There is a law, called Eminent Domain, that allows for a government (be it town, state, or federal) to force people to sell their land to said government (usually for less than market value) if the government needs it. This was designed to allow for necessities that the ruling body deems important. For example: roads, power plants, schools, public works, parks, etc.
There is a state that is citing Eminent Domain to steal the houses of some people who have lived where they are for many years. These people do not want to leave and do not believe the state has the right to do what they are trying to do. The state is going to build private upscale condos, a hotel, and a convention center. This is private development! And, therefore, illegal.
This case is now before the Supreme Court and, hopefully, the court will do what's right and stop this thievery by the state government.
But here's the kicker: what state do you think is doing this? Is it a "big business" red state like Texas or North Carolina? What about a "swing" state like Florida or Ohio. No. This is being done by a die hard, "we're-here-for-the-little-guy," continually blue, nearly bluist of the blue states: Connecticut!
Connecticut! My home state! I am embarrassed that my former state is attempting this travesty. I hang my head in shame that they are willingly ignoring the original intent of this law. I hope for one of two things: either the state has to return the land it's already stolen and the people can keep their money. Or the state is allowed to buy the land for at least 5 times the value of the property.
Why aren't the "we don't like big businesses" leftist government officials stepping forward on behalf of these people? Because this case is about two things, one obvious, one hidden:
1) The obvious one is that businesses will get this land. Shouldn't the right be all for this? Doesn't the right love to help big businesses? Well, I don't personally see it that way, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do. The other issue that this case revolves around outweighs the rights "love of big business."
2) The hidden (and I'm sure the left wishes it'd stay that way) agenda of this case is regarding the power of the government. Dems love a big powerful government (Don't forget, you must wear your helmet!) They want to be able to take your land whenever they want for whatever purpose they want. The far left of the left are the Socialists. Socialism isn't against big business. In fact Socialism loves big business. Truth be told, they wish the government were the only big business.
This action is despicable and it should be stopped! Come on US Supreme Court, don't let us down! (The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the state. The liberal judges outweighed the conservative! The left is pushing this through! Let's see what the US Supreme Court does!)
Hopefully, I'll be able to post on this again saying that justice has been served. You may hear then that all of this isn't just my opinion!
2 comments:
I don't think that the government should be able to do this at all, for any reason. We should go back to the days when, as settlers traveled the Oregan Trail and made stakes on land simply because they were the first there, they were allowed to shoot anyone who stepped on their land!
For myself, i can't understand how a government that owes its origin to resistance against this kind of heavy-handed "big brother" bullshit can think that the hypocricy isn't obvious to everyone. What's next, putting up soldiers in your homes for as long as the government says so?
Post a Comment