The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

25 June 2005

Post-Kelo

While I wrestle with the question of whether state laws more restrictive than Connecticut's will prevent the sort of travesty that's taking place in New London — first guess is that they might, but developers tend to have deeper pockets than mere property owners, which probably means expensive litigation — McGehee has already jumped in with a proposed Constitutional amendment.

Frankly, I don't think that will wash; doesn't the Constitution already have a provision barring ex post fathead laws?

And The Downtown Guy points out a local angle here in Oklahoma City, which has cleared lots of old buildings over the years.

Posted at 8:01 AM to Political Science Fiction


TrackBack: 4:05 PM, 25 June 2005
» Can State Laws Prevent Eminent Domain Abuse? from Musings from Brian J. Noggle
Some bloggers think that restrictive state statutes might prevent eminent domain abuse. Like Owen at Boots and Sabers: As this ruling states, "for more than a century," the high court has favored "affording legislatures broad latitude in determining......[read more]

Ah, but see -- it's not a retroactive penalty, it's simply a provision so that people who like unrestricted eminent domain can continue to have unrestricted eminent domain.

Nothing punitive about it -- we're just giving 'em what they want.

Posted by: McGehee at 5:14 PM on 25 June 2005