What the hell were the so-called 'liberal justices' on SCOTUS thinking?
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development
I understand the general concept that there are times when a government can seize private land for public projects. I'm not thrilled with it, but I think there are cases when it can be justified. However,
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
So Justice O'Connor warns us. She is right. How long will it be until Wal-Mart starts leaning on local governments to condemn choice pieces of real estate for minimal compensation because of the jobs they will bring to a town?
Comments (1)
It already started.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024
Funny how the first place it would crop up would be Texas.
Posted by Skawt | June 25, 2005 2:04 AM