>So fine, you are blocking politically with the rightwing on their
>legislation. You want white state legislators to tell many minority-led
>city council people that they are too incompetent to resist real estate
>interests, so they "shouldn't have" such powers.
>
>Your position is reactionary just from the pure racial dynamics of most
>states. In the name of stopping some abuse, you want to gut democratic
>rights of local cities.
>
>With all your rhetoric around corrupt unions, corrupt cities, and so forth,
>you are just sounding like the worst of the goo-goo conservative
>"Progressives" of the early twentieth century who undermined working class
>politics in this country. Precisely because you don't want to engage in
>the muck of real politics, you want to strangle democratic decision-making
>and gut local home rule powers. That is truly one of the most reactionary
>positions I've seen you take.
Wow. Tell this to the NAACP & the National Council of Churches.
<http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/2_21_06pr.html>
>Historic Coalition Aligned Against Abuse
>An historic coalition that cuts across the philosophical spectrum
>has united in calling to reform the nation's eminent domain laws.
>Along with the Institute for Justice, the NAACP, League of United
>Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Farm Bureau, National
>Federation of Independent Business, the Mexican American Legal
>Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of Churches as well
>as other non-traditionally aligned groups have joined in the legal
>and legislative fight against eminent domain abuse.
>"This unprecedented coalition makes it clear that, when it comes to
>eminent domain abuse, it is the people versus the profiteers," said
>Chip Mellor, IJ's president and general counsel.