>> Some friends of mine were recently screwed over by Kansas City when
>> their living space and concert venue was taken over by eminent
>> domain so the city could build a sport arena for teams that don't
>> exist.
>>
>> Chuck
>
> didn't the socialist mayor of Santa Cruz -- Michael Rotwin -- build a
> sports stadium? This usually means heavy taxpayer subsidies to
> developers and sports teams. (I don't know if Rotwin's program
> included that element or not.) An increasing number of experts say
> that this kind of thing isn't really beneficial to cities. That's one
> reason why Los Angeles doesn't have an NFL team. (Among other things,
> the behavior of the Raiders (now of Oakland) drove the point home.) We
> do have the Staples Center, but that seems (marginally?) better, since
> it's not tied down to a single sport.
>
> BTW, this suggests that the recent Supes' decision isn't that
> earth-shattering. Almost all of the previous public uses of eminent
> domain were likely "public-private partnerships," i.e., thought up and
> organized by groups of businesscritters and pols working hand-in-glove
> in smoke-filled suites under the banner "I'll scratch your back if you
> scratch mine."
>
> Leigh, thanks for making the K-PIG link easy to use. Now I can't get
> any work done at all.
Ah, kpig.
I recommend liability insurance for the ...unh... station manager... who puts that stuff on the air =8'>
No... No sports arena here, but "marxist" mike recently tried to jam a mega- convention center proposal, on the hill overlooking the boardwalk and the each through the city council, against the will of most of the people of Santa Cruz(and definitely not to the benefit of the people living in the beach flats ghetto), a project totally in violation of the city's general plan, which Rotkin himself helped implement the last time it was re-written.
The city recently declared eminent domain on a small parcel downtown that's been a vacant hole in the ground since the earthquake(the old roasting co.), and if you listen to the property owner(a local progressive), the city has blocked any plans he's had for the property... ...and therein lies the rub, and a potential chink in the SC ruling.
The city also continually threatens to do that to another hole by the nine (!) screen movie theater across from where the Cooper House was years ago.
I call it Louie Rittenhouse's big "FUCK YOU" to Santa Cruz's city government for trashing their own town with the development of... whatever makes the most money... but it's failing to do that... and the city government is flailing about in a developmental(sic) fugue.
The last time he presented a project, the flagpole was 10' taller than the zoning allowed... that was 5+- years ago. Now he's got a plan, but he's telling the city that he won't build it unless he can find the tenants, and there's already (and has always been) massive amounts of un-leased commercial space in the downtown area.
Go Louie!
Years ago, all the hippies used to sleep in the hall of one of his office buildings when the weather was bad. The janitor would come around about 630am and gently chase everyone out. Louie didn't mind.
Mike Rotkin and his "progressive" buddies are cut from different, less truly colorful, more ruthlessly ambitious cloth, and have progressively turned Santa Cruz into a phantasm of it's old self. A pity.
Leigh http://www.leighm.net
Here the writeup and links on the SC ruling from findlaw.
Breaking Legal Documents Thursday, June 23, 2005
Legal Documents Straight from the Source http://news.findlaw.com
KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON June 23, 2005
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, rules that the "Takings Clause" in the U.S. Constitution permits local governments can seize residential and commerical property for private development. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice O'Connor rebukes the majority's conclusion, asserting that "the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process," giving government a "license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."
Majority Opinion http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-108.html
Justice O'Connor's Dissent http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?url=11195100001_nl
Case Docket http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?url=11195100000_nl
Attorney For Petitioners http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2572450_1
Attorney For Repondent http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2149086_1
FindLaw's Breaking Documents http://news.findlaw.com
===
-- Zero Surprises: No virus found in this outgoing message // lcm Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 6/23/2005