Your home is your city council’s plaything
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kelo case, that upholds cities’ right to take basically any property they want for just about any reason they can think of, is an outrage. Here’s what the Fifth Amendment says:
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Thus the Constitution allows for compensated landgrabs for public use. But Kelo wasn’t about public use, it was about giving land to a developer to build a privately owned and operated office building. The Court has taken upon itself to change the meaning of the amendment from “public use” to “public purpose”, the purpose in this case being to increase tax revenue. So as long as you can convince a city council that your project will generate more money for the city than current land usage does, the Court says the Constitution allows the city to grab the land without any further ado. In fact, the court expressly says that there is no need for “”reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue.”
As has become the custom of the current Court, the majority’s reasoning is outcome based: If precedence isn’t on its side, then society has “evolved” and precedence is meaningless. If there is some precedence to its liking, then it’s full throttle forward, greatly expanding the scope set by precedence.
It’s all clearly laid out in the Court’s sad decision. Yesterday was a bad day for Americans. A very bad day.
VodkaPundit outlines a “hypothetical” case that the Court’s majority derides in its oponion. New England Republican recalls an earlier decision by the court. And a lot more reactions here.
Finally, how about this kicker from Power Line: “[T]he irony is that the case defers to the political process in Connecticut, where the governor has just been convicted of malfeasance from undue influence by….real estate developers!”
