Eminent Domain Decision Leads to Interesting Scenarios

Eminent Domain: What’s changed?

The Supreme Court recently ruled that increasing tax revenue was enough reason for our states to seize private property.

It seems that the justices that ruled in favor of the government’s claim of private property seizures could be solely based on potential revenue were the ‘liberal’ judges that have been appointed. Hmmm...Now let's make the assumption that liberals on both sides of the aisle love to increase taxes to fund their 'buy the vote' mentality, this decision fits in with their agenda.

Since socialism depends on the government being the supreme authority to the detriment of private interests for the ‘common good’, it looks like this decision would fit more closely a socialist agenda than a conservative’s.

This doesn't necessarilly eliminate conservatives. If they are more into being pro-development than upholding private property rights they too would celebrate this decision.

But since I feel that the majority of conservatives on both sides of the aisle would want to limit government's ability to tax the private sector I will stick with it benefiting the liberals among us more.

Following this logic through and adding a little sarcasm:
I wonder if I can talk a developer into going to the local city council of Hyannis Port Mass. to seize the Kennedy compound. I know that beach front property there would bring much more income than what the Kennedy’s are now paying in taxes if a few multi level condos and a marina were developed there.

So maybe Kerry’s property, Hilary’s property, Durbin’s property, Dean’s property, Boxer’s property, Biden’s property could be included in making the case for the local government’s increased tax revenue if these properties were seized and rezoned commercial.

Locally here in Denver I have some choices too. Cherry Creek area would be my first choice. Governor Owens’ private residence too would be bull dozed since he's in favor of displacing over 7000 residents to build a "super slab" toll road for a couple of his cronies. Maybe too we could find where the developers of this super slab live and sieze their property for increased revenue. Maybe a little old fashioned legal 'get backs' are in order.

Let’s get some prime church property too. Churches don’t pay taxes so that one would be a no brainer to show increased revenues.

This will be a very interesting decision in the years to come and many ‘legal tests’ to it’s validity.
I don't anticipate any major influx of eminent domain seizures since this type of property acquisition is usually the last resort used by the states but the decision does once again chip away at the fifth amendment.

FootNote* This decision allows state governments to tighten their controls. It did not say state government could not make the requirements more in line with what eminent domain has historically meant. In fact it says specifically the states have the right to tighten their own controls. This decision just states that it would not be unconstitutional for a state government to base their decision solely on revenue derived from the use of eminent domain.