This past January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Bart Didden, an entrepreneur in Port Chester, NY. Thus letting stand one of the more egregious abuses of eminent domain authority since the court’s infamous Kelo v. New London case of 2005, which upheld the government’s right to seize property from one private party and give it to another in the name of economic development.
In 2003 Bart Didden set out to build a CVS drugstore on property he owned in Port Chester, NY. Unfortunately, a developer hired by the town had other plans for Didden’s land. The developer wanted to put a Walgreens drugstore on the same property, so he demanded that Didden either pay $800,000 to “make him go away” or pony up 50% stake in the CVS. Didden refused.
The next day, the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s land, which it planned to hand over to the developer. Didden sued, but last year the U.S court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled the condemnation was consistent with Kelo.
“It took me years of hard work to buy that property, pay off my mortgages and really feel like I owned it” Didden said recently in a press release.
I’m personally deeply concerned by this clear abuse of eminate domain laws, they are not meant to be used like this for private purposes and I believe situations like this will only serve to embolden courts to continue to approve these abuses. We as a people need to take a stand at some point and stand up against people like Ted Kennedy ( who supports these abuses ).
Honestly, I don’t know that much about the situations Christopher is talking about or eminent domain laws, but I would think that a good lawyer could point out that what happened to Didden was not in alignment with the intent of the eminent domain laws which were created to protect the interest of the public, not the interest of one individual over another.
The “current” thought is that private land seized by the government, then developed by the private sector, will increase tax revenues (and possibly create jobs) thereby “benefiting society” to a greater extent than private ownership would — this is absolutely an egregious abuse of power.
Unfortunately, FAR TOO MANY of the Sheeple in the US think this sort of shit will “help them” because the suckle from the teat of government programs (entitlements). They don’t see it effecting them until someone from the government actually shows up at their door telling them to move out of their family homestead so another Casino can be built… all for the “greater good of society”.
This is a prime reason to appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS.
Not that I have a strong opinion on the subject…
Wow! I didn’t notice the date on this one… somehow I missed it last year!