I'm no lawyer, but it sure seems to me that the Supreme Court decided incorrectly when it said that cities can take private property to give it to other private interests, even if the new private interests offer higher tax revenue to the city. Taking it for a road, a dam, or some other public use, Ok, but just on the hope that a developer will build a profitable enterprise which will pay more taxes? That just strikes me as wrong, and it also opens the gates for corruption. What's to prevent a developer from bribing city councils to vote his way?
Posted by Linkmeister at June 23, 2005 09:09 AMIt is interesting that all the liberals -- Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer -- and two of the "moderates" (Kennedy and Souter) sided with big business and big government. All the conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) and one moderate (O'Connor) stood up for the little guy.
Posted by: Pixelshim at June 23, 2005 06:30 PMThat only brings up the Homeland Security issue in the same venue. Seriously....
Posted by: RONW at June 24, 2005 12:22 AMThat is just another reason why NJ is so corrupt. You should see what they did by the Jersey Shore.
Big Bucks win out against the little guy...
And there is not enough senior citizen housing to take care of the elderly who have been in their homes for many, many years.
Now-at their age- they are looking for a place to live...horrible..