Liberty
Matters News Service
March 3, 2005
Arguments Heard in Kelo v. New London
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that could
impact the rights of property owners for years to come. The Court will decide
if the City of New London, CT can lawfully take private property only to turn
it over to another private entity that will generate more tax revenue. Early
media reports have given a negative slant to the Justices' questions and have
given rise to speculation the case is going badly for property rights'
interests. Justice O'Conner asked Wesley Horton, representing New London "If
the prospect of higher tax revenue justifies the forced transfer of property
from one owner to another, would it be appropriate for a city to decide that a
Motel 6 must give way to a Ritz-Carlton?" "Yes, your honor, it would be,"
replied Wesley Horton, New London's lawyer. Justice Scalia asked Horton; "You
can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?" Horton answers;
"Yes, if it's a significant amount." However, Steven Anderson, spokesman for
the Institute of Justice representing Suzanne Kelo, told Liberty Matters that
they remain quite positive about their chances. He indicated the Justices were
"clearly troubled by what the City of New London advocates, which is complete
access to any property anywhere as long as there is the mere possibility it
will make more money for the government." A decision from the U.S. Supreme
Court is not expected until June. Hopefully the Court will agree with Justice
William Paterson who wrote in the 1795 case, Vanhorn's Lessee v. Dorrance that
the state must not invoke the "despotic power ...of taking private
property...except in urgent cases. Where is the security, where the
inviolability of property, if the legislature...can take land from one citizen,
who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?"
The
Pirates of Eminent Domain
Rural Communities Face PILT Cuts
Rural communities are
wondering how they are going to make ends meet if the Bush administration
follows through with plans to reduce the amount of money budgeted for its
Payment In Lieu of Taxes program (PILT). Western states are largely owned by
the federal government and therefore do not have much private property to tax.
Nye County Commissioner Joni Eastly said if the cuts remain the feds will have
reneged on its promise. "We expect private landowners to fully meet their tax
obligations to Nye County and expect nothing different from the federal
government," she said. Montana's McCone County Commissioner, Connie Eissenger
said; "The administration is trying to balance its budget on the backs of local
government and we are not going to stand for that." Elko County Commissioner
John Ellison said there would be no problem "[I]f they [the feds] would allow
some of this land to go into private holdings, we would get our taxes," he
said.
Bush Plan Would Impact County Budget
$3,000 For Cuddly Prairie Dog
When the City of Denver built a series of
soccer fields right in the middle of a colony of 60 prairie dogs, nobody
anticipated the problems in store for the City. "[W]e thought they [the vermin]
could probably co-exist and it wouldn't be an issue," said Tiffiany Moehring,
spokeswoman for the Denver Parks and Recreation. Since the soccer fields'
completion in 2003, however, the little rodent's incessant digging has ruined
expensive landscapes and irrigation systems causing $83,000 in damage. The
Parks and Recreation Department figures it will cost $40,000 to $50,000 more to
install fencing and barriers to protect the fields, plus the costs of
relocating the animals. That will bring the tab to a minimum of $3,000 per
critter. "There are not enough animals left there to raise the price up too
high," says varmint-lover Kathy Boucher. Ron Sanders, Denver Parks and
Recreation Safety Director, sees it differently. "I'm not sure how one can look
at nuisance animals like prairie dogs any different than you look at rats which
are allowed to be eradicated by extreme means. Someone needs to make the hard
call here," he said.
Prairie Dog Relocation
Greens Favor Environment Over Homeland Security
The House recently passed legislation aimed
at discouraging states from issuing drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. The
bill also exempts the last 3 ½ mile stretch of a security fence along
the U. S./Mexico border from state and federal environmental laws and that has
environmentalists hopping mad. In a statement smacking of extreme irony, Peter
Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, said; "It's a
sad day when environmental destruction is wrapped around the cloak of the
politics of fear." Defenders of Wildlife attorney, Brian Segee said;
"[N]ational security is increasingly being linked to many environmental
issues." "[The border fence exemption] is part and parcel of a move to get out
from compliance of all the laws that ultraconservatives find offensive," said
Karen Wayland, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
However, Rep. Randy Cunningham, San Diego Republican put the legislation into
perspective: "The bottom line is that we must put homeland security first. We
need to know who is coming into our country."
Critics Slam Bill That Exempts Fence From
Environment Laws