Why is the BDN shocked about the government seizing someones property "for the greater good". They are all for the government seizing our money, which is also private property, to pay for healthcare. How will we be compensated for it? With rationing of services, lower quality of service, and empty wallets.

The state should pass it's own law to not allow this to happen. It can pass a law and should.

Unusual for BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERALS at BDN to be upset over big government confiscating our assets. Happens ALL the time. Liberals

What ever happened to the tried and succesful system that private developers have used in the past? Where they pay off local pol's and property accessors to rezone or raise the property taxes so high that the current owners can't afford their property and are forced to sell.

Sometimes one would have to wonder if there is enough competition to start another newspaper in the Bangor Area.

Me thinks that the Word Shame and the norm of Shame of how it presents is ALL over the place.<<

BigC`s@complain.com<<

The editorial states "for the first time" the government (small g) used as its justification for seizure the potential for economic development" This is incorrect, editors should do their homework.

In 1964, the City of White Plains New York began a process now known as "urban renewal" the black folks who were in the path of this "renewal" referred to this process as "negro removal" the city condemned an entire neighborhood as "blighted" most of the homes there were privately owned, and had been property of the same families for generations. The reason given for the "blight" was that the homes mostly were built in the 1800's, and therefore didn't conform to current code that houses within the inner city must have a garage. Some of the houses however did have garages, and those were seized by the city under the eminent domain provision. The argument from the council members (as stated in the "Reporter Dispatch" paper of record) was the seizure would "benefit the citizens of White Plains esthetically and economically. A man named Richard K Haratianian, who owned a used furniture store, refused to sell, and instituted a suit against the city arguing that the payment under eminent domain would not cover loss of business, the move, or the loss of prime location. six months into the suit, Haratianian's store was raided, and the police uncovered marijuana, and a communist newspaper. Mr Haratianian must have begun his criminal career late in life as this 64-year-old had no prior criminal record. The store was bulldozed the following week, and I never heard Mr. Haratianian's name again, but this incident, what they had done to my friend, made me realize at a very young age that in truth we own NOTHING, we just rent it from the "government" until they need it!

I don't recall the Bolshevik editors at Pravda on the Penobscot expressing a whole lot of outrage when the Bangor City Council did the same thing a few years back to make way for the Shaws Supermarket on Main Street.

Private property, why all this concern with that BDN!! It hasnt stopped you before. You are continually advocating the confiscation of private assets. Why the change of heart or is it just when the Government does it for their interests alone its OK?

If I remember correctly, the New London siezure was to benefit the giant pharmaceutical company, Pfizer.

.

Well, I just heard that Pfizer is pulling out and the siezed property remains a deserted lot.

.

Serves the city right.

actaully New York. if memory serves its was for a Hotel and office space. which have been built. While I agree with your sentiment about siezures by the government, nothing is served by inaccuracies.

Vichet wrote:

"actaully New York. if memory serves its was for a Hotel and office space. which have been built."

No,we saw the vacant lots on T.V. last night. nothing built a neighborhood destroyed, and Pfizer leaving for cheaper pastures. Good job New London

As I recall, Pfizer, started all this and decided not to build after all. Unfortunately considering who is on the supreme court, the ruling was not a surprise.

I think that states should enact laws to protect homeowners. Big business seems to always win.

mgayle wrote:

"...considering who is on the supreme court, the ruling was not a surprise."

Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer voted to allow New London to take the land. The conservative wing, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. :voted in favor of private property owner's rights. Surprised? I thought you would be.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

This poses a dilema for the state of Maine. Since we have eminent domain for the taking of property for transmission lines.

Gov Baldaci wants law changed so the generators(power plants) and transmittors(those who own transmission lines) can be one and the same.

Iberdrola , a corporation out of Spain, owns Maine Central Electric....will they be able to take our property for transmission lines? Big problem if the law goes through. Every law that gov baldaci wanted passed for his dear friends..First Wind et al ....has been passed.

Every law that gov baldaci wanted passed for his dear friends..First Wind et al ....has been passed.

Baldacci is being termed out. As for the legislators who don't question him - throww them out next November.