Nick Bilotto – 7/17/05

This page was last updated on July 23, 2005.

Decision left for locals; Nick Bilotto; Beaver County Times; July 17, 2005.

I’m not sure where Mr. Bilotto is coming from or going, but his interpretation of the Supreme Court decision on taking private property is BS. I could be wrong, but I suspect he’s trying to provide cover for the five liberal justices who couldn’t understand the meaning of “public use” in the Constitution’s 5^th Amendment.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I wonder how many people that have complained about ‘losing’ their property rights are familiar with the facts in the case or have read the decision?

“Facts:

“For hundreds of years, the court has permitted the government to take private land for other private use. Railroads are one example.”

[RWC] Does Mr. Bilotto want us to believe he can’t see the clear difference between a railroad and taking a person’s home to put up a convenience store? In case Mr. Bilotto didn’t notice, railroads have a very limited ability to maneuver around obstacles. That’s not true for buildings.

“Connecticut passed a law saying that economic development is a ‘public use.’ New London, Conn., spent years putting together a comprehensive plan to restore and develop the community. They had the support of local and some new intended businesses and most of the community. Nine people owning 15 parcels stood in the way.”

[RWC] When he used “restore and develop,” Mr. Bilotto implied the area in question was blighted. It was not.

“Decision:

“The court ruled that it was not its job to define ‘public use.’ Since the Constitution failed to do so, the court ruled that the definition was best left to the people and their representatives. Because Connecticut and New London had not been arbitrary nor capricious, and the ‘taking’ was not for any particular business or other private party, but the general good of the community, they allowed the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling to stand.”

[RWC] It wasn’t the court’s “job to define public use?” Is Mr. Bilotto serious? Unless Mr. Bilotto wants to pick and choose, he just claimed every word in the U.S Constitution should be subject to redefinition by every government from local through federal. I don’t know Mr. Bilotto’s political leanings, but this is judicial activism.

“The letter-writers’ wrath would best be spent making sure the Pennsylvania Legislature writes such a law and clearly defines what can and cannot be done.

“They should also become involved in their local community government and planning commissions.

“The court is often accused of reading things into the Constitution that aren’t there. Here, they left it up to us. Let’s exercise our right to determine our own future and move forward.”

[RWC] Mr. Bilotto wrote, “The court is often accused of reading things into the Constitution that aren’t there.” That’s true and this ruling is a prime example, though Mr. Bilotto doesn’t seem to agree.