AS if agriculture did no have enough to worry about!! 
Call it "the government that ate your house."
In an appalling 5-4 decision that is guaranteed to stir controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court said municipalities have broad leeway to engage in takings of private property for development. The ruling came in a case involving residents in New London, CT, once a ship-building powerhouse, but now struggling. The majority on the court chose to expand the right of eminent domain, which originally allowed governments to take private property for "public use" if there was a compelling public need, such as for a highway or a school. New London officials argued a private development project would benefit the whole community; residents said their homes were not for sale at any price, and the development was not a legitimate "public use," but a private benefit.
The decision confounded some court-watchers, who noted that judicial liberals and conservatives found themselves on both sides of the decision, with center-right Justice Sandra Day O'Connor chastising the majority for siding with big business interests. Whoa! Strange bedfellows or not, if you're now worried about whether your farm, ranch, home or lot might get 'taken' for a casino, hotel or shopping center--and we think those worries are justified--write your representatives in your home state, and in the U.S. Congress.
Call it "the government that ate your house."
In an appalling 5-4 decision that is guaranteed to stir controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court said municipalities have broad leeway to engage in takings of private property for development. The ruling came in a case involving residents in New London, CT, once a ship-building powerhouse, but now struggling. The majority on the court chose to expand the right of eminent domain, which originally allowed governments to take private property for "public use" if there was a compelling public need, such as for a highway or a school. New London officials argued a private development project would benefit the whole community; residents said their homes were not for sale at any price, and the development was not a legitimate "public use," but a private benefit.
The decision confounded some court-watchers, who noted that judicial liberals and conservatives found themselves on both sides of the decision, with center-right Justice Sandra Day O'Connor chastising the majority for siding with big business interests. Whoa! Strange bedfellows or not, if you're now worried about whether your farm, ranch, home or lot might get 'taken' for a casino, hotel or shopping center--and we think those worries are justified--write your representatives in your home state, and in the U.S. Congress.
