In my appearance on the Harry Browne show, we focused a lot on how to respond to the Kelo decision and what could be done to protect property rights. I urged the listeners to organize at the state and local level by putting propositions on state ballots to require that eminent domain be invoked only for direct public use and making sure that local politicians knew that there are political consequences for violating property rights. It looks like the Connecticut legislature if jumping on that bandwagon, declaring a moratorium on such development projects while they rewrite the state law regarding eminent domain. Bravo to that state and their legislature, which has recently become the first state to pass civil union legislation and is doing the right thing on this issue too.
I suppose this is good news, but I'm a bit confused.
The Connecticut legislature wrote the law authorizing the takings. Now they are outraged that the Supreme Court upheld their law?
What am I missing?
The Connecticut legislature wrote the law authorizing the takings. Now they are outraged that the Supreme Court upheld their law? What am I missing?
I don't believe there is a Connecticut state law regarding eminent domain outside of the state constitution (no statutory law, in other words). I may be wrong about that, but if I recall correctly, the state supreme court upheld the taking under the state constitution and then the plaintiffs filed suit. But again, I may be wrong about that.
From the article:
"Londregan said the city, in fact, wanted to declare the neighborhood blighted before condemning the houses there. Although courts have said for half a century that governments can use eminent domain to clear blight, Londregan said the state insisted that New London take the houses for economic development. The city's reliance on the economic development statute spawned the case, Kelo v. New London, that the U.S. Supreme Court decided last month."
In everything I have read about the case, it seemed clear to me that Connecticut law (statute) specifically allowed takings for economic development.
Now am not a lawyer, so when articles say Connecticut Law, I am not sure what that means.
Similar efforts going on in T*xas. Wish I could say the same about civil unions here...
(This is weird... TypeKey won't let me post messages with the name of my state, saying the comment was denied because of "questionable content"... hmmm)
Oops. I bet I've got something set in the blacklist to stop anything that with word because of all the poker sites. I'll have to find that and fix it.