Ok I'll give it a shot.
This is in response to the Supreme Court deciding that it is constitutional for the government to take your land, pay you for it, then allow the property to be purchased by a private contractor to build a subdivision/apartments/strip mall. In the case before the SC, "public use" was that the taxes a single property owner paid was enough reason to take the land so that buildings that bring in more taxes could be built.
This explains it better than I can... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=48608
The EO is the Prez saying that the Federal Government (the departments of which are under his authority) will not take land for the reason of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. (it gives the reasons why property can be taken in section 3)
The good is that this limits the Federal government from taking land for bad reasons after the SC ruled that the consitution allowed it. The bad is that this does nothing for individual states. Also, the next President could also just issue a EO saying this one is no longer valid.
OK,,, I gotchya, they can still still pretty much give you cash and take it, but they can not use it for investment purposes to benefit themselves or a private party, or a corporation...The property can ONLY be used to benefit the public and is for public use only.....
Sorry, but must just be my mindset lately of "What's the Gov't taking next???" :shock:
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.