|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:38 pm
I have written a letter to my state senators about the U.S. Supreme Court eminent domain decision. If anyone has comments, suggestions, or found flaws in my letter, I would like to hear them. I would also like to hear what everyone elses thoughts are on the matter. Thanks.
Dear Senators,
As you almost certainly know, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the recent Kelo v. New London case was a severe blow to American individuals property rights. The Court held that the proposed confiscation of homes for transfer to other private persons with intentions of a city development plan qualifies as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment.
Despite the Court's mistaken judgment, there is good news. The Court is giving the state government the chance to minimize the negative impact the decision has on property rights. I would like to ask you to take this opportunity that the Court gives you to ensure Connecticut's failures do not happen in Oklahoma. Please remove or restrict the power of our state and its cities to take property through eminent domain. This is a moral and practical aspiration.
Property rights are one of an individual's most fundamental rights. A person must earn their properties through unrelenting mental and physical effort. The property taken from one cannot be easily replaced. The American citizens have the benefit of living a life free of tyranny and oppression. We enjoy an independent lifestyle because most of us recognize property rights as a fundamental aspect of human existence. Eminent domain is morally flawed because it seizes from a person what he or she has rightfully earned.
Abolishing or limiting eminent domain is also highly practical. As the Court noted, many states already have regulations greater than those under the federal Constitution. Some states have constitutional restrictions, while others have statutory ones. Oklahoma might look to those states' specifications for guidance in structuring its own.
I understand that your role as legislators is time-consuming. This issue is very important to me. Even though I do not own any real property, I aspire to at some point in the future. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kandice Lynnette Meek
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:11 pm
Some news links on the subject: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html Grrr, actually I'm surprised no one has brought this subject up around here before. I've been steamed about this for a few weeks now. Eminent domain abuses have been taking place around the nation in these cases where a local government takes property and then hands it to a private developer. I don't care about the increased property taxes or the economic development these might bring about, this does not count as a legitimate public use!!! I was completely baffled when the Supreme Court made this ruling and mauled our property rights. I mean come on! It should be obvious that this was not what eminent domain was intended for. kandi_queen, you should also see if you can get fax numbers to your senator's and congressional representative's offices. A lot of them like faxes more these days because of the anthrax scares and letters spend a lot more time in the security processing centers. In fact try to do both faxes and letters, thats my advice. Now I should get off my butt and write one of my own razz ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:13 am
Interesting thing I found on that: Quote: WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUNDAmericans concerned with the preservation of their civil liberties and especially the right to private property have cried out in indignation when on June 23, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local governments may from now on seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development. Heretofore the rule of eminent domain,the power of states and municipalities to take control of private property, only applied if it was for public use, for example to build roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. With the new ruling in place, anything that creates tax revenue and boosts the local economy will suffice. If your hometown spontaneously decides that your property would make an excellent location for a Wal-Mart, there is nothing you can do about it. But some Americans refuse to go quietly into that long, dark night. One of them is Logan Darrow Clements, CEO of California-based Freestar Media, LLC, who last week started a major development project of his own. According to Clements' own press release, he faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. Incidentally, that is the home address of David H. Souter, one of the Supreme Court Justices who voted for the new law. "This is not a prank," said Clements in his press release. The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, we can begin our hotel development.? Interesting, I wonder if he'll succeed. Probably not, but one can only hope. I hope this gets a message across.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:59 am
5ubliminalM355ag35 Interesting thing I found on that: Quote: WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUNDAmericans concerned with the preservation of their civil liberties and especially the right to private property have cried out in indignation when on June 23, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local governments may from now on seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development. Heretofore the rule of eminent domain,the power of states and municipalities to take control of private property, only applied if it was for public use, for example to build roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. With the new ruling in place, anything that creates tax revenue and boosts the local economy will suffice. If your hometown spontaneously decides that your property would make an excellent location for a Wal-Mart, there is nothing you can do about it. But some Americans refuse to go quietly into that long, dark night. One of them is Logan Darrow Clements, CEO of California-based Freestar Media, LLC, who last week started a major development project of his own. According to Clements' own press release, he faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. Incidentally, that is the home address of David H. Souter, one of the Supreme Court Justices who voted for the new law. "This is not a prank," said Clements in his press release. The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, we can begin our hotel development.? Interesting, I wonder if he'll succeed. Probably not, but one can only hope. I hope this gets a message across. LOL! Thats very amusing. Some how I doubt it will come to pass but it would Justice Souter right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:10 am
Strideo LOL! Thats very amusing. Some how I doubt it will come to pass but it would Justice Souter right! LOL oh yeah, I mean it is a now legally credible to seize his property for private reasons. I bet he never expected that to bite him in the a**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
