IWA for Sunday January 7, 2006

Hey folks,

This is a major issue with me. I have ALWAYS seen eminent domain as legalized Grand Larceny. I am from the old school that states you buy a piece of property, you OWN it. That means, you can do whatever you want with it. Zoning laws are a problem with me also, but one I can live with. At least they make a resemblance of sense.

But when you give the Government or now apparently ANYONE the right to just take your property, is just flat out wrong. I see this as needing to be completely abolished all together.

Just like anything, once you crack the door, then someone will kick it in. What started out as THEFT of private property, is NOW seemingly legalized extortion and legalized blackmail. What else would you call this?

"The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.

Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain."

Seriously, this is nothing more than extortion. Put this in another situation. John doe wants to open a restaurant in NY. He gets permission by the powers to be to do so. But then he get’s a visit from the Strumboli Family. They say,

"Youse wanta open a restaurant here, no problem. Youse just got to pay Mr. Strumboli eight hundred grand for his blessing. Oh what, youse no have it? Forget about it. That’s no problem ither. Mr. Strumboli will be more than happy to be your partner. What? Youse no like that ither?"

Then before John Doe knows it, there’s another restaurant being built on what he thought was his land. Is what the above describes the same thing? Only it seems in this case, the Village of Port Chester has made it legal. This just make me sick.

"Lawyers for Didden took the matter to federal court. They even went to the FBI - all to no avail. Now they are asking the US Supreme Court to examine whether a private company can demand payment in exchange for refraining to seize private property in an urban renewal zone.

Property rights activists are hoping that a majority of the justices view Didden's case as an opportunity to clarify a portion of the high court's controversial decision in its last big eminent domain case, Kelo v. New London. In that June 2005 opinion, the court ruled 5-to-4 that local governments could seize private property and turn it over to a private developer when the action was part of an economic development project of benefit to the public.

Rebellion in the states The decision sparked a national backlash. Since then, 34 states passed laws restricting the use of eminent domain for private development. New York is not among them.

The US Constitution forbids government officials from taking the property of one person and giving it to another. But if the overall purpose is a public benefit, such as economic transformation or urban renewal, transfers of private property to a private developer are permissible, the high court has said."

What does this mean?

"Ms. Berliner says if the lower court rulings in this case stand, "it would mean that every redevelopment area in the country would be a Constitution-free zone. Any taking [of property], no matter how private, would be OK as long as it was in those areas.""

So because of greed, you are attempting to extort, blackmail, and steel Mr. Didden’s property, congratulations Mr.Gregg Wasser, you are MOST DEFINITELY, the Idoit of the Week.
Peter

Note: the above picture of the "Mob Guy" is actually Tano Grasso The President of the Italian Anti-Racket Authority at the Symposium. I wonder how he feels about this situation.