Eminent Domain...thanks, Supreme Court

As many of us predicted the politicians are using this ruling against the public.
Here's the latest one from NJ. :mad:

On May 21, Albert G. Mauti Jr. and his cousin Joseph hosted a fundraiser for Assemblyman Joseph Cryan at the Westmount Country Club in Passaic County. The two developers and family members picked up the $10,400 dinner tab, donated another $8,000 and raised more than $70,000 that night for the powerful Union County Democrat, according to state election records.

Three days later, the governing body in Cryan's hometown of Union Township -- all Democrats -- introduced an ordinance paving the way for the Mautis to build 90 or so townhouses on six acres of abandoned industrial land along the Conrail line in town.

There is just one problem: Union Township doesn't own the land.

It is owned by Carol Segal, a 65-year-old retired electrical engineer. Over the past 10 years, the Union Township resident says, he has spent about $1.5 million to acquire the property, and he, too, wants to build townhouses there.

Much more at the link.

I believe they call that "bringing home the bacon." ;)

One thing I didn't get from the article, though. It sounds like the dispute is more over whether the Township gets to choose which builder will be handed the development plum or whether the current owner will pick the builder. I agree that it should be up to the property owner, but it doesn't sound as though the property is actually being "stolen" from him.

Good. We need someone to abuse the holy hell out of this insane ruling to get it reversed. Too bad for Segal but it looks like he's the latest casualty in a series of Marxist distortions of the Fifth Amendment.

VOTE LOCAL!!!

The piece of this debacle that I don't think is getting enough attention is the fact that people are willing to elect local leaders who would abuse this ruling. It's not like it's some rouge band of armed desperadoes riding around seizing property; these are duly elected officials.

Maybe we should make it mandatory that before you get to vote for, and bitch about, national candidates, you must become informed and vote in local elections.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

....Union Township -- all Democrats...

I'll see about sending a cat 5 over there too.

This will teach the owner to not know what to kiss and when.

God wrote:

I'll see about sending a cat 5 over there too.

:biglaugha

Actually, it's a new issue. In both cases, new homes will be built. If the township cannot demonstrate that their proposal is more in the public interest than the use the owner intends, one set of house versus another, it becomes a different issue than what the Supreme Court voted on.

Also, with another developer involved, they are going up against a serious opponent instead of rolling over a single citizen.

It sounds interesting.

The current owner needs to get a few loads of PCBs, mercury, dioxin, etc, and plow it into the land. Then, once the legal proceedings are finished, arrange for it to be "discovered". They could probably turn around and sue him for the cleanup cost, but he's 65... he ought to be able to delay it long enough to die.

russotto wrote:

The current owner needs to get a few loads of PCBs, mercury, dioxin, etc, and plow it into the land. Then, once the legal proceedings are finished, arrange for it to be "discovered". They could probably turn around and sue him for the cleanup cost, but he's 65... he ought to be able to delay it long enough to die.

Sue? Maybe after he got out of federal prison.

A better bet is to plant a few "endangered" species native to the area on the grounds then alert the environmental nazis to your "new" discovery.