Thursday, June 23, 2005
I'm Qualified to Make this Post Because I Have Now Completed a Bachelor's Degree In Political Science
First off: Yes, it's true. I had my last undergrad final ever today. Assuming I didn't fail it, I have now completed the requirements for a Bachelor's degree in political science (I finished up history a while ago). How exciting.
Now that I can call myself Pat Mobley, BA, I suppose I'm qualified to opine on Supreme Court decisions. And one came down today that has me pretty upset.
Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a "public use" under the Constitution. (Kelo v. New London, 04-108).
The decision can be found here.
In this case a group of Connecticut homeowners sued their city, New London, to prevent it from forcing them to sell their houses and property in order to build a new facility for Pfizer as well as other neato things that would contribute to the economic development of the city. "Economic development," of course, means profits for the companies who occupy the land. The Court unwisely ruled that the growth of these companies constitutes "public use," a necessary condition for government seizure of private property under the Fifth Amendment. It is interesting to note that the Court's "liberals"- Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter- were the ones who were on this side.
Basically what the Court is saying here is that if your city council decides the land on which your home sits would be better-used by, say, a shopping mall, it has the right to force you to sell your property to them. This would seem to invite local politicians who either reside in the pockets of special economic interests or who are the special interests themselves to seize the property of private citizens for their own economic gain. Certainly, a few people will be happy to be made richer and there could even be more property taxes collected on the newly developed land. But by no means does this constitute "public use." The land will be used for economic gain by private companies! As someone brought up in this MeFi thread, the property tax line of thinking would allow Mr. Burns to bulldoze his neighbor's house in order to build a pool, which would likely raise the property tax yield of the land. Obviously this is an extreme example, but by deciding that economic development constitutes "public use," the Court has gone seriously astray. So I'm outraged. This is a serious threat to Americans' property rights.
The Court is finishing up its rulings for this term and I'll be checking the SCOTUS Blog pretty frequently. Still awaiting rulings (which will probably come down on Monday) are two cases involving governmental Ten Commandments displays and one involving internet file sharing. Issues of great interest to me and a lot of people I know.
For a little bit of fun after that look-at-me-I'm-so-smart-with-my-degree nonsense, here is an archive of TV commercials from the 80s. Memories!
Now that I can call myself Pat Mobley, BA, I suppose I'm qualified to opine on Supreme Court decisions. And one came down today that has me pretty upset.
Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a "public use" under the Constitution. (Kelo v. New London, 04-108).
The decision can be found here.
In this case a group of Connecticut homeowners sued their city, New London, to prevent it from forcing them to sell their houses and property in order to build a new facility for Pfizer as well as other neato things that would contribute to the economic development of the city. "Economic development," of course, means profits for the companies who occupy the land. The Court unwisely ruled that the growth of these companies constitutes "public use," a necessary condition for government seizure of private property under the Fifth Amendment. It is interesting to note that the Court's "liberals"- Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter- were the ones who were on this side.
Basically what the Court is saying here is that if your city council decides the land on which your home sits would be better-used by, say, a shopping mall, it has the right to force you to sell your property to them. This would seem to invite local politicians who either reside in the pockets of special economic interests or who are the special interests themselves to seize the property of private citizens for their own economic gain. Certainly, a few people will be happy to be made richer and there could even be more property taxes collected on the newly developed land. But by no means does this constitute "public use." The land will be used for economic gain by private companies! As someone brought up in this MeFi thread, the property tax line of thinking would allow Mr. Burns to bulldoze his neighbor's house in order to build a pool, which would likely raise the property tax yield of the land. Obviously this is an extreme example, but by deciding that economic development constitutes "public use," the Court has gone seriously astray. So I'm outraged. This is a serious threat to Americans' property rights.
The Court is finishing up its rulings for this term and I'll be checking the SCOTUS Blog pretty frequently. Still awaiting rulings (which will probably come down on Monday) are two cases involving governmental Ten Commandments displays and one involving internet file sharing. Issues of great interest to me and a lot of people I know.
For a little bit of fun after that look-at-me-I'm-so-smart-with-my-degree nonsense, here is an archive of TV commercials from the 80s. Memories!
Thursday, June 09, 2005
MetaNonsense
There's a great nonsense thread happening on MetaTalk at the moment. Not sure I really understand the inside joke, but it would appear the communal goal is to make as many posts to it as possible. If you happen to be a member, fire away!
Also, I posted about a MetaFilter dream I had the other night. A somewhat humorous and interesting discussion ensued. Also, people referred to my thread in the 9962 nonsense thread I mentioned above. Teriffic!
Also, I posted about a MetaFilter dream I had the other night. A somewhat humorous and interesting discussion ensued. Also, people referred to my thread in the 9962 nonsense thread I mentioned above. Teriffic!
