Conservatives haven't a leg to stand on concerning private property rights

[KansDem]

It has been said that the GOP is the defender of private property rights and speculation is that they will bitch and moan about the recent Supreme Court decision. If so, just remind them of the antics of their glorious leader, George W. Bush:

Property Rights Foul Ball

Of all the issues surrounding the stadium construction, the issue of governmental power and eminent domain is the most troublesome. The Republican Party has long advocated less government intrusion into the property rights of citizens. Bush actively campaigned for governor on a property rights agenda. In October 1994, he told members of the Texas Association of Business, "I understand full well the value of private property, and its importance not only in our state but in capitalism in general, and I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state."

But evidence in the Mathes case suggests that the Rangers owners were planning to condemn the Mathes’ land and other tracts as least six months before the ASFDA was created. In an October 26, 1990, memo to Tom Schieffer, Mike Reilly, an Arlington real estate broker and part owner of the Rangers, said of the Mathes property, "In this particular situation our first offer should be our final offer. . . If this fails, we will probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond election passes."

Reilly’s memo was written nearly three weeks before the Arlington city council called for a referendum on the sales tax proposal for the stadium, and a full three months before the referendum went before voters, yet it assumes the proposal will pass and condemnation will be a legal option. In his memo, Reilly also suggests that Schieffer should inform Arlington city officials that the team owners will expect also effective control—by city ordinance—of any neighboring land they won’t own outright. Reilly wrote, "The Rangers want the City to establish development standards. . . that you can have input on. By doing this, no one within a certain radius of the ballpark development could get a plat or building permit approval without the City’s approval. The ‘development standards’ established by ordinance would give you a tremendous amount of ‘quiet’ control over the land parcels you do not own in the area" .

On November 7, Reilly wrote another memo to Schieffer regarding the Mathes property, saying he had spoken to Jane Mathes Kelton, and since she was not being cooperative, in Reilly’s judgment, he believed "the City will have to condemn her land," and therefore Schieffer should "get the City" to hire condemnation attorneys. Apparently wary of any competition for the land parcels, Reilly also advised Schieffer to tell Bob Bennett, the president of Six Flags Over Texas, that the Rangers "plan to condemn this land so he will not waste his time" talking with the Mathes family about buying the property. (The Mathes’ land sits next to land owned by Six Flags, and family members had spoken to Six Flags officials about acquiring their property for use in the amusement park.)
(more)
http://www.mollyivins.com/showMisc.asp?FileName=970509_f1.htm

This article is interesting for two reasons;
1) How Bush can preach private property rights in public, only to use government to seize private property when personally profitable;
2) How the mechanism for this seizure was already set in motion before the public voted (Reilly’s memo was written nearly three weeks before the Arlington city council called for a referendum on the sales tax proposal for the stadium, and a full three months before the referendum went before voters, yet it assumes the proposal will pass and condemnation will be a legal option). Sound familiar?.

[atreides1]

1. But You Forget

The rules don't apply to them, the media will be spinning it as "activist liberal judges" denying the rights of people to own property.

And I seriously doubt that the media will use the example that you have listed here.

[KansDem]

3. You are probably correct, however...

it would be nice if the Corporate Media would do a comparison between the SCOTUS decision and what Gov. Bush did. It might help to put things into perspective...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GainesT1958]

4. Under Dub & Co., it's only a "Taking"...

If you're taking MY land...now, on the other hand, if it's YOUR (average joe's property) land they're talking about taking...:eyes:

Ask any land owner in the West who's been victimized by mining companies, or any property owner who's been screwed by a power company which gave humdreds of thousands to Dub's campaign and related PACs.

They don't give a damn about individual "property rights", because most of those land owners aren't big enough--or didn't GIVE big enough. If Halliburton had been the Plaintiff instead of Kelo in this case, they would have had Gonzalez up there at the Supreme Court screaming against this "rape" of the property rights of poor Halliburton, this "clear taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Naaaah, if you ain't big enough, Dub and Chip Rove just think you must hate America, and they want to send you to Camp X-Ray at Gitmo. Then THEY'LL "take" your property! (Patriot Act, you know):mad:

B-)