My main man Bush.....show the Supreme Court that the Constitution cannot be rewritten: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html
Except executive orders go over the executive power granted in the Constitution. Go ahead and show those people you respect the Constitution by usurping the legislatures power of passing laws.
But at any rate, if this makes the whole 'eminent domain' thing more difficult to throw around, then props to Bush.
I have mixed feeling on this one. We need some way to make the call that allows some flexibility on a case-by-case basis While the notion that the government can take away your property only to sell it to a developer sound harsh and unfair, there is also a vital need for cities to redevelop blighted areas and continue to modernize. For instance I don't think a developer should be able to target some land you own and operate as a car wash and influence the city to take it by eminent domain to build a more profitable hotel. Let the developer pay the owner enough cash to make it worth his while to sell . . . or go find another location that is available cheap. But in cases where a city is trying to revitalize a dead downtown or redeveop a blighted neighborhood, it requires that the whole area be upgraded. You can't just let dilapidated business properties clutter an area that you want to attract new business to--they won't come. Just because a few owners don't need the money or don't care to sell, it shouldn't preclude a city from bettering itself. But a family home is different and a city should have a very good reason if they must take a family home and it shouldn't be to simply get more taxes from the property by forcing a sale below what the family deserves. If it must be done, let the family get the big profit, not the redeveloper.
I don't think this is a genuine executive order. I certainly hope not because it would suggest that President Bush does not realize that executive orders do not override supreme court decisions.
Red's for good old-fashioned socialism. Figures that you would be for this type of thing. Bet there's not a tax don't you like either. Problem comes in where the city forms a "community revitalization" company, then offers to buy your land to sell to developers. You say no, next thing is they declare your land blighted. If you want the government deciding when and where your property is blighted so they can take it from you, go ahead and live in that world Red. I'll take Constitution as it was written. Constitution says "for PUBLIC use".....not PRIVATE use.
It's a genuine executive order, whatever that is. It's an order whereby the government and Attorney Genral's office will monitor the taking of private land for public use and sue the municipalities when this happens, if it was for tax reasons. Even though the SC may allow it now, this would help bring another case back to the SC to review the past New Haven ruling.
Nothing I've said is socialism. Eminent domain is US law, did you forget? LSUCraig's for good old-fashioned McCarthyism. Read the post, I said I had mixed feelings. Bet there nothing you wouldn't make up just to start an argument. I said nothing about private use. I said "cities", which is a public institution.
