By six minutes (at least when I start this entry) you get a second dose today.
I did more reading and research this evening. One item that interested me while reading RealClearPolitics was a small article that was actually on Neal Boortz's website. I occasionally listen to his show here since he follows Rush in this market. He's definitely libertarian in his worldview, so generally I agree with him but not always. In this case, he was very much opposed to Thursday's Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, as was I.
One of the links in the story on his website was to the Castle Coalition, which is an advocacy organization dedicated to private property rights and the abuse of eminent domain. I added this link to my favorites and signed up to become a member (it's free, basically you get on the e-mail list and I'm sure they'll ask me for contributions every so often. I can handle that.) Actually, I had heard of them before, but they got pushed back in the old memory files for important stuff like whether the Polanco for Urbina trade with the Phillies was a good one for the Tigers (so far so good.)
But the eminent domain subject interests me because I'm thinking of getting into the real estate investment game. Actually, my uncle's family has done that rather successfully. Just need to decide whether I want to invest in raw land or something like a duplex.
But all of it could be for naught if the Supreme Court decision is allowed to stand in Maryland or Delaware. It was left up to states to pass legislation to prohibit the use of eminent domain for private entities (like in New London.) Of course, the developers will spend big coin to fight it tooth and nail, as will entities such as Wal-Mart and Costco - "big box" retailers.
Being originally from Toledo, I'm familiar with one case that wiped out an entire middle-class neighborhood of 80 or so houses and a few businesses. When the Toledo North assembly plant was built for DaimlerChrysler to build Jeeps, they took out this neighborhood at the southwest corner of the site. Now, having seen the building as built, it's a good 300 yards at least from that building to where this neighborhood was. Apparently, this edge of the site is used as a truck entrance because it's close to I-75. But to me, it's a shame they knocked all that down; in fact, the final business left there was demolished last year even before they finally lost their court fight. The Jeep issue is still part of the undercurrent of Toledo politics, particularly again since the mayor at the time is considering running again after a four year hiatus (he was term-limited.) I remember questioning him about the Jeep deal and its cost to the city in a mayoral forum back in 1997. (He dodged my question adeptly.)
Now, I work in a business that is fueled by private development. But I want there to be a clear definition of what is public use. And, while we should strive for land's "highest and best use", there is a right for someone who happens to have made a lot of work and effort to have a piece of the American Dream to say, "no, I'm not interested in selling this to you simply because you as a government can make more revenue on what is MINE." There's a "reverse Robin Hood" element to the Kelo case; most of the reason the developer wanted the parcels was for their ocean view. I know it smacks of class envy, but the rich shouldn't be the only ones who get an ocean view. These people in New London were there first and earned it.
Progress is a good thing. But so is the sanctity of private property.
