States Acting to Protect Private Property

[True_Blue]

LAWNSIDE, N.J. — The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments could seize private property and hand it over to developers has set off a landslide of legislation in statehouses around the country.

Since the court expanded the definition of eminent domain in June in Kelo vs. City of New London, lawmakers in 47 states have introduced more than 325 measures to protect private property.

As many Democrats as Republicans have written these bills and constitutional amendments, sometimes moved by their own situations, such as fear that their aging parents' homes might be targeted.

"I have never seen a response to a Supreme Court decision this dramatic," said Larry Morandi, a land-use specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It is a gut issue, not a partisan issue at all. Whether you are a Massachusetts Democrat or a Republican in South Dakota, you are concerned about your home."

more....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-eminent16apr16,1,6000890.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[MADem]

1. Yeah, turning a Supreme Court Justice's home into a resort

will bring attention to the issue! New Hampshire stopped that, but it would have served him right!

Background here: http://www.freestarmedia.com/

A little over eight months prior five members of the U.S. Supreme Court destroyed our property rights by giving the green light to property takings for commercial development. I advocated using that ruling to commercially develop the land of one of those justices, David Souter, in a project called the Lost Liberty Hotel.

One hundred and ninety Weare voters signed a petition to this end while only twenty five were needed. Two candidates ran for town council as supporters of the project. The story was picked up by media across the nation and around the world. The issue of eminent domain abuse was now at the top of the news.

But simple minded politicians in Weare ignored the purpose of the project (to end eminent domain abuse) and made it an "us versus them" contest. Then ABC Nightline producer Dan Morris ran a story that was absurdly biased against the project. Later, Souter's friends changed the wording of the petition in a committee meeting a month before the election. And finally Kathy McCormack of the Associated Press wrote an article that was distributed to newspapers nationwide that implied that the town had voted the project down in February while the election was not until March 14. As if this wasn't enough Ms. McCormack then released an article about the March 14 election hours before the voting even started! Her central point was that the election didn't matter since it wouldn't affect the outcome of the project. More error and bias on her part. If Keith and Joshua were elected the town board would then have 2 out of 5 members who support the project. If another supporter was elected one year later pro- project board members would then be in the majority and the project could begin.

So, I regret to inform all those across America who supported this project that both pro-LLH candidates, Joshua Solomon and Keith Lacasse lost in their bid to become members of the Weare, New Hampshire Board of Selectmen (Town Council). The vote count was: Clow 955, Methot 853, Lacasse 452, Bohlin 354, Solomon 284. The top two vote-getters became Selectmen....