58 Responses to:
EMINENT DOMAIN IN CRAWFORD, TEXAS?

# 1. 6/30/05 12:03 AM
Right on, Bob! This ruling by the Supreme Court made me shutter. This is incredibly serious and something needs to be done to get it reversed.

# 2. 6/30/05 12:03 AM by Dean
Sic semper tyrannus

# 3. 6/30/05 12:49 AM by Rick - Mt.MorrisNY
Bob,This issue of taking property from the public has a long sordid history.This recent abomination is but the most recent actions to control us.In 1976 the Biodiverity Treaty was enacted.This scheme was endorsed by the National Conference of State Legislatures and by the American Planning Association.The UN document adopted in 1976 has become a popular tool for local governments to abuse the power of eminent domain at the expense of private land owners."Wetlands" was the tool of choice of the 80s.The federal government took over control of 200 million acres of PRIVATE PROPERTY by announcing it`s "wetlands policy" which dictated what an owner could or could not do with his own land.The "Endangered Species Act" with its "critical habitat" provisions allowd agents of the government to dictate what a landowner may or may not do with there own land.The there is the "Clean Water Initiative",which takes control of both sides of a stream and waterway currently under private ownership.Bob,there is more..."historic districts,Heritage areas,Scenic Highways,Scenic Rivers,Economic Development zones" and many other specially designated areas put under this control.But a designated area also has a (under the current)"Biosphere Reserve"a protected CORE site and also a BUFFER ZONE around the designated area where limited human activity is allowed.For example, in 1995 Bill Clinton pressed the UN to declare Yellowstone National Park a "World Heritage Site",now because of "tourist pressure" this site is considered in danger!Can you see the next logical step? Shutting down Yellowstone under the UN dictate with the full redundant list of laws listed above justifying the "right" to close it if deemed neccessary to the public. The recent Supreme Court decision just brings home on a more personal level what has been happening to rights in this country for quite awhile. Whats next?

# 4. 6/30/05 12:50 AM by Steve
Even better than taking Kennedy or Bush property, why not start with the homes of those justices who voted that this is legal in the first place.

# 5. 6/30/05 2:29 AM by Bill - washington DC
Get a grip. You are still totally wrong on this issue.

# 6. 6/30/05 5:19 AM by carole - Bloomfield,NY
I have a wonderful idea. Maybe some bigwig developer could make holding point for all those illegal aliens that come in to our country in Hyannis or maybe up there in Maine on that little peninsula. Then after they are there for awhile we can make those spots "THEIR" countries (or send them back) and get them the hell out of ours.

How do you think George and Ted would like sharing and/or losing their homes? I sure bet things would change then!!!!!!!!

# 7. 6/30/05 5:23 AM by AL - Hornell.NY
Good morning Bob,

I e-mail our senators chuck and hilary and asked them what they intended to do about this criminal supreme court ruling. Neither one has responded, and I don't think they will. But I'll bet my last dollar if it was their home being taken they would be screaming all holy heck about it! Thanks Bob for giving me a voice at a time when our elected officials will not. I'll hear you on the radio, take care, GOD BLESS YOU,GOD BLESS AMERICA!

# 8. 6/30/05 6:00 AM by Katrina - Macedon,NY
You are so right! I can't believe that the supreme court (non-capitals on purpose) just negated one of the basic principles on which the United States was founded. And, like you said, no one is safe from this asinine ruling--and if those folks felt the sting of it, maybe things would change. It is sinful that this has happened. Problem is, how do we effectively fight it?

# 9. 6/30/05 6:02 AM by Sandra - Scottsville, NY
People in this community and elsewhere, need to start a grassroots protest. I for one, would be willing to support someone who would like to spearhead a movement to collect money from people and buy some of this land from the government or rich landowners. Bob, you are one of the most sensible and honest people I know of. You should start collecting donations to accomplish this. You have the connections and the smarts to know what has to be done. I think you may find that there are many business owners who own big houses or vacation homes who might be interested in funding a venture like this. If not, that may give us a property we might find attractive. What about Golisano? He wants a run at a political office again. Maybe he wants to get on board with this. Maybe Wilmorite would like to buy some of these vacation properties on the Finger Lakes to put in a mall or an amusement park. How about some high end condos on Keuka or Conesus Lake? Just some thoughts. I hear many of these issues brought to light, but never hear of anyone doing much about them. I am not politically involved, do not have the connections, or would not know the first thing about how to go about organizing something of this nature. I also don't have the funds to be able to do something like this. I would however, be willing to be a part of this and/or other issues that you bring to light. Could you guide a group of people who would want to be involved? Do you know of some influential people who might be interested in doing something about this? I will be listening to your show to see what develops. Thanks for speaking out on this and all the other issues that affect our community, each and every day.

