Comments on: Green Counter-revolution

By: Brain Shavings

Brain Shavings — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:49:45 +0000

More reaction to Kelo

Don’t miss Michelle Malkin’s survey of the Kelo blogstorm. Glenn Reynolds rounds up some great commentary on property rights, all posted since yesterday’s decision in the Kelo case. I found…

By: Alec Rawls

Alec Rawls — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:17:13 +0000

This trump card is much less likely to protect property rights from emminent domain than to justify emminent domain and double trump property rights. Any part of a person’s property that accumulates standing water at any time of the year is already liable to be designated a protected wetland. Now if some private group wants to use your property for some eco-friendly purpose (an eco-friendly housing development say) Kelo would allow it under eminent domain. If eco-concerns trump eminent domain, they can determine eminent domain.

By: Jim Pfaff

Jim Pfaff — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:12:16 +0000

Just think, now with the government help I can get rid of my pesky neighbors and get that green space my boys have been craving!

By: Andy Freeman

Andy Freeman — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:27:50 +0000

> My advice? Move next to a Superfund site. You may get cancer but no one will ever take your house.
How do you think that Love Canal was developed? Yup, the local govt wanted more revenue from some “empty land”, land where Hooker Chemical had put its monitored landfill. Hooker suggested that housing wasn’t a particularly good idea, but the local govt threatened eminent domain so HC folded. Neither the city nor developers monitored.
Of course, no one went after them. They were either immune or didn’t have much money.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:02:52 +0000

Yeah, my thug can lick your thug...and my thug would never ever turn on me! That will work. What a wonderful idea to just cede the territory and back yet one more step closer to the wall.

By: Foltz

Foltz — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:55:19 +0000

I have some black kittens that have taken refuge on part of my property that I don’t have the heart to forcibly remove, any chance I could get the classified as miniature Jaguars?

By: TZ

TZ — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:28:28 +0000

It may be difficult to identify endangered species that could be successfully transplanted to your property. Another solution would be to identify those species that are already on your property, and then head out into the wider world with shotgun in hand with the purpose MAKING that species endangered. Bonus points if it’s a particularly tasty species.

By: Jacknut

Jacknut — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:18:16 +0000

My M-16 trumps any developer. Can’t argue with a bullet.

By: Lin Bartholomew

Lin Bartholomew — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:03:27 +0000

Even better is to get your home declared a historic site. Very difficult for developers to circumvent.

By: Zach Wendling

Zach Wendling — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:21:18 +0000

IIRC, endangered plants on private property have less protection than animals, even up to the point that an owner can ‘take’ them all he wants. How this would change under eminent domain litigation would be interesting, and I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the case law concerning the ESA and the 5th Amendment.