property rights, part 2
Jun. 24th, 2005 02:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chelidonA followup to my note yesterday, about the Supreme Court decision regarding personal property rights (or lack thereof), is this CNN-Money article today.
I am reminded of the old Zen Buddhist saying that the best protection against theft is not an iron rod, but poverty. The best protection against eminent domain issues is to be off the radar (not be in a high-growth area), and, if at all possible (and sometimes it is not), to have a local government which is made up of actual citizens, not politicians. Otherwise, you're simply at the mercy of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and having something a developer wants, and is willing to pay the city to get. So much for personal property rights.
Full article: Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza? (subhed: Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond)
Excerpt:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.
Retailers such as Target, Home Depot and Bed, Bath & Beyond have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.
Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.
Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.
I am reminded of the old Zen Buddhist saying that the best protection against theft is not an iron rod, but poverty. The best protection against eminent domain issues is to be off the radar (not be in a high-growth area), and, if at all possible (and sometimes it is not), to have a local government which is made up of actual citizens, not politicians. Otherwise, you're simply at the mercy of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and having something a developer wants, and is willing to pay the city to get. So much for personal property rights.
Full article: Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza? (subhed: Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond)
Excerpt:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.
Retailers such as Target, Home Depot and Bed, Bath & Beyond have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.
Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.
Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.
