Thanks to The Agitator for directing readers here.
"Free Market Environmentalism" as some are calling it, is getting some traction out west. It seems that heavily subsidized ranchers have figured out that selling their land to environmentalists - of their own free will - is more profitable than ranching. The sad thing is that the government is standing in the way, and it's not the government folks you would think. No, it's the Republicans who claim to believe in the free market over government intervention, who are upset about a fading way of life - ranching. Nevermind that in this particular area, supporting this "way of life" costs the government millions of dollars. Why not let these landowners decide for themselves what they want to do with their own land. How pathetic. Oh well, I guess it's just in line with the recent Supreme Court rulings on private property.
The political parties are about nothing more than power - regardless of their stated interests. If the Republicans gave a damn about private property rights and the free market, as they so claim, then they would stay out of these private transactions. Of course, what do you expect when the administration considered filing a brief in support of New London (not the property owners) in the now infamous Kelo decision?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the town’s board turned down the proposal.
So much for poetic justice. Justice Souter’s influence in his community shielded him from his own ruling. No other rational justification can be found.
Thankfully, the legislative branch is now busy at work attempting to shield private property rights from the Supreme Court ruling. It seems that the two may have switched roles, with the House defending the Constitution, and the Supreme Court writing new laws.
I thought I saw Alice the other day! Or maybe it was Justice Souter –skipping in Wonderland, immune to and above the laws he passes.
I knew about the proposal, but hadn't heard that it was denied. Thanks for the update. This last session really did tear up the Constitution. So sad.
Post a Comment