|
Whereas, on Thursday, June 23, 2005, the
United States Supreme Court misruled on Kelo vs.
City of New London, Connecticut by a vote of 5
to 4, on the case of Eminent Domain involving
their governing body and their affected citizens
in respect to allocating their ownership to a
third party - a hotel developer and,
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court
in Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut,
misruled that local governing bodies, such as
New London, can best determine what is the
proper purpose of Eminent Domain and that they
can best determine what is in the best interest
of their citizens, regardless of this precedent
which weakens the property rights of all
Americans and,
Whereas, the United States Constitution
through the 5th Amendment provides
that governments, at all levels, may condemn
property, through Eminent Domain, and seize it
“for the Public’s use,” providing the land owner
is “fairly compensated” and,
Whereas, “the operative phrase, from the
5th Amendment, “for the Public’s use”
has heretofore stipulated that the condemned
property in question could be conscripted for
the public’s use and, accordingly, would be
purchased from the affected property owner for
the Public’s benefit, which has, historically,
been used for roads, utility easements, etc.
and,
Whereas, in Kelo vs. City of New London,
Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court misruled
that the New London government could take, by
eminent domain, land owned by one private entity
and award their private property, owned in fee,
to another private entity of that government’s
choosing, which does not meet the historic
qualifier “for the Public’s use” and
Whereas, it is understood that the taking
of one’s private property to resale to a more
wealthy private individual, company or
corporation, who would construct improvements
upon said property, which would increase the tax
base and create jobs for a presupposed increase
in economic development, is in no way a
qualifier for Eminent Domain and,
Whereas, it is further understood that
government’s role in Eminent Domain is to never
act as a strong armed intercessor to grant one
private party a leveraged bargaining position
over another private party but to use this tool
as a last resort to satisfy the needs of the
many and,
Whereas, it is imperative, in the absence
of the prudent wisdom of a majority of Justices
who sit upon bench of the highest court in the
land, that we, Beaufort County Commissioners,
with the noble assistance of the North Carolina
State Legislature, seek to protect the property
rights and quiet enjoyment of our citizens from
the unwise and, or corrupt behavior of any
errant state or local governing body, who would
misuse Eminent Domain for purely economic
reasons, therefore,
Let it be resolved, that the Beaufort
County Board of Commissioners do hereby request
our state government representatives, Senator
Marc Basnight and Representative Arthur Williams
propose legislation and, or amendment to the
North Carolina Constitution which will protect
the citizens of Beaufort County and the citizens
of state of North Carolina as a whole from the
unwise and, or corrupt misuse of Eminent Domain,
thereby restricting the usage of Eminent Domain
to purpose in which it was intended.
Written by Beaufort County Commissioner Stan
Deatherage and submitted for passage by the
entire board Monday, July 11, 2005.
Jennifer Alligood
Chairwoman, No-OLF
P.O. Box 32
Pinetown, NC 27865
252-927-3792
252-943-7544 cell
Stan Deatherage
106 Beech Tree Ct.
Washington, NC 27889
252-946-2361
Franky S. Lee
P.O. Box 156
Hamilton, NC 27840
252-217-1942 cell
|