Eminent development

From WorkingForChange, uber-Texan Molly Ivins on the recent Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case:

The court essentially extended the use of eminent domain -- the right by which the government can seize private property to use for public purposes in exchange for fair market value -- to include for-profit development.

And

The justice who nailed this one was Sandra Day O'Connor, bless her. She wrote in dissent: "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

Click here for the rest.

Generally, liberals support the concept of eminent domain. Without it, cities could very quickly become screwed up malfunctioning masses of humanity. What this decision did, however, was to go way beyond any reasonable justification of its use. The Court ruled that people's homes may be seized, not because they are decaying and dangerous, not because a road needs to be built or expanded, not because power lines have to run from point A to point B, but because a company wants to set up shop. This really is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but Peter is simply a powerless citizen and Paul is a wealthy corporation. This decision is fucked up bigtime. Atrios over at Eschaton noted last week that the Supremes probably could have decided in such a way that affirmed the right of eminent domain, but stopped the outrageous theft of private homes in order to enhance "economic development," and I don't see why that point of view is wrong.

It's nice that there's outrage about this on both the left and the right. It suggests that there may be hope for our country after all.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$