Possumblog

Nicolas Gomez Davila, a Colombian writer who lived from 1913-1994, wrote these observations which may apply to this decision:
--The individual shrinks in proportion as the state grows.
-- Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from indifference towards the unique values which created it.
-- An individual declares himself a member of some group with the goal of demanding in its name what he is ashamed to claim in his own name.
-- The anger of imbeciles is less frightening than their benevolence.

I hate to say it, but somewhere in this country, maybe not soon, but eventually there will be violence because of this. There will be a landowner who refuses to move because some crooked politicians decide they can generate more tax revenue and somebody will end up hurt or dead.

The question will be, how much violence? Will it be someone portrayed as a lone nut, or will it be a borderline revolution, with all of his neighbors flocking to his aid?

I hope I am wrong about this. I truly do. We've got enough problems in this country as it is.

My Co-worker Mo just pointed out that this reminds him of a passage in the bible, 1st Kings 21, something about a guy named Nabob or some such. Some of your other readers (or yourself) will know more about it than me.

That would be Naboth, and I think it fits right well.

Thanks for the link Terry. As you probably noticed, I've gone all Kelo all the time.

I too worry that this will lead to violence. Passive demonstrators can always be dragged away, but if enough people stand at their front doors with shotguns and rifles, is the state willing to shoot it citizens to get more tax revenue? Of course, the first few times, the dispossessed will be labelled as right wing gun nut wackos, but that will get harder and harder to maintain over time.

The last shreds of my idealism are evaporating away.

It might be hard to get Ahab to repent in the absence of a message delivered by Elijah. This ruling would seem to need far greater attention paid to overturning it than Roe.

Would there be ANY possibility that a STATE could pass laws that restricted a city's rights to do this, and have it not reversed by the courts?

I was wondering the same thing, Stan--I don't know, but I think it would be hard for a state to say it's illegal to favor one private property owner over another one if the Supreme Court has said it's perfectly alright to do so. And it would also require enough legislators who agree with that. Sadly, there are WAY too many who understand only the idea that it's better to have more tax dollars (and all sorts of back-scratching favors from wealthy developers) flowing in than anything else.

It's something that's been going on for years without much outcry--the same thing happened just last year when the City of Alabaster made a group of homeowners an offer they couldn't refuse to bring in a Wal-Mart. But now the tactic has the protection of precedent.