Arguments are being heard today in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut. Case number 04-0108. A decision is expected in June. <br><br>The short version of what it's about:<br><br>In 1998 Pfizer decided to build a $270 million facility in New London. The developer also wanted to build a hotel, office space, condos, etc. adjacent to the facility. The only problem? A bunch of homeowners had just moved into the area and didn't want to sell. Now, you would think that under a capitalist system like ours, one of two things would happen:<br><br>1.) The developer would have to increase his offer for the land until the owners agreed to sell it, or...<br><br>2.) The developer would have to do without the land if the homeowners did not agree to sell. <br><br>But not these days. Citing 'eminent domain,' which is the power of governments to take land for a fair price for public use (highways, roads, school, library, etc.) they took the land. A notice was placed on the doors of these people's houses warning them that they had four months to move, or police would remove them by force.<br><br>The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the city, and now the Supreme Court has it. Hopefully they put a stop to this practice. <br><br>

bryan, is that you? who stole your password?<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.

Heh heh, I was going to post the same sort of smartass response.<br><br>Completely agree with you, Bry.<br><br>

That's terrible! I'm gonna side with the homeowners too. It's obvious the city is only concerned with money here.<br><br><br>

I'm surprised that the developer's side is appealing this all the way to the Supreme Court since it seems so cut and dry. Alas, this is the kind of world we live in today, where businesses think they have claim to all the powers of government.<br><br>I hope this goes 9-0 against the Connecticut Supreme Court. Unless there is something we don't know about this development, it's a flagrantly clear violation of constitutional rights.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey

HAHAHA...nah..still me. <br><br>This is actually happening all over the country, and this Supreme Court case will have implications beyond New London, Connecticut. <br><br>Basiclaly, money-hungry local governments see the dollar signs from the developers and, under the guise of "community development" they will take land by eminent domain. It's ridiculous that the government takes their property by force and at the same time decides what price to pay for it. <br><br>I wonder if they even get the courtesy of a reach-around?<br><br>

There has already been precedent for this type of taking for the community benefit. IIRC, it happened in Michigan with General Motors and some individual property owners back in the 70's. General Motors won.<br><br>

The Supreme Court needs to rule exactly what constitutes "eminent domain." Either that, or request Congress (shudder) to write it into law. <br><br>What qualifies? A road? A highway? A school? <br><br>It could be argued that a new Wal-Mart store benefits the community, should the land be taken from the farmer if he doesn't want to sell? It will be interesting to see how they come down on this one. <br><br>

I think congress might have to step in a create law for this.<br><br>scary, the supreme court seems to side with government taking the property, rather than the private property owners - <br><br>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html#1<br><br>

It's scary, but not surprising. At least in recent history, the Supreme Court has been siding mostly with the federal government; the exceptions being the Habeas Corpus claims in Guantanamo Bay. (Of course the claims against the due process claims were laughable at best.)<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey