Showing posts with label eminent domain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eminent domain. Show all posts

Monday, June 23, 2008

Stop Eminent Domain Abuse: Support the Institute for Justice on Kelo Day

Kelo Day - June 23, 2008

The Institute for Justice is memorializing Kelo Day, the third anniversary of the decision that permitted rapacious politicians to seize private homes in the interest of sub-prime mortgage lenders and the inept real estate developers whom they finance. The Republicans, led by Bill Frist, the Duke of Bloat,dropped the ball in the Senate on passing legislation that would have limited federal subsidies to states that permit private-use eminent domain. Now, the Republicans cannot understand why they are not receiving much public support. According to Suzette Kelo on behalf of the Institute for Justice:

"On this, the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision, I’m asking for 10,000 people to join me in donating to the non-profit legal foundation that stood by me all the way to the Supreme Court, and continues to stand by heroic individuals fighting to keep the homes that are rightfully theirs.

"Eminent domain abuse continues coast-to-coast! Despite tremendous gains in state courts and state legislatures since the Supreme Court’s ruling, eminent domain abuse is still rampant. Click on the links below to read more."

Kelo Day - June 23, 2008

Friday, February 1, 2008

Eminent Domain: New York Plaintiffs to Appeal to Supreme Court

The Second Circuit Court of New York has ruled in favor of private use eminent domain. Christina Walsh of the Castle Coalition has forwarded a link to the following press release:

For Immediate Release: February 1, 2008

Circuit Court Rules Against Homeowners, Business Owners and Tenants in Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Appeal

Plaintiffs Intend to Ask US Supreme Court to Hear Their Case

Plaintiffs Will Seek All Legal Remedies to Protect Their Homes and Businesses From Seizure by New York State

New York, NY— The Second Circuit Court today ruled against 14 homeowners, business owners and tenants in their appeal of their lawsuit alleging that New York State's use of eminent domain to take their properties for Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project violates the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff said, "Today's decision is disappointing. We disagree with its conclusion. We intend to ask the US Supreme Court to hear our case, and will continue to pursue every avenue available to prevent the unlawful seizure of my clients' homes for Bruce Ratner's enrichment. The court today affirmed that the government is free to take private homes and businesses and give them to influential citizens as long as one can imagine a conceivable benefit to the public, no matter how small or unlikely it may be. Indeed, it does not matter if all evidence points to a secret back room deal. All corrupt politicians need do to insulate themselves from judicial scrutiny is claim a benefit to the public. This is wrong. It should trouble all citizens who, unlike Bruce Ratner, lack the power and money to coopt the governments' power of eminent domain for their private use. We believe that the United States Supreme Court will welcome the opportunity to clarify this area in light of its widely criticized Kelo decision."

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn legal director Candace Carponter said, "Our support of the fight of citizens to live safely in their homes, and operate safely in their business, will continue. We maintain that the government's motivation in using eminent domain for Atlantic Yards is not to benefit the public, but rather, to benefit a single, very rich and powerful developer. The seizure of our neighbors' homes and businesses is at the very foundation of the Atlantic Yards project. It is a foundation that must not stand. Now is the time for our elected leaders, who have frequently expressed grave concern about the abuse of eminent domain, to publicly stand in defense of everyday Brooklynites and New Yorkers."

The 2nd Circuit Court's opinion on the case, Goldstein v. Pataki, can be found here