Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:03:17 GMT From: Bob <uctraingnospamanet.com> Subject: Re: Well, the convertible is on Ebay now.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:45:48 PST, mojavegnospamveg.iwvisp.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote: >We're splitting hairs here. While it's true that the >Supreme Court didn't say it was OK for governments to >take property solely for economic/tax gain, they >kicked the issue back to the State(s) which had already >decided that it was OK. Or, to use a double-negative, >the Supremes decided to not rule that it's not OK. Actually, I think you are right but for the wrong reasons. As I recall it (been a while), the Supreme Court made the original ruling based on interpreting the Constitutions regulations of taking land for "public use" as applying to a project that includes commercial development for the "public good". In this case "public good" means that one taxpayer will pay more in taxes than the existing taxpayer - although I may recall the city arguing that it was a larger issue of urban renewal. Previously the definition had been confined to a true ED project such as a highway or a park. I recall a specific 5-4 decision and opinions written by the majority and minority. That's not "return it to the lower court without ruling". In 2005, they refused to revisit the ruling. That is also not "return it to the lower court without ruling" - that's refusal to revisit.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
