Via Castle Coalition, the Baptist Press News:
The congregation has adequate legal grounds to argue the case, Eastman, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, said.The targets of eminent domain are more often poorer and less connected constituents, as municipal officials bow to the demands of their well-connected friends and special interest groups, looking for a favored piece of the new and bigger public pie---made out of your property.
“This is a church, and the Supreme Court’s decision ... didn’t involve a church,” he said. “I think the fact that it’s a church means we’re going to have to force the court to [re-examine] whether you can just take people’s private property for economic development when you’ve got an institution that doesn’t have an economic base -- it has a spiritual base for its contribution to the community.”
Part of the problem, Eastman said on Fox, is that the government has lost its way regarding its purpose.
“It’s supposed to protect our inalienable rights to things like our own property. They think their job is to collect as much tax revenue as they can to make things prettier in other parts of the city,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment