Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Gmail - Hudson, Stossel: House reverses Supreme Court eminent domain decision - flyaway.jack@gmail.com

Gmail - Hudson, Stossel: House reverses Supreme Court eminent domain decision - flyaway.jack@gmail.com

Hudson, Stossel: House reverses Supreme Court eminent domain decision
Inbox
x

Daily Events HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com
1:02 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
If you are on a mobile device or cannot view the images in this message view this email in your web browser.
To ensure future delivery please add HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com to your address book or safe sender's list.
Wednesdays with Audrey Hudson02.29.12Sign Up for Daily Events
Human Events Facebook FanpageFollow Us on TwitterAuthor ArchiveTell a FriendHuman Events VideoSubscribe to Human Events!Today's Sponsor

State and local governments that use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development would lose federal funding for two years under legislation passed by the House on Tuesday.

The bipartisan bill was authored through an unusual pairing of Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and passed on a voice vote.

The measure is a response to the 2005 Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. City of New London, which held in a 5-4 decision that economic development is considered a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause.

The decision justified the government's condemnation of private property, in order to give it to a private business to redevelop and create a more lucrative tax base. Historically, eminent domain was legally restricted to projects for public use like road and school construction.

As a result of this ruling, the federal government's power of eminent domain has become almost limitless, providing citizens with few means to protect their property.

"Uncle Sam can condemn one family's home only because another private entity would pay more tax revenue," Sensenbrenner said.

Sensenbrenner said his bill would "protect every homeowner and non-profit from being bulldozed in the interest of for-profit land grabs."

The infamous decision by the Supreme Court is also one of the most unpopular. It allowed the Connecticut city to condemn property owned by Susette Kelo and her neighbors, then they gave the property to the Pfizer Corporation to build a new research facility and for the construction of a hotel and condos.

The city and state spent $78 million to bulldoze the property, but the new development never materialized and the property is now vacant.

To read more, click here.

—Audrey Hudson
Gaming Super Tuesday — initial thoughts on the semi-super day
Tony Lee

Analysis: The stakes and risks for each candidate as the March primaries begin... Read More
ADVERTISEMENT
Santorum embrace of Democrats' crossover ploy leaves bad blood in Michigan
John Gizzi

Romney's team in Michigan not very forgiving of runner-up Santorum...Read More
The story behind box office hit 'Act of Valor'
Neil W. McCabe

Directors McCoy, Waugh embedded with Navy SEALs to learn their culture, personalities... Read More
Prohibition
John Stossel

Unlike Bill Clinton, President Obama admits he inhaled... Read More
North Korea agrees to suspend nuclear activities

No apologies

Poll: Wisconsin's Walker to survive union recall drive

February 29, 1796

The Jay Treaty

On this day in 1796, The Jay Treaty went into effect, facilitating a decade of smooth trade between the United States and Great Britain.

Human Events is now on Human Events is on Facebook! Become a Fan today!

This email was sent to flyaway.jack@gmail.com because you are subscribed to Daily Events. To update your email delivery preferences, click here. Please do not attempt to respond to this message as your reply will route to an unattended email box. If you have questions, please send them toCustomerService@HumanEventsOnline.com.


No comments:

Post a Comment