I think this is true of pretty much all things. Until you experience something personally you really don’t have much of a expertise on the subject. This action by Clements is a great one in my opinion. For example if I owned a peice of property by inheirtance on the coast of California in a realtively wealthy area and some other private person wan’t to sieze my land to “upgrade” it and thereby produce more property taxes for the city, I wouldn’t want the city to have a vote on whether or not I should be forced to sell at a “fair market value”.

That’s KARMA, Your Honor.

*Smirk.*

and actually being successful? Or for that matter, even considering it?

Has it even happened?

Every case I’ve ever heard of has been against lower and middle class wage earners”
———————————

Of course….I think that was the point that was being made. It’s the impossibility of the whole thing, but the audacity of someone bringing it up that makes it funny and deplorable at the same time.

Lest you think that response is too light. ED is really no joke at all where I live, but you won’t make it in a long, hard battle without some levity and good spirits(including the drinking kind)

i was curious if you had any links to “decent arguments” on the side of legally mandated gentrification… err… i mean eminent domain? personally, i’m having trouble coming up with justifications (or even rationalizations) for the forcible eviction of people from their homes because some rich fatcat can make more money off their property.

Can you imagine that _any_ government _anywhere_ in the U.S. ‘taking’ using eminent domain a piece of land or house owned by _any_ wealthy/politicallypowerful/elite even if the reasons is _above appproach_ and truly needed,

and actually being successful? Or for that matter, even considering it?

Has it even happened?

Every case I’ve ever heard of has been against lower and middle class wage earners.

It won’t ever happen against Souter, ever.. even when its not a retalitory joke (which btw, I thought was funny).

ED was a very heated topic at the City Council meeting here last night. Lots of fireworks, but some humor though(substitute Souter’s home with council member of choice, lol)

All kidding aside though, I did mention that in the editorial:

While I’m fairly convinced that no sane government would allow an act that is pretty deliberately malicious and spiteful to pass, if nothing else, it’s a clever shenanigan worth at least a few nod’s of humorous appreciation.

I think the prank highlights the limits to the Court’s Kelo ruling. Kelo involved a large plan for about ninety separately owned plots of land, the area in Kelo is economically depressed, and the opinion and concurrence emphasized there was no improper motive.

The Prank would involve a single plot of land in an place that is not economically depressed, and the project would be pursued as a means to punish the owner, clearly an improper motive.

Sorry, it cannot happen, even in theory.