Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:41:09 PST From: mojavegnospamveg.iwvisp.com (Everett M. Greene) Subject: Re: Well, the convertible is on Ebay now.
Fred W <Malt_Houndnospamm-me-not*yahoo.com> writes: > Everett M. Greene wrote: > > > > We're splitting hairs here. While it's true that the > > Supreme Court didn't say it was OK for governments to > > take property solely for economic/tax gain, they > > kicked the issue back to the State(s) which had already > > decided that it was OK. Or, to use a double-negative, > > the Supremes decided to not rule that it's not OK. > > That's not "splitting hairs" at all. Their non-ruling says > only that this is not an issue for the federal court system > to decide. That does not mean it is constitutional for a > state to take private property, If the Supremes don't say it's unconstitutional, then it's constitutional. > although it apparently is done all the time in nearly > every state for the "right" reasons. It is the state's > responsibility to determine what those right reasons are. > > Personally, being a quasi-libertarian, I have a problem > with the government taking personal property for any reason. > But of course they never actually "take" it. They are > required to provide "fair value" (whatever that means) > for the taken property. There's taking and then there's taking. If the owner doesn't want to sell at any price but the courts rule that he must, he's being taken. Granted the owner will be compensated, but... We have a local situation where a national retailer wants to build a new store on a block that's vacant or has nothing but condemned structures but there's one going business on one corner of the plot. That person doesn't want to sell. [There's the further twist that if the condemned adjacent building is demolished, the going business loses one its walls.]