![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/23-supreme-court.w700.h467-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Yesterday we had a blurb on the Supreme Court getting it right – good for them. People also need to remember that they also get it wrong,\u00a0 and have to reverse themselves. “Well, we phrased the decision poorly and idiots will now try to twist the law to their own benefit” such as Hunter’s defense tried with Bruen, or the following.<\/p>\n
As fireworks burst in the sky on Independence Day 2018, Roxanne and Carter Maier were putting in yet another grueling 14-hour day of remodeling a former doctor’s office into a dance studio in Brentwood, a small suburb of\u00a0St. Louis, Missouri.<\/p>\n
But just a few years later, the city declared a strip of businesses \u2014 including the Maiers’ \u2014 and small industrial buildings blighted. It moved to hand over the land to a private developer in a $436 million deal that seeks to use eminent domain to force out existing property owners and replace them with apartments, a hotel, office space, a microbrewery and stores.<\/p>\n
\nThe developer behind the project estimated it would generate more than $266 million in new revenue over the next 25 years.<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe catalyst for the case happened around the turn of the millennium in Connecticut. After pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant in New London in 1998 \u2014 with the added bonus of an 80% tax abatement \u2014 the city wanted to revitalize the surrounding area. Officials approved a development plan that required seizing homes and selling the property to developers to build new commercial and residential complexes. The city also agreed to kick in $78 million for the project.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe property owners argued seizing their homes to sell to private companies was not a public use.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\nBut in a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure qualified as “public use” because the city was following an economic development plan, not just trying to benefit a certain group of private citizens.<\/p>\n
Within a year of the decision, local governments condemned or threatened eminent domain against nearly 6,000 homes, churches, businesses and other private properties, according to Institute for Justice researchers.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court ruling also triggered a nationwide backlash, and soon, 43 state legislatures and eight state supreme courts strengthened protections for property owners, including Missouri, where lawmakers passed a bill in 2006 specifying that property can’t be seized solely for economic development.<\/p>\n
But Missouri and other states included a carve-out that would prove critical. Cities could still move to seize blighted areas, defined by Missouri law as having “insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements” or other factors that present “economic or social liability.”<\/p>\n
That broad definition can be used to condemn entire neighborhoods, even if individual homes or other properties are in spectacular condition, according to the state. \u00a0Fox News<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So all you need are a few corrupt politicians (as Mark Twain famously said: forgive me, but I repeat myself)\u00a0 to declare any kind of area blighted and they can condemn it for their developer pals to redevelop.<\/p>\n
They made a bad call in 2005. Hmm, that damn conservative court – oops, this was when it, and the votes, was 5-4 “liberal”.\u00a0 \u00a0Hopefully this, and\u00a0 civil asset forfeiture, will get some attention soon. Ain’t it great living in a free country?<\/p>\n
Do you ever wonder whether the “Patriot Act” would pass Court muster today?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"