Thursday, June 23, 2005


Here is an excerpt from David Stout's article, Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales. (NYTimes, 06/23/05.)

Here is a statement by the Institute for Justice:

Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, "It's a dark day for American homeowners. While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected. Every home, small business, or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the Court, that's a good enough reason for eminent domain." (, 06/23/05.)

For more information, check out Eminent Domain Watch and read my post, ANTI-EMINENT DOMAIN RALLY IN NEW YORK CITY.


Here is an excerpt from Andrew Dalton's post, Not Good.

Leftists often seize upon this fact to claim that fascism is simply rule by corporations; or worse yet, just another name for unregulated capitalism. This smear against capitalism overlooks the fact that in any improper mingling of business and government, it is the government that holds on to the trump card of physical coercion. To the extent that businesses use government power to unjust ends, it is the improper government power that is the real cause of the injustice. Also, businesses that benefit from government looting today could find themselves on the business end of that looting tomorrow, if the state decides that the "public interest" lies elsewhere. The nature of arbitary government power is that it is arbitrary; when injustice is sanctioned, no one is safe. (Venting Steam, 06/23/05.)

Property Wrongs

UPDATE 06/26/05:

Here is an excerpt from the article, The Tyranny of Eminent Domain by Larry Salzman and Alex Epstein.

The Supreme Court’s decision against the property owners in Kelo is, in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas from his dissenting opinion, a “far-reaching, and dangerous result.” As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, another of the four dissenting justices, wrote: “all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process.” And as Dana Berliner, an attorney for the owners, argued, this means that no one’s property or home is truly safe: "If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business then no property in America is safe. Anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."

Property owners beware: the next casualty of “the public interest” might be you. (, 06/25/05.)

Listen to Prodos's interview (Eminent Domain: Exploiting the 5th Amendment to destroy private property rights) with Joe Wright.

Here is the last paragraph from Jeff Jacoby's article, Eminent injustice in New London.

That won't happen. It isn't the high and mighty on whom avaricious governments and developers prey. Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy are responsible for this execrable decision. But they'll never have to live with its consequences. (, 06/26/05.)