September 6, 2005
FOR EVERY ACTION....:
Missouri Condemnation No Longer So Imminent: Supreme Court Ruling Ignites Political Backlash (T.R. Reid, September 6, 2005, Washington Post)
When David Wright retired from his factory job in 1997, he poured just about all his savings into a handsome brick house in the Sunset Manor subdivision here. "This was our dream," said David's wife, Lorraine. "We were set here for the rest of our lives."But the dream turned sour when the city council of this St. Louis suburb decided last year to bulldoze all 254 homes in Sunset Manor and turn the land over to a shopping-mall developer. "We cried and we prayed," Lorraine Wright recalled. "And we put a lot of hope into the Supreme Court, because they were supposed to decide whether this kind of thing is legal."
So the Wrights were crushed -- at first -- when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 23 that the Constitution does not stop cities from seizing homes to make way for commercial development projects. "What we didn't realize right away," David Wright said, "was that the decision would be a positive development for those of us who don't want to see people's houses taken away."
Here in Missouri and all over the country, the court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London has sparked a furious reaction, with politicians of both parties proposing new legislation that would sharply limit the kind of seizure the court's decision validated.
As a result, a decision first seen as a key legal victory for cities that want to use eminent domain for private projects has turned into a major setback on the political front for pro-development interests.
Hard to imagine why anyone is surprised by the reaction. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 6, 2005 12:00 AM
But...But...But our rights are a gift from the Supreme Court and Americans are powerless to change things ourselves.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 6, 2005 11:00 AMNancy Pelosi backed the wrong deity.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 6, 2005 11:41 AMComdemnation of property because someone else has a better use of it shocks the conscience. It is almost as though a court said it was in the best interests of one's children that they be adopted by someone with more money.
You know, this is the kind of thing people are thinking of when they answer those poll questiions about thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction--this and homosexual "marriage".
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 6, 2005 3:15 PMNot that shocking since it's built into the Constitution.
Posted by: oj at September 6, 2005 3:30 PMLou: It's a bad idea. That doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 6, 2005 9:11 PMGentlemen: The original intent of the takings clause was to limit takings to public purposes. The notion of a taking for superior private use remains shocking.
This is something the ordinary citizen can understand, and it offends him as much as being told what to drive.
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 7, 2005 1:39 PM