small brush shouldn't fuck with big timber

Death's Door, the view from the Spanish announcers table: let them eat cake

Monday, June 27

let them eat cake

The other day I was on a roll about the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on giving the unquestionable right of eminent domain to city governments. Which meant that if the city decides that for the better good of all evolved, meaning “them” (see city government) and “private developers” (see rich and powerful muthafuckers who don’t give a shit about anything but what they want), that your neighborhood would make a fine location for a new stadium or hotel or such shit. They have free rein to take it.

This is something that I plan to keep harping on because I can see some bullshit happening down the road. Cause even though the court says that the shit’s intended for the common good and all that fine flourishing sounding crap. I’m gonna call bullshit on em because you and I both know that this is gonna give muthafucker’s all the excuse they want to run roughshod over people. And just to show you the mindset I’m talking about here’s some excerpts from an interview with the lawyer who won the case whilst representing the city of New London, Connecticut, which the Supreme Court passed the ruling on.
Interviewer: But I think this strikes some people as most people, I believe, as unfair. These people didn't do anything wrong, these homeowners. There was no suggestion that they weren't keeping up their houses. They weren't blighted. They were just going about their lives and, boom, from out of nowhere, someone else decided he had a better idea for their land. Doesn't that seem unfair to you?……….I guess, what I'm looking for is an acknowledgement that real people, individuals, are being hurt in this.

Lawyer: “Oh”.

Interviewer: What would you stay them? To the New London resident for instance, whose family has been in their house, as you know, since 1901. She was born there. This must be crushing to her. How would you explain this to her?
Lawyer: I understand. I don't deny that this is terrible for the individual plaintiffs. It's terrible for any individual plaintiffs who have their property taken for the public good. That's the same argument you'd make if you were taking it for a road or anything else.

Interviewer: But can you give me the three sentences you would say to her to make her feel better about this?

Lawyer: Yes. I would say, it's too that bad your property has been taken. All I can say to you, ma'am, is, it's being taken for the public interest and New London, as a whole, will be better for it.

"and the monkey flipped the switch"


Blogger Nightmare said...

That fucking Lawyer needs his cock ripped off and shoved down his throat. I think that if this doesn't get overturned, I'm going to have to start a case for eminent domain against all state owned buildings. And base the lawsuit on corruption. "There's sinning going on in there and we need that building for the GOOD of our town"


11:17 AM  
Blogger Rusty said...

I remember when UMKC was trying to pull this kind of thing a few years ago with homeowners in an effort to expand the campus, and I was living in a house that was on the chopping block. Some pretty scary shit.

1:02 PM  
Blogger Ole Blue The Heretic said...

I agree with nightmare.

1:22 PM  
Blogger Arathorn said...

This ruling must be reversed regardless the cost of geting that job done. It is totally in oppisition to the American way of life and must be stopped.

5:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home