Supreme BS

Here's a sampling of some of the commentary on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelo case back east. Saturday's OC Register is full of letters just like these from Southlanders. Nice to see people voicing their displeasure with the ruling and the governments pilfering of property.

Heck, just do a Google search on "Kelo Ruling". Tons of commentary in the Blogoshpere and people are really pissed about this one...

Saturday, July 2, 2005

Taking private property is what government does best

Susette Kelo and her neighbors were told by city officials of New London, Conn., that their homes would be seized and razed to make way for a commercial complex. The city officials cited the Connecticut constitution, which grants them the right to do so under the rule of eminent domain.

Eminent domain may be exercised by any government agency in order to claim private property from anyone within its jurisdiction, provided the owner is offered "just compensation" and the claimed property is for "public use." The right of eminent domain is granted under the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of every state.

Kelo and her neighbors filed a lawsuit to prevent the seizure of their property, which worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court under Kelov. City of New London.

Libertarian writers have brought this case to light by showing how government abuses the eminent domain law and its people. Abuses include the use of a heavy hand by city officials who condemn a person's property and then offer a price below actual market value.

While some of Kelo's neighbors have sold their property to the city, she and others want to remain in their homes, where they have lived for many years (40 years in Kelo's case). They argue that the city of New London violated the meaning of the law by taking their property for non-public use. However, the increased revenue garnered by the city will most certainly find its way into welfare payments, public work projects, salaries to public officials and the like. This may not be a direct public use of seized property, but the results will nevertheless end up as a public benefit. Why are libertarians so concerned that the seized property is being used for private use rather than for public use when they strongly favor privatization?

Once property is taken, the use to which the taker puts it is inconsequential. A bank robber who informs the teller that the money will go to a good cause is no less a thief.

So, why the big fuss over a handful of people in New London or over the other few thousand who are or have been in a similar circumstance? The taking of one person's property for the benefit of another without just compensation is what governments do. That's their business.

Let's not get riled up over their taking of a pittance of property value, when we have authorized them to take at the astronomical rate of billions of dollars a year. Governments have "eminent domain" over our lives and whatever we may produce as part of that life.

Let's just get used to it and be good loyal subjects.

Louis Carabini

Newport Beach

__________________________________________

Saturday, July 2, 2005

Can we save our homes?

The illusion of private property

We live at the government's pleasure. There are no such things as property rights; we cannot own property; we only lease it from the government. The property tax is the only tax that does not take into consideration the ability to pay. When we purchase a home, we only buy the right to live there. The government will be our landlord, it will fix our annual rent and we only live there at officials' pleasure (eminent domain). Don't pay your property tax and the government evicts you.

Try to add a room, remodel or improve your land, and you need to get approval from the government first. After the approval, you will also receive an increase in your annual lease payment - the property tax. If you upgrade the property, government will raise the rent. Toss out Proposition 13 and watch our landlords - the government - raise our annual lease payments. How much can our city, county and state leaders raise our rent if given the chance? Somehow, I can believe our founding fathers never envisioned this mass insanity, the loss of our property rights, the loss of our property use and the inability to leave our property to our heirs.

Paul A. Angelotti

Placentia

__________________________________________

Not your castle any more

Your home is no longer your castle. It is now the mechanism for getting the highest and best tax revenue for local government. The Supreme Court ruled that a local government can seize your house, pay you what it thinks is a fair price and give it to someone else if that raises tax revenues and improves the community, in its opinion. This logic would let local governments seize every church and give the land to developers, since the churches pay no property taxes. This logic would let them seize every house and offer to sell it back to the owners for the same price since this will increase everyone's property taxes and therefore help the community with additional tax revenues. Anyone who thinks these prospects are far-fetched needs to only look in our backyard at Cypress, where the city attempted to take a church's property to build a Costco.

The rule of law and strong protection of personal property rights are two of the cornerstone rights that built the great country we have today. We just lost some of our greatness with these rulings. Some say that the Constitution is supposed to be a "living document," but to me it looks like it's dying.

Craig Trivelpiece

Newport Beach

_______________________________________

Forms of eminent domain

Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain?

Hasn't the autocratic California Coastal Commission been exercising eminent domain action on landowners unfortunate enough to own land within the commission's purview? To further the humiliation, the landowner is not forced to sell his land to a private concern but keep it fallow for a bird, reptile, vermin or even a plant that the bleeding heart environmentalists claim is endangered. But he must continue to pay taxes so the subhuman species or vegetation can endure.

In addition, the landowner probably will be stymied by our liberal judicial system or the plentiful number of NIMBYS. Let's stop wailing about the legality of eminent domain and move on. We Californians should be calloused enough by now not to let a comparative decision by our highest court overshadow what has been the norm in our state for decades.

Bob Polkow

Huntington Beach

_____________________________________________

Back an amendment

We should all be very concerned regarding the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. The city of Garden Grove was planning to take a large portion of a housing tract for its future Harbor Boulevard entertainment center. When the people found out they spoke up loud and clear. The city backed off, knowing it was an illegal and immoral use of eminent domain. But now the Supreme Court has given the city councils of America carte blancheto do whatever they wish with our property.

If you have a home with low property taxes under Proposition 13 you need to be afraid. The cities have an out: Just take your property and give it to a developer so they can build condos or apartments to get more revenue. Five justices, Democrats and Republicans, on the Supreme Court said so.

It's time to contact your representatives to get a strong amendment to the Constitution to protect our property from the government. Hopefully they will want to help, but remember they are part of the government too. The Constitution had it covered but five justices decided to read more into it. Makes you wonder.

Marilyn Ross

Garden Grove