See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The Tweezer's Edge
2. zocor
3. garden-fountain
4. penis enlargement
5. astelin
6. bedroom-furniture
7. keno
8. zocor
9. test 9640
10. binoculars 7801
11. credit report repair
12. 4853-credit report
13. 8763-counseling credit
14. 8213-appetite suppressant
15. sports betting tip
16. alaska fishing guide
17. find unclaimed money

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 31st, 2004 at 4:09 pm, David D said:

   This is a very good thing. Very good. I’ve often thought that land-grabs like this were an example of why the second amendment is so important: it’s harder to steal from someone who is armed.

2. #2
   On July 31st, 2004 at 4:18 pm, Christoffel van Vuuen said:

   This kind of thing should not happen at all in the land of the free!
   I thought capitalism was based, among other things, on private land owner ship.
   In a democracy the government should be in no position to steal from the people!

3. #3
   On July 31st, 2004 at 4:30 pm, Keith said:

   Property grabs in some respect have included the taking homes from those failing to pay property taxes. One way to think about this is that you do not own your home and the land it sits upon, the city county or state government really owns the property and you just rent it from them. That is you may occupy the property as long as you pay the tax (rent)
   imposed upon it.

4. #4
   On July 31st, 2004 at 4:41 pm, actus said:

   “I have a feeling that the New York Times, which has benefited from exactly this kind of legalized theft in the name of reducing “blight,” will not be putting this story on the front page”

   Reducing blight is still allowed.

5. #5
   On July 31st, 2004 at 5:24 pm, Mike H. said:

   Per the previous post (QotD), Uh Rah and Semper Fidelis!

6. #6
   On July 31st, 2004 at 5:28 pm, demonsurfer said:

   I’m wondering if any of you (including Michelle) are concerned that what you write here may come back to bite you. I’m a New Zealander living in New York at the moment, and I’ve written the occasional paragraph or three of what could be interpreted at a stretch as being critical of the US government or judicial system (among other things). I’ve since been warned by one or two people in the legal community to be careful what I write. Freedom of speech is all good and fine, as long as you keep it patriotic apparently. If people from the legal community are telling you to be careful, then I have to wonder if the US is turning into that which it is supposed to be fighting against..

7. #7
   On July 31st, 2004 at 5:50 pm, The Contrarian said:

   demonsurfer:

   Free speech is okay if you keep it patriotic? Ever read the New York Times? The Nation? Democratic Underground?

   Please. There’s plenty of criticism of our government, whether it is legitimate or baseless. I do not see any great deal of evidence that the government is “crushing dissent.”

8. #8
   On July 31st, 2004 at 7:52 pm, Fred said:

   demonsurfer, you’ve got nothing to worry about.

   This is a great victory for people who have been fighting this for some time. This is not a Right or Left issue, as both sides commit the abuses of eminent domain when it pleases them. 60 Minutes had an excellent piece last September on the NYT and their efforts to take private land they wanted.

   The problem isn’t combatting blight: It’s the government taking private land which is not in default on taxes and giving it to another private party.

   While I am a solid New Dem, I applaud groups like the Liberterian Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org/index.shtml) for carrying the torch on this for so long.

9. #9
   On July 31st, 2004 at 7:55 pm, Expertise said:

   What a HUGE victory for property rights. The government should never be allowed to use eminent domain to seize property for other land owners. This was starting to become a problem, and I’m glad the Supreme Court finally put an end to this illegal and deceitful practice.

10. #10
    On July 31st, 2004 at 8:11 pm, Duane said:

    It’s not often that a news story will make my blood boil but every time I hear about some small landowner being forced to turn over his land to the “state” to give to another private entity I get all fired up.

    This is great news and along with other recent decisions by state supreme courts we may see an end to this practice.

11. #11
    On July 31st, 2004 at 8:49 pm, Jamie Freedom said:

    As a lifelong Michigander and resident of metropolitan Detroit, I couldn’t be happier about this ruling. This won’t end the political bribery, graft and cronyism that has been rampant in Detroit for 30 years now, but it’s a nice start.

12. #12
    On July 31st, 2004 at 9:04 pm, demonsurfer said:

    I can’t remember the name of the site, but a while back federal authorities arrested the owner of a popular site that always had controversial issues on it.. some of you may recall it.. the charge was based on a comment left by a visitor to the site quite some time earlier who discussed how to make chlorine bombs or cherry bombs or something relatively harmless like that. The authorities used that (and I guess the Patriot Act) to say that his site therefore supplied information that was a threat to national security. He was arrested and the site shut down. I never heard what happened in the end, but that was basically the story as I know it. That is why I asked what I did here earlier.

13. #13
    On July 31st, 2004 at 9:06 pm, demonsurfer said:

    .. err, my point being; it was an excuse to shut him up for making people think about what’s really going on in the land of the free…

14. #14
    On July 31st, 2004 at 10:35 pm, demonsurfer said:

    Think this may have been the one:
    http://rwor.org/a/v23/1140-1147/1142/raisethefist.htm

    Also (unrelated) check this out:
    http://john.hoke.org/archive/2004/07/only_white_phot.php

15. #15
    On July 31st, 2004 at 10:46 pm, demonsurfer said:

    and a big long interview with the site owner here:
    http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/02/115364.php

16. #16
    On July 31st, 2004 at 11:22 pm, Downriver Rat said:

    The real shame of the Poletown land-grab is that the area was among the most stable neighborhoods in Detroit. The houses were of 1920s vintage, but they generally were well maintained. The shops were small and old, but they served the residents well.

