Friday, June 24, 2005

Scotus: Property Rights

Picture credit:
Excel web sharing - spreadsheet collaboration over the Internet made easy with BadBlueThe Supreme Court decision known as Kelo, which is concerned with the seizure of private property for the public good, has raised the veritable firestorm of controversy. Argue with Signs has an extensive collection of reactions from the blogosphere:

The Supreme Court has ruled that cities can seize homes through eminent domain for lame purposes such as “economic development.” ...

Bryan Costin: So now, apparently, the only justification the government needs to take away your house and land is that the government wants more money. Have you ever met a government that didn’t want more money? Me neither.

Dan Melson: This is about fat wallets, yes, but it isn’t intrinsically and unavoidably linked solely to fat wallets. Below that, more importantly, is the ability to move things politically. Once the public taking of property depends upon who has the loudest political voice, no one is safe. Down this path lies madness. Stark raving insanity.

Putting the decision in context, John at Powerline notes:

...a Minneapolis suburb condemned a stretch along the metropolitan area's major beltway to serve as the new headquarters for Best Buy Company. This was prime real estate, which was already occupied by other profitable businesses--a major car dealer, restaurants, etc. They resisted the taking, but it was upheld.

My point is not that these decisions were correct--I have considerable sympathy for the other side--but rather that the Kelo decision shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who has been following this area of the law...

Argue with Signs: Scotus: Property Rights

No comments: