In 2005, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Kelo v. New London, using the powers of eminent domain to seize property from one private owner and hand it over to another private owner -- a developer who promised more than 3,000 new jobs and $1.2 million in tax revenue.
. . . the citys project has been a failure, with 91 acres of waterfront property sitting there empty and overgrown by weeds.
Now, we learn from the local newspaper, The Day, that following the hurricane Irene, the city has designated the Fort Trumbull redevelopment site as a place to dump vegetation debris. For a video of locals dumping that stuff on the site, click here.
Connecticut taxpayers have thus been soaked tens of millions of dollars, not just for nothing, but for making things worse for transforming a nice local neighborhood into a dump.
#1
This will be one of the worst decisions made by the SC this generation. Seizure of your property for private use is a huge violation of the constitution, no matter what those black robed ninnys say. Our founding fathers would have stalked off in disgust.
#2
I remember when the Supremes decision came out. Even my liberal mom was outraged. Supreme court judges who voted for this travesty should have been impeached, as it ran totally contrary to the principles of this country.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/03/2011 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Our founding fathers would have stalked off in disgust. Stalked off or worse--they were timid about tyranny.
"Public reaction to the decision was highly unfavorable and, as a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws. Prior to the Kelo decision, only eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, forty-three states have amended their eminent domain laws, although some of these changes are cosmetic."
Thought a group tried to take Justice Souter's farm by eminent domain after this decision. It was for the public good, of course.
#2
No, the surprising thing is that NPR said it's already too late to see any miraculous turnaround in the jobs picture before the election which acknowledges that increasing employment takes a great deal of time, no matter what is done. This is true for either party. it's hard to envision how sweeping his [candidate Romney's or the plan of any other possible GOP candidate's] plan could be given that he faces many of the same realities as Obama. it's a choice between the GOP and something worse will be the main point behind the GOP campaign. This may be enough to get rid of Zero. However, this will act to the GOP's disadvantage in the next mid-term election.
Indulging in class warfare may get a party elected, but does zero to increase employment. Perhaps some year the electorate will grasp this. NPR is started to get it.
#3
Wow, this is such bullsh$$, Anguper Hupomosing9418. It's really easy to turn the job situation around, and can be done in less than nine months. All it takes is some heavy lifting by Congress, something they're not terribly good at, and strong determination by a president and his cabinet to actually TURN THE ECONOMY AROUND, instead of playing class-warfare games. It's simple, three-step formula:
1) Get rid of uncertainty in the cost of hiring. Do that by eliminating Obumblecare and rescinding Dodd-Frank (replace it with something much better in the future - Wall Street does need to be regulated, or they'll pull another stupid stunt like the mortgage crisis).
2) Rein in the EPA, NLRB, DOJ, Homeland (In)Security, and the other loose cannons in this administration, and reduce the excessive government regulatory burden. Since 90% of it was imposed by presidential executive order, it can be undone with presidential executive order.
3) Cut government. Fifty percent of it does nothing productive, and 95% of it exceeds the enumerated powers Congress is given, or is outside the scope of the Constitutional mandate. Eliminating the waste and fraud will provide the money to expand the military so we can fight three wars without having to use the National Guard and Reserve as much as we are now, give us the funds to actually patrol the southern border and build that fence we need, and maybe even give us a little time to do some serious thinking about entitlement reform.
It's not rocket science. It just steps on a few toes, something no one in politics is willing to do. If it's not done by politicians, however, we'll have to resort to other means, because it MUST be done.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/03/2011 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I agree with OP. BUT, the problem is money. Not the money it costs but the money tap that this type of reform would shut down.
All the corruption in DC can't just be stopped I'm afraid. Virtually all of the machine would fight this and they would win since they control via their flunkies all means of communication and all of the pork to feed their storm troops.
Maybe. Methinks the soft-left wishes Mr. Obama would "go for broke" and is warning him to do so or else risk, at best, having tepid support from them for his re-election.
Facing fierce resistance from congressional Republicans, industry and some local officials, President Obama abruptly pulled back proposed smog standards Friday that would have compelled states and communities nationwide to reduce local air pollution or face federal penalties. He has always been for creating jobs. Besides, there will be time in his next term.
Key GOP lawmakers had identified the Environmental Protection Agency's restrictions for ground-level ozone, along with other air pollution regulations they described as "job-destroying," as targets for a regulatory rollback this fall. Members of the business community had launched an all-out public relations blitz against the rules, saying that they should be delayed in light of the economic downturn. An all out blitz is needed to de-rail a job-killing environmental jugernaut, with left full rudder, a lot of power.
In a statement, Obama praised EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's effort to improve the nation's air quality but said he had asked her to withdraw the draft standards because they were scheduled to be reconsidered two years from now anyway. I suppose that makes sense. To someone.
"I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover," Obama said. "Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered."
In January 2010, Jackson announced that she would set the standard between 60 and 70 parts per billion. In July, she informed the Senate that the Bush ozone standards -- which will now remain in place -- "were not legally defensible given the scientific evidence in the record" of the current rulemaking. Scientific evidence like global worming? Nobody will have a job, but they'll all live forever. Obama's decision was announced shortly after disheartening employment numbers were released Friday morning. It drew harsh reaction from environmentalists and their allies -- including a statement from MoveOn.org questioning why its members should work for the president's reelection -- highlighting the dangers the White House faces as it seeks middle ground among competing interests. Middle ground does not include MoveOn. Get over it.
Meanwhile, Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said future rules to limit mercury and greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants "will be critical tests of how serious the administration is when it comes to fighting climate change." I knew we'd find climate change in here somewhere!
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/03/2011 09:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
will be critical tests of how serious the administration is when it comes to destroying the US economy - I guess Obama is not THAT serious.
I'm afraid that the only thing Obama is serious about is getting reelected. Only then can he finish his mission. He needs to win Ohio etc in 2012. Blue New England he can count on in any case.
Expect also that the CO2 regs will be thrown under the bus, a dirty smog belching bus. Don't be fooled though. He hasn't changed; he just needs 4 more years.
Posted by: My two cents ||
09/03/2011 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Advancing in a different direction.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
09/03/2011 17:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Ozone is definitely a health hazard, but because it comes from so many sources, it will be hard to identify the sources.
And lest we forget, there is a vast international framework (Montreal Protocol) to STOP ozone depletion in the atmosphere.
So the USA would be in the situation of trying to decrease ozone lower down in the atmosphere, while simultaneouly increase ozone higher up in the atmosphere.
How you stop bad ozone becoming good ozone is anyone's guess.
#3
I have been to senior centers and when they have a guest speaker from that party it is what they will give or protect regarding their benefits. I guess others will do that but not so dramatic. Same thing I guess they are doing with any organization.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Obama's decision was announced shortly after disheartening employment numbers were released Friday morning. It drew harsh reaction from environmentalists and their allies -- including a statement from MoveOn.org questioning why its members should work for the president's reelection -- highlighting the dangers the White House faces as it seeks middle ground among competing interests.