# 10. 6/30/05 7:03 AM by Mary - Pike county Illinois
As Scarlett O'Hara's father said........"Why land, tis the only thing worth living for, worth dying for".

# 11. 6/30/05 7:08 AM by DW - Rush, NY
Your idea might actually work. Somewhere there is a town board majority that hates this Supreme Court ruling even though it gives them ultimate power, and it may be in Crawford or the hometowns of the anti-constitutional justices. What if Six Flags proposed a Crawford Ranch amusement park keeping the evicted President's buildings as one of the attractions. With a patriotic developer and town board, this sort of thing could happen, and there would be no better way to demonstrate the evil of this Supreme Court decision.

# 12. 6/30/05 7:12 AM by Carrie
totally agree...the public should take over these properties and build shore line attractions. After all if its done to the poor it should be done to the rich. these two families own allot of excellent shore line property, it could be more profitable as other types of venues..Good one bob!!

# 13. 6/30/05 7:16 AM by mark - Cuba,New York
This is to #5. What don't you understand about what is mine is mine??? Bob is totally right on this!! The Government has NO right to take my property and give it to another person, just because he may use it better. America is looking more and more like a communist homeland than the home of the free.

# 14. 6/30/05 7:38 AM by Liberty Tom - Rochester, NY
Amen Bob!!!

I was thinking much the same....but I was thinking closer to home. Who's one of our more prominent "big-government" types? How about Louise Slaughter ? She's never met a big government initiative or a Judicial liberal that she's disliked. She and Mr. (Sgt?) Slaughter have a modest little home in Fairport.......since I don't live in Fairport, I can only suggest that the Village take a look at this property for the potential redevelopment dollars it may provide. Of course, we'll offer her "fair market value" and use the police powers of the local government to make sure that she recognizes the fairness of it all.

We can dream......

Editor's Note: her husband's a pretty good guy, actually.

# 15. 6/30/05 7:45 AM by crosstrainer
Why is our government forcing our soldiers to bend over backwards (to the point of being killed)to show we are not an occupying force in Iraq; and then turn on it's own citizens and become an occupying force in the US?

This ruling dishonors everything our troops are now fighting for.

# 16. 6/30/05 7:47 AM by k macduff
right on vern - if our duly elected representatives can't see how terribly wrong this decision was and the impact it will have in the future - not a one of them should hold office or claim the right to be a rep of the people - this cannot be ignored

# 17. 6/30/05 7:50 AM by John - Irondequoit, NY
The margin for stripping Americans of the right to own land without fear of the government taking it for any purpose other than public use may have been only "one traitorous vote" but the really disturbing fact is that there was a total of 5 traitorous votes.

If, in fact, a case can be made that the Constitution allows the local/state/federal government to force a landowner to sell property to another private individual or corporate entity just because better use of the land would result in increasing the tax base and thereby benefiting the community as a whole, well then, the Constitution needs to be changed.

How about an ammendment to the Constitution that narrowly defines the public uses under which eminent domain may be enforced?

Or, better yet, how about an ammendment that prohibits the enacting of new legislation from the Judiciary branch of the government?

# 18. 6/30/05 7:52 AM by Mike
Fight the federal government, are you kidding? Your screwed if you vote Republican, your screwed if you vote Democrat. You can't win, it's a hopeless cause. I'm sorry to be so bleak, but when will it end?

Editor's Note: i guess if the ballot box was the only option, you'd be right.

# 19. 6/30/05 7:56 AM by Sharon - Chili, NY
I saw on Fox News that a guy in California (I think that is the state, doesn't really matter) has dibs on Justice Souter's home in New Hampshire. He wants to build a hotel. Sounds to me like it is for the greater good.

Six Flags Crawford has a nice ring. Sea World Hyannis.

The possibilities are limitless.

# 20. 6/30/05 8:04 AM
May I propose you exersise a little "eminent domain" over your website?

Let this particular issue take over your columns once a week ...until the decision gets reversed!

Once a week, you could find an example of how this ruling is messing up our country, and write about it. This will keep this issue alive, for your readers, at least. So people won't forget.

They are counting on us forgetting about this. The liberal press will try to see to it. If we do forget, it will be to our own ruin, and it will be our own fault. We can't let this happen.

