Property Rights = Alliance

Property Owners Victorious in New York Eminent Domain=20 Case
Friday, May 21, 2010 12:00 pm | By = Robert=20 Kramer

This Wednesday there was a celebration in Auburn, = N.Y. when the=20 Auburn Industrial Development Agency voted unanimously against the use = of=20 eminent domain on the part of Pioneer Companies, who wished to build a = Hilton=20 Garden Inn on a plot of land currently occupied by several private=20 residences.

The project is a recent example of an attempt at = using=20 eminent domain for the benefit of a private party, rather than public = use. =20 Mayor Michael Quill argued that the project would yield $160,000 in tax = revenue=20 for the city, at what he perceived is the relatively small cost of = removing=20 several families from their homes. Community support for the = soon-to-be=20 displaced families grew as negotiations were drawn out between the two=20 parties. In the end, the public pressure proved too much, and the = Auburn=20 Industrial Development Agency ruled that eminent domain use was out of = the=20 question.

The victory should stand as a case of legal precedence = to be=20 followed for eminent domain use, one where its use is reserved for truly = public=20 projects and isn't subject to the political connections of private=20 industry. For now, the people of Auburn can sleep easy and carry = on with=20 the lives they've fought hard to preserve.

Tags: BIGSTORY=20 = EmDom=20 NewYork=20 | Read=20 More | Permalink=20 | Comments=20

Threat of Eminent Domain Abuse Prompts Calling for Supreme = Court=20 Decision
Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:31 am = | By=20 Robert Kramer

A recent case of eminent domain abuse has been brought = to the=20 nation's attention this week, when the Institute for Justice = commented on=20 the City of Milwaukee=92s attempt to repossess a plot of land from the = local=20 Veterans of Foreign War post without paying just compensation. A ruling = issued=20 by the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that the VFW stood to receive no = compensation for the lease it has held since 1961. The case is = calling=20 into question the responsibility of the government in its use of eminent = domain;=20 should it make payments equal to the value of the land itself, or equal = to the=20 value of all assets lost? As Dana Berliner of IJ stated =93It is = completely=20 impossible that just compensation for a 50-year or 60-year lease is=20 zero.=94

This abuse of eminent domain shines some light on an = issue that=20 has been consistently afflicting our nation in recent years. = Economic=20 development is dependent on well-defined and secure private property=20 rights. When people are uncertain that they can safely occupy = their home=20 or run their business without fear of losing it to the government for an = ambiguously defined "public" use, production stagnates as incentives to = put more=20 money into an establishment are lost.

The Institute for Justice = and=20 National Association of Home Builders want to bring the case before the = Supreme=20 Court. If it agrees to hear the case, we can only hope that a = ruling is=20 given in favor of private establishments across the country, one where = owners of=20 repossessed land are given a just compensation for their lost assets, = free from=20 fear of being further abused by the government.

Tags: = EmDom=20 Wisconsin=20 | Read=20 More | Permalink=20 | Comments=20 (1)=20

Victory! Limewire No Longer Allowed to Profit from=20 Theft
Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:11 pm | By = Kelsey=20 Zahourek

This=20 week, the District Court of Manhattan has handed a deserved victory to = recording=20 artists when Judge Kimba M. Wood found Limewire can be held liable for = copyright=20 infringement. This decision continues the strong precedent in favor = of=20 protecting intellectual property rights set by the Supreme Court nearly = five=20 years ago in the MGM Studios v. Grokster decision, which ruled that = software=20 developers can be held liable when their products foster the = infringement of=20 copyrighted movies and music. In a unanimous decision, the high court = ruled=20 against companies such as Grokster which base their business on the = theft of=20 intellectual property rights.

These cases, which seek to stop the illegal downloading of = copyrighted=20 material by holding accountable the peer-to-peer (P2P) companies which = provide=20 it, are instrumental in laying the foundation for intellectual property = rights=20 protection. Yesterday=92s ruling is a victory not just for the = entertainment=20 industry, but ultimately for legitimate free markets and the American=20 consumer.

This ruling will assist in greatly discouraging the illegal = activities that=20 have been taking place for too long and sends a strong signal that = intellectual=20 property rights violations will not be tolerated.

Tags: BIGSTORY=20 HO= T IntProp=20 | Read=20 More | Permalink=20 | Comments=20

123456789..= .13= 14= Next >>

Name
Email Address
Friend's Name
Friend's Email


Enter the Above Characters:

Email this Page