Private Homes may be taken for public good

[A.Melon]

> Yeah, but this steps crosses a line, I think. Before, your home could be 
> taken for a public project. Now, the supreme court has ruled that your home 
> can be taken for a "public project" that consists entirely of private 
> development, in the name of the "public good", which is supposed to equal 
> higher tax revenues.
> 
> What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your 
> home. Previously, it was just the occasional men-with-guns that could do 
> this, but now they effectively have proxies everywhere.

The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property
to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes.  This is
but another variation.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=229

> >From: "A.Melon" <juicy at melontraffickers.com>
> >To: cypherpunks at jfet.org
> >Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
> >Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >> How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can
> >> easily be replaced.)
> >thermite through the engine block, frag bomb in the engine compartment,
> >torch any remaining hoses, slice the tires, puncture the brake lines.
> >you don't need someone to tell you this. takings clause abuse has been
> >going on for a long time.

Dousing the 'dozer with gas and throwing a match may suffice.  The two
ex-Caltech-student co-conspirators in the Los Angeles area Hummer
dealership fire are still at large.  Maybe they'll make their way to
Connecticut or NYC* and put their skills to use for a worthy cause...
rather than for the Marxist ELF.

* http://www.nyclu.org/eminent_domain_lj_article_060105.html