New York's highest court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that will decide whether the state government can lawfully seize private property for a development company. [More]Because nothing says "public use" requiring coercion like "private basketball." God forbid there should be a market solution.
I suppose if by "lawfully" they mean capable of seizing at gunpoint with no resistance...
Hey, what's more important for governments instituted among men to secure the Blessings of Liberty? Keeping the masses stupefied with bread and circuses or your property rights?
And who better to decide than New York judges?
The outrageous thing is, so many idiot sports fans don't care what freedoms are lost as long as the vicarious thrills of watching others perform keep coming.
Why is this news? The Supremes have already decided this in Kelo vs. New London, and the citizens lost.
ReplyDeleteSeize private property in New York? In New York they do that while chewing gum.
ReplyDeleteif you've already accepted eminent domain as philosophically legitimate, and consider the land as good as taken, it may in fact stand to reason that you'd prefer private developers over the department of public works. but on exactly what grounds? private ownership of the means of production? the thing you just abandoned to avoid icky conflict?
ReplyDeletehalf-measures like this are delivering liberty to the death from a thousand cuts.
and in the case of sports, keep in mind that stadiums are always built with public money. states and cities invariably debt-finance them.
Will it be used for a purpose which is authorized by New York's constitution? Is it part of a civil suit settlement. If not, the answer is no.
ReplyDeleteThanks for using Jiffy Judge(tm). Five dollars, please. All major credit and debit cards accepted.
I think I'd be pissed enough at having to be moved from my neighborhood to poison my property as I was being forcably moved out. Plutonium, herbicide, oil, gasoline. Wouldn't matter. Whatever I could get my hands on & be able to afford, just to make 'em spend big enviro-bucks for clean up & to stall the development.
ReplyDeleteNow, that out of the way, if the developers (or Big Gub'ment) wanted to PURCHASE my property at fair market value, that's a different story. But we know THAT won't happen.
B Woodman
III-per
David, your question ... "Keeping the masses stupefied with bread and circuses or your property rights?"
ReplyDeleteThe Rome city fathers decided that question some 2000 years ago.
And, governments haven't learned a damn thing in the past 2000 years either.
ReplyDelete"Now, that out of the way, if the developers (or Big Gub'ment) wanted to PURCHASE my property at fair market value, that's a different story. But we know THAT won't happen."
ReplyDelete"I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse."
-Vito Corleone, The Godfater
Not only is any price mutually agreed upon between a WILLING buyer and a WILLING seller the "fair market price", that is the ONLY thing that makes it the fair market price. There is no such thing as "fair market value" when one party has a gun to the other's head.
Luke,
ReplyDeleteThank you for expanding the explanation of "fair market value."
B Woodman
III-per
And there are still stupid sonsofbitches out there who ask why anyone needs to be armed.
ReplyDelete