Grace's Blog and Cat Chat Place

6/24/2005 - Well, why? I believe that we are in a lot of trouble, us folks out in the real world.

Yesterday, the straw hit my back. The Supreme Court said that private property can be taken from its owners anytime the government believes it has a good reason.

My modest knowledge of American history reminds me that the patriots who revolted against English tyranny had a similar complaint. Most of the folks who have come here since then were leaving tyranny, and economic deprivation to come to "the Land of the Free". How free are we if ours homes can be taken, our privacy invaded, our freedom curtailed by an out of control government?

So our government and our Supreme Court has sided with the aristocrats, the bureaucrats that are in the pay of commercial interests.

Let citizens respect each other, and each other's property. If growth can't occur in some town because a few people want to live in their homes, homes they have paid taxes on and mortgages for, then stop growth! Grow somewhere else. Move.

And then the government wants to pay "market value". They should be paying future value - what the land is worth with commercial development - millions!

Every person that owns anything should beware this change in fundamental American values. The rights of an individual have been superceded by "community" demands. Majority rule (and when did nine old fogies know anything about what people really want or need?) is tyranizing those minorities that "rule of law" is steamrolling.

Watch it, folks, BIg Brother is alive and well - and feeding us the most transparent excuses to justify their agenda.
Time for a change.

Some links:

CNN Law Center: High court OKs personal property seizures - Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities - Friday, June 24, 2005; Posted: 12:32 a.m. EDT (04:32 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development. ... Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. ... The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Grace's Place - Blog - Whateverrrrr!