Poetic Justice for Supreme Court Justice?

[ACPlayer]

That is a fine solution.

However, kicking bums out of office when they misuse their power or make wrong decisions that's what its all about.

[shots]

Can't argue with that.

[ACPlayer]

From Steven's decision:

[ QUOTE ]
The Fort Trumbull area is situated on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. The area comprises approximately 115 privately owned properties, as well as the 32 acres of land formerly occupied by the naval facility (Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres). The development plan encompasses seven parcels. Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a "small urban village" that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian "riverwalk" will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U. S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space. Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk. Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses. 1 App. 109-113.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note Parcel 3 is NORTH of the Pfizer area. The pfizer area is separate from the development area under question. My reading is that none of the property in question is heading for pfizer. It is also my reading that pfizer made this decision independently of the development effort and that that decision was a spark for the redevelopment efforts.

[slamdunkpro]

Just replace "Pfizer" with "new private owner" in my last post.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
My reading is that none of the property in question is heading for pfizer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't really matter if the land is for "public" or "private" use. They're still taking your land. What ends up happening to it is of no interest to the victim.

[ACPlayer]

IN some of the posts by posters (who have not read the opinion) there have been flames about this being transferred to Pfizer. Thought I'd clarify that piece of misinformation.

Your line of thought essentially means that local govt should have zero emininent domain rights. While that may be true in Russia, it is not true in America.

All we can discuss is whether this plan where the City acquired the land (via a bond) and then developed it for the good of the public and for the use of the public is a valid taking under the constitution.

I think while O'Conner raises a valid fear. This case does not set a precedent for the rampant takings that the fear mongers are using for partisan purposes.

The proposed taking of Souter's residence is not allowed by this ruling. But it is an amusing stunt.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't really matter if the land is for "public" or "private" use. They're still taking your land.

[/ QUOTE ]

If local/federal governments did not have this ability very little 'public infrastructure' would be built. It can be argued what constitutes public or private and the rules should be watertight but some kind 'power of eminent domain' should and will always exist.

[slamdunkpro]

This isn't about public infastructure. This is about taking land from a private individual and turning it over to another private individual (or company) "for the public good".

An argument why the decision was bad follows: I’m the government: I need you land for a new highway. I use emanate domain, pay you, tear your house down and build the highway. The odds are that will remain a highway at least in our lifetimes and the right of way stays with the government.

Now take it one step further: I’m the government: I want you land to rebuild a poor area of town. I use emanate domain, pay you, and sell your land to a private company who puts a movie theater on it. 5 years later, Supermegashopinabox Inc. (or even better Disney) decides that that Movie Theater is at the center of their new super complex or theme park They go to the owner and pay them megabucks for the land. If you had kept your happy home you’d be the one driving the Bentley instead of the Movie guy. Now tell me this was a fair decision

[lehighguy]

I was under the believe that they were taking property from one private party and giving it to another private party.

When you take property to build a highway or a park that is public use. But if you take it and then sell it to a Starbucks so they can sell coffee to the rich Pfizer employees that is not "public use".

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If local/federal governments did not have this ability very little 'public infrastructure' would be built.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. Government shouldn't be building infrastructure in the first place.