Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
===============================================================
“ (a) Though the city could not take petitioners?land simply to confer
a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467
U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to
a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted ?o
benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,?ibid. “
And yet is that not precisely what is being dine here? The owners of the REIT that will own the office complex is a class of identifiable individuals; so are the occupants of the office space.
“Moreover,
while the city is not planning to open the condemned land?t least
not in its entirety?o use by the general public, this ?ourt long ago
rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into
use for the . . . public.?Id., at 244.”
Then the Court is wrong and should reverse itself. The meaning of the language in the 4th amendment is plain enough. This is thievery under cover of law.
“The city? determination that the area at issue was sufficiently
distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to
deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that
it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including,
but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with
other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying
to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational
land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the
sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state
statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to
promote economic development. Given the plan? comprehensive character,
the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited
scope of this Court? review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as
it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not
on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because
that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged
here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.”
The 5th amendement requires “public use”. This clearly fails that test since it becomes private property in the conversion.
“(c) Petitioners?proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule
that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported
by neither precedent nor logic.”
There absolutely is. A city cannot deny me access to its public property without due process. A provate owner can simply claim trespass.
“Promoting economic development
is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and
there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public
purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at
24.”
Nuts. See above.
“The city council also authorized the NLDC to purchase
property or to acquire property by exercising eminent
domain in the City? name. ??93. The NLDC successfully
negotiated the purchase of most of the real estate in
the 90-acre area, but its negotiations with petitioners
failed. As a consequence, in November 2000, the NLDC
initiated the condemnation proceedings that gave rise to
this case.3”
The city had the option of making the unwilling sellers a large enough offer to get them to accept. Instead it chose to use police muscle to strong arm them. Again, theft, under cover of law.
“There is no
allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise
in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development
area.”
More proof that this is simply legal thievery.
“Next, relying on
cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467
U. S. 229 (1984), and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26
(1954), the court held that such economic development
qualified as a valid public use under both the Federal and
State Constitutions.”
Then the clause of the State Constitution allowing this is in violation of Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States of America and should be struck down.
“As for the first proposition, the City would no doubt be
forbidden from taking petitioners?land for the purpose of
conferring a private benefit on a particular private party.
See Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245 (? purely private taking
could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement;
it would serve no legitimate purpose of government
and would thus be void?; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska,
164 U. S. 403 (1896).5 Nor would the City be allowed
to take property under the mere pretext of a public
purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private
benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed
pursuant to a ?arefully considered?development
plan. 268 Conn., at 54, 843 A. 2d, at 536. The trial judge
and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut
agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose
in this case.6”
It is is easily shown that particular private parties are the beneficiaries of the misuse of the police powers of he state.
“And while the City
intends to transfer certain of the parcels to a private developer in a
long-term lease?hich developer, in turn, is expected to lease the challenged in Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the City? development plan was not adopted ?o benefit a particular class of
identifiable individuals.”
An admission of my previous charges.
Enough for now. The rest is rehash. A state constitution CANNOT abridge a private citizen’s right to criticize the state government; Similarly, it cannot abrogate fifth amendment rights.
a257.g.akamaitech.net |