# 21. 6/30/05 8:08 AM
It's time for Walmart, Wegmans and Kodak (just to name a few) to prove their worth by buying all the property owned by government officials in this nation. The least they can do is make the offer and give these fools a taste of their own medicine.

I am tired of peacefully voicing my opinion through emails, phone calls and letters. It's time wasted. No one listens.

Until we take our rage to the streets we will continue to be ignored.

# 22. 6/30/05 8:15 AM by Mike - Greece
I believe it's time to start collecting our tea and making a trip to Boston Harbor.

# 23. 6/30/05 8:40 AM by Marsha J. Hanks - Dadeville, AL
Once again, Bob, you are 100% right!!! I hope some developer will give the overreaching liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court a dose of their own medicine by filing a claim on some federal lands! Perhaps then the wrongfulness of the Supreme Court's decision will become evident to everyone.

# 24. 6/30/05 8:44 AM by A Patriot - Lockport, NY
Forget tea. Time to stock up on ammo.

# 25. 6/30/05 9:05 AM by Wes - American Fork, UT
I bet the vote would have been different if the case had waited just one or two more years.

# 26. 6/30/05 9:13 AM by Chris W - Greece, NY
Seems to me, the mayor of Washington, DC was all for this decision. Seems to me, the Supreme Court building is in DC. Seems to me, the federal government wouldn't have to pay DC property or school tax. Seems to me, the mayor ought to be able to give the Supreme Court building over to Ringling Bros./Barnum and Bailey. Least then, we'd all recognize the circus for what it is, and the clowns working within.

# 27. 6/30/05 9:15 AM by Al Neill - Richmond, VA
I still think we find the property of every member of SCOTUS who voted for this abomination of a ruling (note - I cannot refer to them by the name "Justice" ever again)

And we put up hotels there. Actually someone is already starting to do this with a property of Souter.

I am urging my local state reps here in Virginia to strengthen our already strong property rights against eminent domain.

# 28. 6/30/05 9:15 AM by Brian - Greece
Bob,

I fear the battle is already lost. Greedy politicians won! (You KNOW that developer owns city hall.)

# 29. 6/30/05 9:20 AM by Concerned - Sun City, AZ
What can we do when the Supreme Court is the last word? We must keep pressure on our representatives. This is a horrible injustice that takes away one of our basic rights - to own property. To legally allow government officials to have the right to take away private property and give it to another private entity is just WRONG!

# 30. 6/30/05 9:21 AM by Brian - Greece
another thought - after all the ugly stuff those scumbag kennedy's have done both a rape crisis and a substance abuse center should be built on THEIR property!

# 31. 6/30/05 9:39 AM by Sue - Pittsford
My brother, who lives just north of Cape Cod, had the same question re the Kennedy compound. It's a huge piece of waterfront. Whatever all those Kennedy cousins are paying in real estate taxes for their precious vacation home can't be as much as a resort of the site would pay. I hope some developers catch on to this idea ASAP.

I also recall that Kennedy and Kerry, both recently squashed the idea of a windmill farm in Cape Cod Bay. Think what that would do to their lovely sunsets! Their excursions on their cruisers! Yet what could be a greater use for common good than cheap renewable energy! And they'll be the first to hammer Bush for not doing more about dependence on foreign oil!

# 32. 6/30/05 10:12 AM by Josh - Alexandria, VA
Everyone loses from this decision, not just the poor and middle class. For example, what's stopping San Francisco from turning a block of nice upper-class apartments into low-income housing subsidized by the government for the homeless and the ultra-poor?

This tyranny flows both ways, and even the mega-rich should fear for their property rights.

Editor's Note: exactly right. the move by liberal mayors all over the country to "diversify" neighborhoods is a very real potential outcome.

# 33. 6/30/05 10:44 AM by George - Fremont, OH
Very good, Bob, but and everyone except maybe #25 missed the main point. Let's look carefully at all the politicians who resist the appointment of evil justices like Rheinquist, Scalia, Thomas, and maybe O'Connor in favor of better ones like the (looney liberal) other five. Our courts and the appointments to them are the most important means we have to maintain sanity in our system, especially the USSC.

A pox on those who thwart the approval of good appointees for their own political gain. They already have the USSC stacked in the wrong direction.

# 34. 6/30/05 10:55 AM by Pete
Bob,

I agree with you but one writer recommended that we first take away the Justice's, (who voted for this insanity) land first, that is where I feel that it should start.

Another writer looked at building windmills on the Kennedy property in Mass. I also agree with this, the best place for these windmills to operate efficiently is at the ocean shores.

