Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

S B wrote:
> Phillip,
>
> I was listening to UNC NPR last week, who reported that NC already has 
> laws that mean the SC
> judgement won't have much effect here (unless the state rewrites/relaxes 
> those laws) - did NPR get it wrong ?

What I've been told is that NC law allows 9 situations in which
local governments can invoke eminent domain, and that promoting
private development is not one of them.  So yes, that would appear
to mean that this specific SC ruling would have little direct
impact here.  I have to admit that I have not had time to look
up the relevant statutes and read over them personally however,
but that "9 situations" thing was being discussed on one of the
talk radio stations, and supposedly came from some professor who's
an expert on this stuff.

Anyway, I personally feel that 9 situations to allow use of
eminent domain is 9 too many.  And since the issue is "in the air"
as a result of the SC ruling, it seems that now would be a good time
to try and gain additional protections for property rights in NC
as well.  I mean, if we could get that list of 9 reasons pared down
to, say, 5, that would be a victory.

So I would still encourage anyone who either: A. opposes Eminent Domain
on principle, or B. just wants to make sure it's not abused, to contact
their state government reps and let them know that we want the rights
of property owners protected.

I don't know about you guys n' gals, but I'll take any step towards
protecting fundamental rights that I can get. :-)


TTYL,


Phil
--
North Carolina - First In Freedom

Free America - Vote Libertarian
www.lp.org