|
The Supreme Court "Eminent Domain"
Land-Grab, Power Play
Can you believe the Supreme Court? Those guys have way too much power. But then, they're lawyers, what do you expect? With a stroke of the pen they've practically given local governments a blank check. The trouble is, you may be the next person who has to make good on the funds by giving up your home or your property.
Private property rights are right up there with free speech, in terms of defining what this country is about. But now if some developer is in bed with the local government (and they now have more incentive to do so) and you have a nice piece of property, guess what-- they may just take it away from you and put up a luxury motel that will generate more tax revenue (whose pocket does that go into?). Not good. The fox is guarding the hen house-- and he just got an AK-47!
Does this remind you of mobsters? Yea, us too. Thus the "Sopranos" and "Godfather" designs. A while back, on an episode of The Sopranos, Tony Soprano Sr. asked, "What about you? You got a problem with this?"* Yes Tony we do. Protest this abuse of power by displaying one of these bumper stickers. I mean, we can't take it to court! If there was a boatload of tea in Boston, I'd say,"Let's have a party." Other than that, all I could think of was bumper stickers.
In case you haven't read the story, here's the AP version--
Thursday, June 23, 2005
SUPREME COURT RULES CITIES MAY SEIZE YOUR HOME FOR A WAL-MART
HOPE YEN, ASSOCIATED PRESS - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights. . . As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.". . .
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
In summary: Protest - Protest- Protest - with a Supreme Court bumper sticker. This should NOT be happening.
Think you have a good idea for a bumper sticker? We've provided the "Suggest-a-Sticker" feature on our web site for just this purpose. While we don't pay for bumper sticker ideas, we can tell you it's pretty cool to make a suggestion and then see it in print! So, if you want to suggest a bumper sticker idea, go for it!
*The Tony Soprano quote, of course, has nothing to do with anything we're saying here. It is not an endorsement of this web site or our products and is merely for satiricle purposes.
|
Payment
Exclusively
Through
Or purchase our stickers at Amazon.com!
|
