Thursday, June 23, 2005

From Jen

The Supreme Court decided that cities can take personal property for private development. It's funny that the more conservative members were the minority in this case. I am upset at the ruling. It's one thing to take property for all to use. It's another to take it to give it to some money-grubbing developer. (I have been teaching my children the evils of development.) This property was not blighted. You had a couple in their 80's that had been in their home for over 50 years. There are several small business that have been operated by the same family for multiple generations. But then again, this is Conn. we are discussing...

I completely agree with Jennifer this time. I have never been a fan of eminent domain, even back when I was 13 years old and first learned of the concept. It seems to me to be completely orthogonal to individual liberties.

The fact that liberals on the bench went with the stricter interpretation of the Constitution baffles me. I completely agree with O'Connor's opinion that this gives mroe rights to people of wealth and influence. I can only think of one incident in American history when a wealthy citizen's property was siezed under eminent domain and that was during the Civil War.

By the way Jen, thanks for teaching your kids about the evils of development. I whole-heartedly agree with you. By the way, I am currently contracting for on the largest contractors in the US. Sigh. Why can't I ever find work with a company/cause I can really get behind?
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" was debunked in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock


Blogger Tito Maury said...

Hi shawn, I thought I'd just leave this message on your blog. I hope you don't mind. I've been trying to find blogs where people are talking about back support chair computer and when I was looking, I found this one on this post. this post, thought I would say hi, before I go off to find some more back support chair computer

5:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home