High Court Expands Reach of Eminent Domain

Associated Press - June 23rd, 2005 - Fox News Channel

WASHINGTON — Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

If an economic incentive by a business is all that is required to sieze your home, then the limitation on the "takings clause" in our Constitution is meaningless. The limitation specifically stated is for "public use" only. "Public use" has now been defined as government saying "I want it". How corrupt is this court?

The Supreme Court has already agreed that it is not a violation of the equal protection clause for government to give tax breaks to a company or individual for intangible benefits to society that only that government can see and which no one else gets. Nor is their any recompense if the hypothesized benefits never occur. What is to stop government from taking your property for hypothesized tax benefits, and simultaneously giving the beneficiary of the seized property tax breaks for compensation of the higher taxes that they are paying on your former property?

Think this is not likely? They are already doing something similar. Check out the following article.

Couple Was Not Paid For Seized Land
By Kevin Leininger - June 16, 2005 - Fort Wayne News Sentinel

“The Fifth Amendment says the government can’t take your property without just compensation, but that’s exactly what the city is doing,” said Diana Kruse, who has lived at 6930 Rothman Road since 1967. “We (raised) seven kids here, and the property was to be passed down to them. Now I feel like my heart’s been cut out, like we’ve been raped and robbed.”
----
Because the Kruses have appealed the condemnation approved May 18 by the Board of Works, Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley Levine will decide whether things such as a new fence and the ability to trade a septic tank for city sewers is adequate compensation for nearly three-quarters of an acre of what is becoming prime real estate.

What the justices did not address is whether it is legal to seize your home if the economic incentive is simply a bribe to a government official by someone who wants your home. With the current ruling that is certainly going to happen at some point. However I am sure that that will be addressed in a future case and we will find out how corrupt our court system has become.