🚀 go-pugleaf

arminius wrote:
> "Iconoclast" <Iconoclast@tiscali.co.za> wrote in message
> news:s72dnRv9Gv-WFVXfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
> >
> http://www.americanpatrol.com/GUESTCOLUMNS/DWYER/EminentDomainMAD_050702.html
> >
> >   Originally published in the June 26, 2005 issue of the Alamance
> > Independent
> >
> >   Eminent Domain and The "Migrating" Hordes
> >
> >   By Mark Andrew Dwyer - 7/2/05
> >
> >   Eminent domain (from Latin dominium eminens meaning: supreme lordship)
> is
> > the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use
> > without the owner's consent [Wikipedia]. It gives the state, and -
> > therefore - whoever controls it, powerful, and in some countries,
> draconian
> > means to redistribute private wealth among, supposedly, all members of the
> > community or society. Although in the U.S. the exercise of eminent domain
> is
> > restricted by prohibition in Fifth Amendment that "private property be
> taken
> > for public use, without just compensation," the recent ruling of the
> Supreme
> > Court of the United States (see Footnote) creates a reasonable doubt about
> > the extent to which such a restriction can withstand pre-emptive pressure
> > mounted by eminent domain's prospective beneficiaries.
> >
> >   This doubt is particularly disturbing in today's America that has been a
> > target of million man invasion of foreign (mostly, Mexican) have-nots,
> often
> > referred to as "migrants," who due to their sheer numbers and exorbitant
> > fertility rates may soon gain enough political clout to force use of
> eminent
> > domain as a vehicle of involuntary transfer of property from wealthy
> > Americans to the "migrating" hordes (in order to "improve their lives," as
> > they say). If the present "migratory" trends continue, particularly if the
> > taxation remains at the current levels, condemnations of private property
> > for public housing and infrastructure that are needed to properly
> > accommodate poor "migrants" and their countless kids may become a
> political
> > necessity that no federal judge can resist. And since the term "just
> > compensation" of the language of Fifth Amendment is equally vulnerable to
> > court's capricious interpretation as "public use" has been, don't hold
> your
> > breath if you expect to get a fair market value for your home that your
> city
> > council decided to turn into an apartment complex for four families of
> > "migrants" (and additional relatives from abroad that may wish to be
> > "reunited" with these families).
> >
> >   Take, for instance, Los Angeles, not much more than just a cow town with
> > population of few thousand in the middle of 19th century, and a megapolis
> > inhabited by almost 4 million people and the second (after Mexico City)
> > largest concentration of Mexicans on Earth today. US Census statistics
> show
> > that slightly less than 50% of L.A.'s population, or about 1.7 million, is
> > Hispanic (although some estimates suggest that there are as many as 2.7
> > millions Mexicans living in L.A.), some 1.3 million of whom have settled
> in
> > the city in the last 15 years. The proportion of Hispanic (mostly Mexican)
> > pupils in L.A. Unified School District reached the astounding 80% and is
> > indicative of future demographic composition of the City of Angels. With
> > poverty rates among Hispanic "migrants" and home prices soaring, it's not
> > difficult to predict the pressure that will build to redistribute private
> > real property among the dominating but poor Mexicans as their numbers
> grow.
> > And the City Council (guess, what ethnic group will have a majority of
> vote
> > there?), empowered to condemn a private property by the last week's
> decision
> > of the Supreme Court, will be the least likely body to not yield to that
> > pressure.
> >
> >   The above scenario is but one example of ways and means with which the
> > "migrating" hordes can redistribute Americans' wealth among themselves. In
> a
> > country that is so vulnerable to arbitrary interpretation of its
> > constitution by five judges with political agendas of their own and ruled
> by
> > a majority of vote (for which a proof of citizenship is usually not
> > required), as the U.S. is, due enforcement of the border and immigration
> > laws is a necessary condition for meaningful protection of liberty and
> > property of its citizens. If the border and the immigration laws are not
> > fully enforced, the only way for Americans to survive the mass invasion of
> > poor but prolific "migrants," a hostile take-over if you will, and to keep
> > their "wealth" intact, would be to abandon birth control altogether, like
> so
> > many "migrants" do, and enter a spiral of exponential population growth.
> > This would resemble the nuclear weapon race that characterized the by-gone
> > Cold War era - a strategy that once was deemed losing for all parties
> > involved in the race.
> >
> >   Wouldn't it be much better to keep the invading hordes out? The eminent
> > domain law is one of the many reasons for resounding "Yes" to this
> question.
> > It may well be the most important one.
> >
> >   FOOTNOTE. The term "public use" in the Fifth Amendment used to be
> narrowly
> > interpreted as projects of obviously public nature such as public roads or
> > schools, but not anymore. The 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court decided
> last
> > Thursday (June 23, 2005) in Susette Kelo et al. versus City of New London
> et
> > al. that a city can condemn (seize with just compensation, that is) a
> > private property for projects that, although not obviously public, would
> > increase city's tax revenues or boost employment. "As a result, cities now
> > have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls
> > and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue" (quotation from
> > "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes," by Hope Yen, The Washington
> > Post, June 23, 2005,
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html )
> > . Although a vast majority of critics of the Court's ruling fear that, as
> a
> > result of that decision, wealthy entrepreneurs may be able to de facto
> evict
> > fixed income citizens from their homes now, I see the future Marxist-style
> > "social justice" as being more likely to use the ruling as a precedent. If
> > generating tax revenue or boosting employment is enough for condemnation
> why
> > would one expect that cheap housing for poor "migrant" workers and their
> > families is not? Just remember that out of five justices that were in
> favor
> > of the ruling, four (Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter) concurred with
> Al
> > Gore in Florida recount controversy in 2000, and one (Kennedy) was a
> > notorious swing vote that often sided with the liberal faction of the
> Court.
>
> Fine article with an approach new to most of us.
>
> Hank
> >
> >

 "If generating tax revenue or boosting employment is enough for
condemnation why would one expect that cheap housing for poor "migrant"
workers and their families is not?"

Because the objective is precisely to GENERATE MORE REVENUE for the
gov. Cheap housing for the poor would NOT generate more revenue, would
it? The conclusion is baseless.