<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Monday, July 25, 2005


Eminent Domain In New Jersey

Here's an interesting article from NJ. The short story is that the city of Lodi has targeted a trailer park for eminent domain-mediated 'redevelopment' and residents are fighting back:

Lodi receives between $200,000 and $250,000 in tax revenue from the trailer parks, according to borough officials. After redevelopment as an age-restricted residential community and retail complex, those revenues will increase to between $2.2 and $2.4 million, Mayor Gary Paparozzi said.
Residents have refused to go quietly.

About 150 trailer park residents have formed Save Our Homes and held several fundraisers to pay for legal fees. They have hired an attorney to argue that the use of eminent domain in this case is an abuse of power. Their court battle, with little chance of success, is ongoing.
You all know my feelings about eminent domain, and this case is no different. The only variation here is that none of these people own the land, and yet the article is phrased to imply that the renters are the victims of an unconstitutional eminent domain taking. In reality, the landowner has every right to sell the property whenever s/he wishes. Of course, if he/she refuses to sell and the city takes it and hands it over to a private company, then we have the same issue as in New London.

The reason I post this is to help keep the real issue in mind here. Eminent domain is not wrong because it kicks people out of their homes. Eminent domain is wrong when land is taken from one individual and given to another private individual or entity. Period.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?