This decision was a flat-out disgrace...
In effect, the majority in Kelo v. New London held that the words ''public use" in the Fifth Amendment -- ''nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" -- can mean wholly private use, so long as the government expects it to yield some incidental public benefit -- more tax revenue, new jobs, ''maybe even aesthetic pleasure," as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Would your town's tax base grow if your home were bulldozed and replaced with a parking garage? If so, it may not be your home for long.
As a result of this evisceration of the Public Use clause, ''the specter of condemnation hangs over all property," the dissenters warn. ''Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Today's Must-Read: Public Use? The Sky's the Limit
Jeff Jacoby has an excellent editorial in the Boston globe railing against the actions taken by our Weekly Jackass honorees in the 'eminent domain' case. The highlights: