. So whaddya say, eh?"
The council seemed skeptical, so they took an off-the-record recess and retired to a meeting room with the developer. And when they re-convened and went back on the record everyone was smiling..
At which point the council voted to condemn all those homes.
But a few people who lived in the condemned area had a problem with this. They claimed that a) a mall was hardly in the same class as a road or canal, in the sense that stores were already everywhere, so this was hardly necessary; and b) that even if a mall was a "public good" it seemed as though the deal was using the power of eminent domain to corruptly benefit a private citizen--the developer--rather than the public. While the city could condemn property for, say, a highway, here the city was basically seizing property from a group of citizens and giving it to a private citizen.
Which was hard to rebut since it was absolutely true.
One occupant of one of the homes condemned by the corrupt council wasn't a renter but the owner, and had lived there her whole life. Her name was Suzie Kelo, and she sued.
Seeing his chance at millions slipping away, the developer lawyered up.. And his lawyers came up with an ingenious argument: Cities needed money to provide services, like police and firefighters, and to fund faaabulous social-welfare programs like midnight bakkebaw. Clearly these things were a public purpose. So the attorneys argued that the fact that the city forcibly seized and destroyed the homes of hundreds of residents, and gave their former land to a private entity for development, didn't alter the fact that the END GOAL was a "public good." And thus didn't violate the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment.
And amazingly, five black-robed morons agreed with this.
Polls showed that over 80% of the public disapproved of the Court's ruling. But of course it was too late. Having lost in the nation's highest court, there was nothing more the property owners could do but watch as their homes were bulldozed.
And of course the real ghastly result of this ghastly ruling is that it sets precedent, meaning in the future any other corrupt city council that tries the same bullshit can cite Kelo as a defense.
There are two bitter twists to this tale: First, the asshole judge (ironic that they're called "justices," eh?) later admitted that he'd made a huge error in applying the law relating to "takings." But in classic monarch fashion he claimed his ruling was still the right one! Amazing.
The second twist is that the promised mega-rich development never happened. The property remains empty to this day.
If every judge and politician were magically vaporized, and replaced by drawing names at random, I don't think the results would be any worse than now.
https://reason.com/2020/06/23/the-15th-anniversary-of-kelo-v-city-of-new-london/
posted by SF at
11:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home