Quote:
Originally posted by RoninLB
this is a constitutional issue where the progressives won.
|
I'm not sure I agree with this, and not sure I agree with most of what is being concluded and assumed here. This is an interesting decision (by the local authority, by the way) because some will point at the local authority making the decision and call them "greedy," while others will conclude that the local authority was a pawn here, and the greedy party is the commercial interests. Sure, the local taxing authority stands to collect more tax revenues and sure, that was the basis for the eminent domain decision (there has to be a stated basis), but the real pressure behind this was likely not the comparatively modest tax revenue increase. It was the relatively breathtaking profits to be made. Pressure that Big Money places upon various organizations, including and especially local authorities, is intense to say the least. And coordinated. So, very likely the facts in this entire thick file are just the tip of the iceberg. So, I'm not sure this is a case of ultra-socialism. I suspect it is a case of ultra-capitalism. I think the developer was the big winner here, and the local authority was a pawn.
And again, many people are talking as if they believe this decision was made by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It was not. This recent decision was a decision by that Court not to stand in the shoes of the local authority. Big difference. For example, Justice Souter may think this was a bad decision. As a consequence of this decision in one jurisdiction, he may be fearful that a similar decision could be made regarding his property, located in another jurisdiction I'd guess. And he may become very vigilant with regard to his local authority (local residents have actual, objective influence over their local authorities....in a democracy....which is why the SC could leave this perview to them). And his decision would have been in spite of his property holdings, rather than because of them. But perhaps he voted for the right to decide this stuff at the local level as opposed to handing it to a federal level. As I said in another thread, if the SC gets into the business of reviewing the decisions of local authorities, they'll need nine hundred justices, not nine.