The Supreme Court recently handed down a very controversial decision regarding a case in New London, Connecticut.

What does that have to do with this web site? The fact that this decision can effect the economic well being of us all I think it falls within the purview of Caveat Emptor.

When I first became aware of this decision, I was appalled that the Supreme Court would allow a city or a state to take away a persons home to make room for some real estate just to provide more tax revenue for the municipality.

After all, eminent domain laws were instituted to allow us to build schools, bridges, highways and other projects necessary to the public at large.

As usual there are two sides to every story and as I began to do research for this article I began to wonder. And now I'm in a dilemma, I’m not sure what’s right and what’s wrong in this case.

Controversy over eminent domain projects is not new; it harkens me back to the days of the Tennessee Valley Authority back in the thirties. Many people were forced from their homes unwillingly. Here’s an excerpt from the Tennessee State Guide indicating the depth of the problem:

"In moving these people, due regard was paid to their natural feelings, for in many cases they left homes occupied by their families for more than a century. The story is told of one family who resisted removal because it would entail extinguishing the hearth fire that had been burning continuously for three generations. The TVA cut the Gordian knot by keeping the fire going while it moved the family to its new home."

Let’s face it, no one likes to give up their home or their business, but in some cases it’s unavoidable as in the case of the TVA. A few suffered for the good of many. The whole of rural America benefitted from TVA.It provided electricity for a multitude of the population who had previosly been without it. It fueled an economic boom.

Let’s take an extreme example where a whole community is blighted and an urban renewal program could rehabilitate an area, provide new jobs and add to the tax base of the area.

If we overturn the court decision we could have a situation where one person could stop the rehabilitation program that would be beneficial to many people.

At the other extreme if carried too far this decision could result in developers and politicians wiping out whole communities to build stores, malls, and expensive apartment and office buildings only to provide more tax revenue.

I’m not smart enough to know the answer to this, but I’m sure the American people are, and will make sure their representative government will do the right thing. Give it a lot of thought and make your opinions known. This is very important to us all.

Written by: George W. cannata Author and publisher of http://www.caveatemptorus.com a shopping guide/Fraud digest web site . The author is a retired manufacturing executive with many years experience in procurement. This article may be reprinted or copied so long as it is not altered in any way and that the author receives full credit.

• National Security and the Press Part Two – The Press as Watchdog


• National Security and the Press Part Three – The Role of Embedding


• National Security and the Press Part Four – The Risks of Embedded Journalists


• National Security and the Press Part Five – Constitutionality of Restraints on Coverage


• National Security and the Press Part Six: Unanswered Questions About Free Speech


• If I Only Had The Money-Id Start My OWN Political Party


• The Internet - The US Vs the UN


• National Security and the Press Part One – Introduction to the Role of the Press


• Acoustic Noise Dampeners for Helicopters


• Bureaucrats and Regulators to Declare Bankruptcy and Insolvency