    At the same time, large swathes of the city were covered with vacant or burned-out homes. The city would have been in a win-win situation had Mayor Coleman Young tried to persuade General Motors to accept an alternative site at a depopulated area, but I don’t think he even tried.

    Maybe Young thought it was payback for the city’s decision to raze Hastings Street, the black cultural center of Detroit, to build an interstate highway in the 1960s.

    In any event, there’s a whole lot of empty space in Detroit, which had about 2 million people in the early 1950s and is down to about 950,000 (and falling) today.

    It’s better late than never that the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a horrible ruling that ignores a citizen’s basic rights.

17. #17
    On July 31st, 2004 at 11:29 pm, biff said:

    Michelle,thanks for focusing on this
    issue.It cuts across all party lines
    and reminds us of why Reagen wanted us
    to minimize government and all who sought
    a permanent(non competitive) job in it.

18. #18
    On July 31st, 2004 at 11:30 pm, Jim Martin said:

    demonsurfer wrote: If people from the legal community are telling you to be careful, then I have to wonder if the US is turning into that which it is supposed to be fighting against..

    Many students learn, or hear about, in the course of their education that: the federal government can seize private property in an extreme national emergency. That, in fact, no one owns their home or business since we pay for it with money printed by the federal government. This also applies to every thing we buy. Of course, we do not expect this to ever happen.

    I think most “eminent domain” seizures happen when the property owner refuses the amount offered for his or her property, which probably is below its current value. The state or city sees the property, once transferred to the new owner, as producing higher taxes and therefore more desirable.

    There are all sorts of injustices like this which are difficult to understand. In the 1950s thru the 1970s annexsation became the big bugga-bear for people who did not want to be switched from living in a county with low taxes to living in a city, especially when the city failed to deliver on promised improvements in their neighborhoods.

    Progress, improvement, growth are not always desireable by everyone.

    The current ruling is long past due and should clear the air, for a while.

19. #19
    On July 31st, 2004 at 11:43 pm, StinKerr said:

    demonsurfer,

    Freedom of speech is alive and well in the U.S.. It does hsve some reasonable limits though. There’s the usual example of yelling ‘fire’ in a theater which would likely cause panic and lead to injuries or worse. Advocating violent overthrow of the government is also a no-no. I’m sure it’s pretty much like that everywhere.

    Considering that there are built in devices and methods to change the government here WITHIN the rules, we like to think that violent overthrow is unnecessary.

    Remembering that there have been four Presidents assassinated and numerous attempts; Reagan, Ford, Truman and both Roosevelts come immediately to mind, it is also a thing we take seriously and try to prevent.

    So you can rant all you want about what a terrible place this is and what a horrible government we have but if you’re going to advocate violent overthrow or assassination you are going to get a lot of intense and probably unwanted attention quicker than you can imagine. (and rightfully so)

20. #20
    On July 31st, 2004 at 11:53 pm, Baklava said:

    Poletown?

    Sounds like my kind of place!

21. #21
    On August 1st, 2004 at 12:09 am, demonsurfer said:

    StinKerr, Yeah I hear ya

22. #22
    On August 1st, 2004 at 3:12 am, JEF said:

    I heard that not only did the New York Times receive the land its headquarters sits on in this manner, I also heard that New York has exempted them from paying taxes on the land as well.

23. #23
    On August 1st, 2004 at 8:12 am, Blind Chick Racing said:

    My uncle lost his NYC Jewish deli to emminent-domain abuse some 12 yrs ago. It was at that time I realized that freedom and personal property rights are directly inter-twined and co-dependent.

    Since that time, I have cataloged profligate abuses of the Poletown decision in 49 states (New Hampshire being the lone exception). Maybe one day my amassed “evidence” will see the light of day in a court of Law.

    So often, what the Supremes do has little to do with the Law, even less to do with right & wrong and nothing at all to do with Justice. However, that being said, it is wholly unreasonable to expect 100% perfection from human institutions. We have a right to expect people to do the best they can, to the best of their abillity, guided by unwavering Principle. Nothing more.

    Since money equals power in the US Empire, I was quite surprised by the Poletown reversal. Maybe there is hope after all. Maybe the light at the end of the tunnel is indeed the Shining City Upon the Hill.

    We still have much work to do.

24. #24
    On August 1st, 2004 at 8:24 am, Walter E. Wallis said:

    Check the history of the Hispanic family forcibly removed fron their house to build Dodger Stadium.

25. #25
    On August 1st, 2004 at 9:24 pm, J at TAotB said:

    Thank god this case did not happen in Florida. Can you imagine their twisted arguments which would come out saying that private landowners must “voluntarily” “give up” their land for nothing for the good of the people?

    Screw that!

    Way to go Michigan Supreme Court!