Friday, July 22, 2005

California Kelo

The Claremont Institute's Local Liberty blog has a roundup of post-Kelo eminent domain opinion in California. I would add that it is typically growing communities that need to acquire property for new schools and new roads to serve the needs of a growing population. Declining communities typically need to take property and give it to developers to artificially bring new development to try to prevent residents from leaving. Without eminent domain the development would happen elsewhere, so non-public takings does not increase overall economic activity, it just preserves the size of local government.

Local Liberty also links to their plan to "blow up the legislature" in reaction to the prop 77 deballoting. They propose doubling the Senate and Assembly. I propose "blowing it up" even more to have at least 400 in the Assembly.

The blog also has a comprehensive roundup of the Bear Flag League Summer Conference. I had a connection, other bloggers had better photography, while others who were not distracted by taking pictures or posting had better analysis of the conference speakers.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Kira Zalan said...

A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the town’s board turned down the proposal.

So much for poetic justice. Justice Souter’s influence in his community shielded him from his own ruling. No other rational justification can be found.

Thankfully, the legislative branch is now busy at work attempting to shield private property rights from the Supreme Court ruling. It seems that the two may have switched roles, with the House defending the Constitution, and the Supreme Court writing new laws.

I thought I saw Alice the other day! Or maybe it was Justice Souter –skipping in Wonderland, immune to and above the laws he passes.

7/26/2005 9:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home