Another writer was also correct.

Though that fat, alcoholic, womanizer, windbag Ted Kennedy. Who has the worse case of the "liberal mental disease" out of all the liberals and who criticizes Bush for his lack of aggression on our energy polices. Kennedy would never allow the windmills to be built there.

Neither would Kerry or any of those infected, diseased, liberals who so quickly tear down the Conservative views.

I suggest a civil war between the Liberals and the Conservatives/Nationalists.

Since the libs don't like and/or hate the NRA and guns in general. And since their backbone is made of mush, my guess is that we would eliminate them from the face of the earth.

BUT,

I also feel that if push came to shove, you would see a great deal of "liberals" pull out the firearms that they say they hate so much.

There is only one thing that you can definitely count on with a "liberal".

They speak out of both sides of their mouth and lie like a rug.

Don't get me wrong!

I dislike Bush for his stance on immigration, his ties to big Oil, his lack of aggression on building more refineries, his lack of pressure on the Saudi's, his lack of aggression on winning the conflict in Iraq.

BUT, I dislike the Liberal mental diseased people like the CLinton's, Kerry's and Kennedy's even more...!!!!

# 35. 6/30/05 10:56 AM by P. Davis - Harrisville, Ut
Only in America, where it appears that Snail Darters, and Great Salt Lake wetlands are safe, but, people, unborn children and their private property are not.

The action of the Supreme Court should not surprise anyone… Nowadays, legislation from the judiciary is common place in this country. This last past action has only strengthened the Liberal agenda. And by this action, they will only be even bolder with their next action. Which freedom will be next?

Some of Americas best blood has been spilt to protect the freedom we seem not to care if we have or not. Will we be able to look those people who gave the supreme sacrifice in the face one-day and tell them we cared not for what they gave up? It makes me sick to think. The question I have now is will my children or grandchildren know of a life without tyranny? Was there a grandpa in Greece, Rome or Zarahemla concerned about the same thing? It is hard for me to watch my country go down the tubes.

# 36. 6/30/05 11:14 AM by D Hawk - Burleson, TX
Dear Bob,

Your arguments are based on the fallacy that the Constitution is still the basis for judicial determination.

Alas and alack our "freedoms" are resembling the feudal ages--it seems our rights are "guaranteed" as long as we can prove profitable.

# 37. 6/30/05 11:25 AM by Quinn Clark - Herriman, UT
"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." I never thought I'd see the day that the Supreme Court would so cavalierly dismiss such a basic liberty. Ordinary citizens should contribute to funds set aside for the purpose of wresting the personal property from those responsible for protecting these rights. Can we start a telethon?

# 38. 6/30/05 11:43 AM by Eric Davis - Raleigh, NC
Taking land "for better public benefit" is what our fore fathers did to the Indians. Why should we not now bear the same treatment? The difference is that it was more common folks driving the rush to invade the nw world land. Now it is the super rich doing it to those who have less.

How is it different?

Eric

Editor's Note: we'll fight back.

# 39. 6/30/05 12:01 PM by claire - portland, oregon
this is good fodder for a revolution if i ever saw one! Shame on the supreme court!

# 40. 6/30/05 1:08 PM by Richard - Richester, NY
To Bill #5,

Why don't you in your infinite wisdom educate us exactly why the Hell it is O.K. to accept this stupid ruling. I'll bet you don't have a pot to P1$$ in and therefore don't have to worry about ANYTHING being taken away from you! Get some balls and tells why this is a good idea.

Richard Rochester

# 41. 6/30/05 1:21 PM by W Ross - Provo, UT
What's the fuss all about, Bob. The Supreme Court only did its job. There is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits a government entity from condemning a piece of private property, taking it over, and handing it to another private entity.

The Constitution says: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This means only that compensation must be just. It doesn't say what to do if the private property being taken and compensated for is turned over to another private entity.

It is now up to the "do nothing" Congress to straighten the SC out by passing an amendment that places limits on what governments can do with private property they seize. Namely, to not give it to someone else.

Editor's Note: the fifth amendment says it must go to a public use.

# 42. 6/30/05 1:31 PM by Tour Guide (on the cheap)
Places I have been:

--Adirondaks (Old Forge. Rent cabins at former KOA. Water Safari water park (excellent!). Boat tours. Chair lift ride into mountains. Beachy areas. Bears in the dump. Lots of shops. Historical Museum (lie Genessee Country) Very relaxing.)

