Still Pissed Off About the Hawley-Smoot Tariff

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Kelo Eviction Notices Out

Via Ace, (actually LauraW), the city of New Haven, Connecticut reneged on a promise not to evict the victims of the U.S. Supreme Court while the state decides whether to rewrite its eminent domain laws. Not that a broken promise or two should surprise anyone, as the city has already demonstrated its utter lack of integrity.


"What I find striking is the unanimous hue and cry against this from every political corner. The lefties could not friggin believe that it was THEIR GUYS in the Supreme Court that thought it was a good idea."

Unanimous is about right. Almost. Of course, the city council approved the plan. Some of the residents sued, and the trial judge actually split the result. He determined that land which was zoned for a park or marina could not be seized, but land zoned as office space could be. An odd result, to be sure, given that a marina and park is far more likely to be used by "the public" than an office building. So there's another person who favors the takings. The decision went up to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which split 4-3 in favor of letting the city seize all the lots. If you think that means there are three Connecticut judges who tried to defend citizens against government abuse, you're wrong. The three dissenters proposed a heightened standard of review for purely economic takings, decided the State hadn't met its burden of proof under the heightened standard, and agreed with the majority that in principle a state can take private property just to boost property taxes.

In other words, not a single judge in Connecticut actually opposed state seizures of private property to increase public tax revenues. So as much as a desperately want to agree with LauraW about a unanimous hue and cry, it simply doesn't hold true when applied to those valiant defenders of individual liberty: judges. Not a single one of them stood up to the state.