Saturday, August 20, 2005

Kelo v. New London ... Part II

Gee ... I'm still getting over the dismay at the Supremes for their decision on Kelo v. New London, as in allowing the use of Eminent Domain to justify the taking stealing of property, when it benefits the government (in taxes, don't ya know).

So when I had this article forwarded to me, I was so stunned I could barely react.

A New (London) Low
A refrigerator box under the bridge: The Kelo Seven prepares for the worst

by Jonathan O'Connell - July 14, 2005

Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

So, the government Can take your property purely on the justification of the taxes it will be paid (for the Public Good) ... AND they can charge you Rent while you fight the decision in court.

Don't you just love it? Because, it's for their own good, you see.

But wait - it gets better ...

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000.

Cha-Ching ! That's right - the government ...
  1. Gets to take the property
  2. Pays 5 year old property values, and
  3. Charges back rent to the owners!

You can read the whole thing here. Property ownership is a fleeting thing, it appears, and the government 'of the people' seems to be a concept that is in dire need of review.