eminent domain abuse worse?
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:58 am
After the unbelievable decision of the US supreme court in 2005 that said it was ok for the government to take your property by eminent domain to give to another private owner, who would have thought things could get worse?
They have:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0102/p02s01-usju.html
Apparently, the government can now give a private developer the right to use eminent domain to extort cash and eliminate competition and seize private property.
In the case in question, Bart Didden decided he wanted to open a CVS pharmacy. But was told he had to clear it with a \"private\" developer (G&S - Mr. Wasser):
quoting from the article:
---
The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.
Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain.
---
They have:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0102/p02s01-usju.html
Apparently, the government can now give a private developer the right to use eminent domain to extort cash and eliminate competition and seize private property.
In the case in question, Bart Didden decided he wanted to open a CVS pharmacy. But was told he had to clear it with a \"private\" developer (G&S - Mr. Wasser):
quoting from the article:
---
The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.
Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain.
---
