‘Victory for Property Rights’
The article by Peirce misses the point of the Supreme Court’s ruling on taking of private property. The Supreme Court is not favoring property owners over the welfare of the general public. All the Supreme Court is saying is that if an action is for the benefit of the general public, then the general public should pay for it.
It is hardly fair that a single person or a small group of people should bear the entire economic burden of some program that may have an impact on the well being of the community as a whole. The way the community pays for it is through their taxes, not by confiscating an individual’s property.
WILLIAM ROTH
Joshua Tree
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
