photo of a camel’s nose under the tent
The Department of Homeland Security is stealing private property along the Mexican border via Eminent Domain and they are paying very little for it. The land is worth $10,000 an acre but the government is offering $1500 an acre. The landowners have no judicial recourse. Legal fees would amount to $60,000 and the land owners could lose, though one man plans to take on the government.
According to nogales international, the land being confiscated was originally leased in some cases and citizens didn’t mind doing it. Now the government has decided they don’t want to lease it and they will just take it.
One landowner who leased his property said that he didn’t realize at the time he leased his land that it would be the camel’s nose under the tent. He said they are taking his best land that he has owned since the fifties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated the purpose of the compensation requirement for government takings as follows: The Fifth Amendment guarantees that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation.
The government can do anything they want if the ignore the intent of the SCOTUS ruling , which they seem to have no problem doing.
Story first seen at Pat Dollard.com
In Philadelphia, eminent Domain was used to steal businesses and the properties of 36 people without notice, allegedly for affordable housing. The councilwoman claims she is paying fair market value. This is only one example of thousands. The government often threatens to condemn the property and give owners nothing if they fail to cooperate.
The arrogance of the councilwoman is undeniable:
The US Supreme Court of the United States in the Kelo decision made the determination that private property could be seized and turned over to private developers for the ‘betterment of the community.’ They left it open for abuse and it is being abused in the more liberal states.
Allowing the government to take private property, under the guise of Eminent Domain, for the purpose of turning it over to private developers, who are favored by a particular political group, is a form of corruption. Our government is doing exactly that.
Eminent Domain is the right of the government to take private property for public use and it has been in existence since the government’s founding. The Fifth Amendment was added to include just compensation for property taken. Unfortunately, over the years, public use has become for use by the public for private development, including privately owned shopping centers, conference centers, resorts, auto malls, movie theaters, and so on. A developer who curries favor can claim public use for land that would normally be sold privately.
Take the case of Suzette Kelo and the astounding admission by a state Supreme Court Justice.
In Kelo v. New London 2004 (Kelo v. New London 2004). The state decided to take Suzette Kelo’s beautiful waterview home, and her neighbors’ homes, for use as a resort hotel and conference center, a park, and a 80-100 new residence with office space. Suzette fought the case. The Supreme Court of Connecticut found that the economic project would create new jobs, increase tax revenues, and revitalize a depressed area, thus making it a public use case. On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the State of Connecticut (Kelo v. New London 2005).
The City eventually agreed to move Susette Kelo’s house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners.
The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a dump by the City (Wiki).
A journalist, who wrote a book about the Kelo case, recently gave a keynote address at a private dinner, in which he talked about Suzette Kelo’s personal story .
In a most astounding statement, one of the Connecticut Supreme Court Justices, Richard N. Palmer, approached Suzette Kelo and the journalist, Jeff Benedict, after the address, and said the following to them: “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.” Suzette and the journalist were speechless because his vote would have changed history.
The Justice “turned to Suzette, took her hand and offered a heartfelt apology. Tears trickled down her red cheeks. It was the first time in the 12-year saga that anyone had uttered the words ‘I’m sorry.’ It was all she could do to whisper the words: ‘Thank you.’” Read at The Hartford Courant