--Watkins Glen (Wixson's (store where they make their own honey), State Park, Boat Tours, Beachy area. Also has a nice KOA with a pool.)

--Lancaster/Hershey. (This is years ago) (Good 'n Plenty Family Style restaurant. There was a motel that used caboose cars as bedrooms. Hershey Park. Chocolate Factory Tour. I believe there is now a motel on a boat around there somewhere to.

Places I want to go (my kids are 8 and 11):

Howe Caverns. Herkimer Diamond mine. Toronto Zoo (Fast Ferry?) Boston/Cape Cod Virginia Beach

Advice: You might not want to do more than 3ish hours in the car with the baby. Spending 6 hours in the car for 2 days of your 3-days off may not be ideal traveling with kids.

# 43. 6/30/05 1:52 PM by John Snell - Fairview UT
I've made sure to bring this up with different people at every opportunity. I'm amazed at how many never heard the story in the first place.

While I hoped that public outcry would've forced the Supreme Court to reverse this stupid and scary decision, that's too much to ask of the sheep living in this country these days.

What I believe is that one day soon, a city government will try to force the wrong person off his/her property, and they shoot it out with the authorities.

If we Americans cannot take our government back through due process within the system, then it is our duty to take it back by force of arms. Otherwise, we might as well just flush the constitution and rename this country the United States of Ignorant and Lazy Sheep.

# 44. 6/30/05 1:54 PM by Berndog - Rochacha
Why can't this ruling be used to break up the Bush and Kennedy family compounds at Kennebunkport and Hyannis Port?

Because the Bush and Kennedy families have too much political pull to have this happen to them. This new ruling will just affect the little guys who don't already have an "in" with the local politicians who will be raping and robbing our properties.

# 45. 6/30/05 2:00 PM
You seem confident that Americans will actually do something about this, like "fight back" or "take it to the streets." I wish we were that patriotic, but I don't see it happening.

# 46. 6/30/05 2:06 PM by Jack - ID
Do you think this is comparable to what's going on in Gaza and the West Bank? I'd like to hear you're thoughts on Sharon's withdrawal plan.

# 47. 6/30/05 2:13 PM by Car - Lima, NY
Forget it!

You will do nothing about this. None of your readers will do anything about this. I will do nothing about this.

This will be a one by one assault. Each victim will stand alone against Big Brother. No one will help.

Just forget it. No one has the will. We all wait for the other guy to do something or we will write into columns like this or call talk radio shows to make us feel as if we are an activist. When actually we are all just a bunch of do nothings.

Just forget about it!

# 48. 6/30/05 3:00 PM by Tom Hughes - Williamson, NY
I do agree with most everything you speak of. I will also stand behind them. I think that Donald Trump could build a very nice Casino on either one of their properties and have a tremendous Capital gain for the people and state of Mass.I feel it would take someone very powerful in money and stature to perform this deed . Donald trump would be the perfect developer. I also find that the American people listen and want to react. The question is to whom do you look to ? Congress is not the answer. According to them we are Idiots. Do we begin the vigilantes and if so where is a leader. Talk is cheap. It's time the listening stopped and reaction for positive results begins. You're right on the money with this one Bob. Now where do we go to abolish this ruling where someone doesn't have their hand in your pocket or the brown ring around their neck.

Thanks for the space in allowing me to vent.

# 49. 6/30/05 3:11 PM by Mike Rosenhan - Kearns, UT
Only one person is responsible for this travesty. The power drunk Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Leave George and Teddy out of it until it comes time to overturn this decision through legislation or by amending the Constitution. Then we can complain about their actions or lack thereof in this regard.

Side note, I once shook Ted Kennedy's hand and right after id did, I went and washed it because I knew where he had been (I saw him at a funeral).

# 50. 6/30/05 5:31 PM by Susie - Greece
If I owned one of those beautiful lakefront homes on Beach Avenue, I'd be quaking in my boots right now. With the ferry sailing again and the city needing more and more taxes from fewer and fewer property owners, the oft-touted idea of "developing" the beach front must sound better and better to those at City Hall. And what about the poor farmers? They, and even the housing tracts that abut their property aren't safe. And what if someone decides to do their own social engineering in certain neighborhoods? If they can condemn your house to give it to a developer, what's to prevent them from taking your house to give it to someone else (liklihood doesn't matter, because now there's nothing to prevent it). Here in Greece, we're seeing more welfare clients housed in rented single-family dwellings (that soon look dilapidated) rather than projects. Just a little something for EVERYONE to think about.

Would you like to:
add your own comment? or send this story to a friend?