There is no argument to what you have to say in your post. We are all emotionally attached to our homes, our families and our dogs. In my area, many have love affairs with their pickum-up trucks.
You say, "because they're addressing something you're not: Fairness." And you are entirely correct. Fairness is not at issue, equity is. At law we can achieve equity, but fairness is a subjective concept neither approachable nor applicable to the codification of law.
I have probably never been "fair" in raising my children for example. My daughter always complained of this. My answer was that I didn't have to be fair, I was her daddy. I didn't depend on her vote for my office and I wasn't seeking her approval when I wouldn't allow her to go to an unchaperoned party "that all the other kids are going to."
In your empahy for the person having the homestead taken, where three generation of family have been raised, reserve some for the taxpayers who would pay inordinately to have the highway moved over to avoid taking that homestead. And when the highway is moved over, isn't there a high probability that someone else would have their emoltionally invested property taken? No, I am not addressing "Fairness." But I do appeal to law, understand the process of eminent domaine, have a passion for the public benefit, recognize the benefit of infrastructure to the public quality of life.
From first hand experience I have watched farms and long-time homesteads be taken to build our Interstate Highway System. As soon as it was constructed it was obsolete and would have been better described as in inter-urban expressway. Almost immediately, re-construction into 4 lanes each was was started, to facilitate the traffic flow to Disney. Now, would you condem this as being a taking to benefit a private business? There is certainly a benefit to Disney. But you know what? It allows me to get past Disney and get to Orlando. So I benefit also. Were orange groves that have been in the family for generations taken? Yes, of course. Were these people given what Florida law allows, Just Compensation? Most certainly.
When you live with the explosive growth that Florida is experiencing you realize the need for taking privately owned land for public purposes is necessary to maintain standards of life for the great numbers that are benefited by these takings. In your reach for fairness, you need to consider how this doctrine can be applied to this majority.
Publius
Current Events » in reply to Strange bedfellows
re: bedfellows
The whole thread (90 posts)
- CNN: "High court OKs personal property seizures"
- I'm hearing that there were a lot of questionable "Eminent Domain" actions that are now proceeding because of this decision.
- High Court Justices' Property at Risk
- The power of imminent domain...
- The rest of the decision:
- The gist of this decision:
- Odds are good that middle- and lower-class property owners...
- Tell that to the people in CT...
- Also, about lost income, I referred to rental income.
- no income is lost............
- Strange bedfellows
- The issue is the "uniqueness" that is inherent in each piece of real-property
- re: bedfellows
- The Supreme Court is ruling on its authority to abrogate a local law.
- Strange bedfellows
- no income is lost............
- So we can get it on the record:
- Also, about lost income, I referred to rental income.
- Tell that to the people in CT...
- Odds are good that middle- and lower-class property owners...
- Going back to the point that language has meaning and misuse leads to emotional misunderstanding..
- jWow! Scalia and Thomas came down on the side of people!!!
- Sounds like a BAD decision to me.
- re: CNN: "High court OKs personal property seizures"
