Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

At 12:52 PM 7/3/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> Gene writes:
>
> > Move on.
>
> If you like.  But email lists are for discussion, are they not?  If every
> topic is met with a quick 'move on', what's the point of discussing it to 
> begin with?

I agree. Should you wish to offer more information it is welcome. It seems 
to me that I have covered the subject from my point of view. I see no 
profit in reiteration. You and I can agree to disagree on this issue as 
four of the Supreme Court justices have done with their five colleagues. 
For them, the subject is closed until a more heinous taking presents itself 
and seems worthy of full pursuit by someone.

> Here's at least one aspect of it that hasn't yet been addressed:  The SC
> decision in Kelo does not enhance the individual's rights any, not one bit.
> People have always had the right to limit the authority of local 
> governments with respect to eninent domain, as many have.  Your 
> explaination  that Kelo is a good thing in that directs local governments 
> to decide the definition of 'public use' for themselves is a bit empty in 
> that locals have always had the prerogative to restrict those powers of 
> local governments.  The point would be well made if there were a decision 
> being handed down from the ffeds that *forced* local governments to accept 
> a liberal definition of 'public use' and the SC then decided that  this 
> had to be left up to the local goverment to decide.  But
> that's not the case.  Viewed from the point of interest of the individual
> property owner, Kelo does not enhance their position in any way 
> whatever.  It is a one-sided loss.

I see it as a clarification and a SCOTUS directive that municipal 
authorities must have a well-reasoned plan. Heretofore, cities have taken 
more easily. And they have done so often with voter agreement. Parks, 
schools, roadways, airports, and more have often derived from eminent 
domain proceedings which upset those displaced but pleased the larger 
community.

>   So while you might laud the notion of local governments having the 
> power to
> limit the definiton 'public use', Kelo does nothing to further that.

I quoted the passage earlier that persuades me differently.

> >No, the feds need to enforce that. As citizens we are free to move about
> >the country from state to state, from community to community.
>
> That's fine for those of the 'vagabond upon the earth' view of things but
> some of us have deep cultural and family ties to one place.  Displacing us 
> from there is far more agregious than failing to support our right to free 
> speech or freedom of religion.

I understand and am sensitive to that condition. I have often expressed my 
concern for the natives of my chosen Ozark County, who today barely prevail 
at election time when matters of school and taxes are determined. The day 
will come when we outsiders will outnumber the natives. I have a certain 
admiration of those who have stayed close to home. I have lived in six 
states plus the Army put me in other states and a foreign country, but I 
have never thought of myself as a vagabond. Nor so those who must travel or 
move for their work from state to state.

Again, I see real property as unique to place. But not the other 
constitutional gifts. And, alas for some, majority rules.