Eminent Domain
Amendment V
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (bold added)
"Washington, D.C.— Today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to home and small business owners throughout the country by allowing the government to use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses can make more money off that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result."
I can’t tell you how angry I still am over the Supreme Court decision expanding the eminent domain laws. It’s been, what? almost two weeks since that horrendous decision came out and I’m just now able to write about it.
How can the Supremes possibly think that taking private property so that businesses can use it to make money is what the Founding Fathers intended? Oh, and the business may pay more taxes than the original homeowner did. That explains why local government would be behind it.
I can accept taking private property for schools, firehouses, parks, and roadways. But, to allow businesses to obtain the property in order to create more tax dollars is wrong. The Constitution states for public use, not for business. Public use means that you and I can use the property in some manner. We can walk or drive on it like a park or highway; or the property is used for our benefit such as a fire station or school.
If the property is used for a private business, we may not be able to enter unless we have “business” with the company. If a housing development goes up, we can’t go on that property without trespassing. It’s not public use.
Just compensation? What is just to local government may not be just to the property owner who’s going to lose their home. Maybe generations of their family lived on that land. Maybe a couple has lived in a home for many years; and raised their family there. You can’t define just compensation for a lifetime of living. Sure, local government would like businesses or higher priced homes to tax but is it right?
Don’t forget, businesses don’t pay taxes. Business costs, such as taxes, are passed on to customers, so taking land and giving it to a business doesn’t bring in taxes from the business, they just collect the tax from their customers and pass it on to the government.
The Founding Fathers must be spinning like dervishes in their graves.
Amendment V
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (bold added)
"Washington, D.C.— Today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to home and small business owners throughout the country by allowing the government to use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses can make more money off that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result."
I can’t tell you how angry I still am over the Supreme Court decision expanding the eminent domain laws. It’s been, what? almost two weeks since that horrendous decision came out and I’m just now able to write about it.
How can the Supremes possibly think that taking private property so that businesses can use it to make money is what the Founding Fathers intended? Oh, and the business may pay more taxes than the original homeowner did. That explains why local government would be behind it.
I can accept taking private property for schools, firehouses, parks, and roadways. But, to allow businesses to obtain the property in order to create more tax dollars is wrong. The Constitution states for public use, not for business. Public use means that you and I can use the property in some manner. We can walk or drive on it like a park or highway; or the property is used for our benefit such as a fire station or school.
If the property is used for a private business, we may not be able to enter unless we have “business” with the company. If a housing development goes up, we can’t go on that property without trespassing. It’s not public use.
Just compensation? What is just to local government may not be just to the property owner who’s going to lose their home. Maybe generations of their family lived on that land. Maybe a couple has lived in a home for many years; and raised their family there. You can’t define just compensation for a lifetime of living. Sure, local government would like businesses or higher priced homes to tax but is it right?
Don’t forget, businesses don’t pay taxes. Business costs, such as taxes, are passed on to customers, so taking land and giving it to a business doesn’t bring in taxes from the business, they just collect the tax from their customers and pass it on to the government.
The Founding Fathers must be spinning like dervishes in their graves.
No comments:
Post a Comment