Julian Sanchez | June 30, 2005
Radley Balko's posted a list of towns and municipalities that are eagerly moving forward to seize property now that Kelo has been resolved.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
The promenade is land west of Front set aside by Memphis
founders for public use. Although the city has a permanent
easement, the land is owned by heirs to John Overton and other
founders.
As a recently former Memphian, I *knew* it was going to come to
this. After all, a "public promendade" can't be properly enjoyed
unless one is in the patio seating area of a trendy, overpriced bar
and grill. Those city fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Their intent and what they thought of as "public use" doesn't
matter anymore; the Supreme Court has deemed it irrelevant.
Scary quote:
"But Lendermon said the decision provides a boost for Memphis and
other cities.
"It's critically important for cities, for their ability to control
economic development opportunities, especially in these days when
financial crises are the norm," he said."
Shouldn't the solution be to make financial crises *not*
normal?
We should coin a term for when a government seizes property from
one private party and gives it to another private party in order to
boost tax revenues, or to do a crony a favor.
Kelograb?
Keloglom?
Kelobite?
Kelohurts?
Keloptemania?
You know, in downtown Phoenix, there were/are plenty of places
that could be considered "blight", ie run-down old houses, where no
one lives. I don't know who owns the land, but if it really is
"blight", wouldn't the owners be more than happy to sell, and
therefore make government taking for "public use"
unnessecary?
I don't know the legal issues worth a damn (maybe my legal
knowledge should be considered "blighted"), but I just can't see
how any of this is allowable.
Also, maybe better for one of Julian's other threads, but the "heap
paradox" rebuttle of stare decisis is exactly what I was
looking for (as others, I'm sure) when someone like joe (sorry joe)
argued that even though they didn't necessarily like the outcome,
stare decisis warrented it.
We should coin a term for when a government seizes property
from one private party and gives it to another private party in
order to boost tax revenues, or to do a crony a favor.
Kelostomy
Mr. Balko's list left something out:
Connecticut--pretty much every goddamned neighborhood where a
person or family earning less than six figures a year can afford to
live.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245