I'm absolutley sickened. The court just gave local governments the ability to take your land and give it to someone else (like, oh, I don't know, a contributor) if their use will bring in more tax revenue. I'm wondering what happens if it doesn't. Do they give it back? I think we all know the answer to that question.
The most frightening thing I've seen in ages:
Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.
He said promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted government function.
Accepted by whom, Justice Stevens? Not anyone who made it through Econ 101.
The thing is, those on the left don't understand that this is the end result of all the nanny statism, the smoking bans in bars, the zoning ordinances, and frankly, the position that it is morally right to take one person's stuff and give it to another if we (the Government) think it's a better use. They get all upset about tax money going to McDonalds to sell Big Macs in Europe, but not at all about building some park somewhere - missing the point that that part that's wrong is the redistribution of wealth. Some of the things done with that redistribution will be good things, but it's not their place to decide that. The ends don't justify the means.
Well, here's some more means for the Government to abuse. I'm going to have to load the shotgun tonight, lest the City of Baltimore decide my house would bring in more revenue if owned by a developer. They'll have to kill me.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment