Reason interviews the lawyer who represented Kelo


PDA






Justin
June 24, 2005, 08:21 PM
Never Mind the Kelo, Here's Scott Bullock

The attorney who argued the landmark eminent domain case surveys the blight
in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. A Reason interview.

Tim Cavanaugh


Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, represented the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark eminent domain case Kelo vs. City of New London. He spoke with Reason in the wake of yesterday's decision in favor of the city.

Rest of article here (http://www.reason.com/interviews/bullock.shtml) .

If you enjoyed reading about "Reason interviews the lawyer who represented Kelo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ben Shepherd
June 24, 2005, 09:05 PM
Thanks Justin. Good read.

I am afraid this one will cost lives before it's through!!! :( :banghead: :cuss:

Brett Bellmore
June 24, 2005, 09:21 PM
I'm afraid it won't.

rock jock
June 24, 2005, 09:45 PM
Let's gain some perspective (which sadly, is often missing on THR). This rulling was plain stupid, BUT, we are NOT going to see a surge of property seizures as a result. Elected officials will be reluctant to to this for fear of raising the ire of their constituents.

The sheer number of ordinary citizens that are outraged by this ruling will ensure that this issue is going to be front and center in any private development.

pax
June 24, 2005, 09:48 PM
+1 to both Ben & Brett.

pax

TrybalRage
June 24, 2005, 10:30 PM
Not any that you'll hear about anyway.

One local guy, who will lose.

Happens all the time.

Standing Wolf
June 24, 2005, 10:40 PM
Elected officials will be reluctant to to this for fear of raising the ire of their constituents.

That hasn't slowed them down an awful lot in the past, and now they have the Supreme Court on their side.

I'll give you one primary example that's brewing in Long Branch, New Jersey right now, where a group of people want to hang on to their working-class beach homes. They've worked very hard to get their modest bungalows along the shore. These houses were purchased just by working class folks in Newark and other places, and now many of the elderly residents live there full-time; these are their dream homes. And the City of Long Branch is just proposing taking these people's homes and transferring them to wealthier home-owners. They want to tear them down and build million-dollar condominiums for people right along the shore in northern New Jersey. And so it's a classic example of taking the property of poorer folks and giving it to wealthier folks, and using it for the same purpose. It's just a transfer of wealth between home owners.

In America? The founding fathers would rebel.

bjbarron
June 24, 2005, 11:22 PM
Elected officials will be reluctant to to this for fear of raising the ire of their constituents.

Standing Wolf has it right. Think about it...who is generally in the pockets of the big developers? Certainly not the fedGov as a rule...it's always the local pols. Their constituents want lower taxes...what do they care if a dozen oldsters get booted.

Think about who owns these properties...older people, long term residents in small houses, older 'un-PC' businesses like brake shops and storage sheds. The little guy. It has been happening for years and the ruling yesterday only made it easier.

Oh, by the bye, check your tax ratable and see what they would pay you for your house...certainly not market. My 'just compensation' would be 1/3 the market value of my home. I live in the largest home on the largest piece of property in a 95 year-old development generally made up of small summer bungalow type homes...on the Barnegat Bay. The property across the street was already bought by the multi-million dollar yacht club across the inlet from my house for the purpose of building 5 more docks on my side. I paid $28K for my house over 30 years ago and you don't what to know what my property is worth now. Unless ED grabs it for what my tax ratable is.

Tragedy, even greater than someone losing his or her home, will result from this.

Personally, I always wondered if I would go out with blood in my mouth defending the 2nd amendment. Now I wonder about the 5th.

Coltdriver
June 24, 2005, 11:46 PM
Jock Rock,

The truth is that there are many, perhaps hundreds of land grabs that were in the wings waiting to see what the outcome of this review would be.

Now, particularly in states where the constition of the state allows it, those land grabbers will proceed full steam ahead with nothing to impede them.

Those who may have hesitated in the past will now proceed with gusto.

Will it happen in every state, overnight?? No.

Will it happen with greater frequency now that the SC has given the green light? Absolutely.

Government is supposed to be limited. This ruling strikes at the heart of freedom which is all about property and the right to do with it as you wish.

This is a long way from over, but it will get worse before it gets better.

Art Eatman
June 25, 2005, 12:20 AM
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1089315053237

Excerpt:

"More than 10,000 properties nationwide were taken or threatened by eminent domain between 1998 and 2002, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based libertarian public interest law firm. Currently, eminent domain lawsuits are pending in at least a dozen states, including Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Connecticut, New York and Florida.

Condemnation lawyers assert that these lawsuits are part of a growing phenomenon in which municipalities seize property from homeowners and small businesses, then deliver it to larger companies that can produce huge tax revenues."

This was the first link of many, in a quick Google search of eminent domain lawsuits.

FWIW, Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Reason interviews the lawyer who represented Kelo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!