McCrory's shady past: using government power to take private property
Which should enrage opponents of eminent domain, but probably won't:
The record evidences multiple Duke Power internal e- mail messages and memoranda reflecting that Duke Power and the City collaborated to have the City acquire a fee simple title to the property in order that Duke Power could provide the power to the plant. These e-mail messages indicate that the mayor pro tempore of the City, an employee of Duke Power, as well as the project director had contact with Duke Power officials and discussed condemning a fee simple interest for the project. The mayor pro tempore chaired the 12 September 1994 City Council meeting where the subject of condemning a fee simple was discussed, and he voted in favor of a fee simple condemnation."
The fact that Justice Lake had to make that observation in a dissent tells you something about how the state approaches government ethics, and that something isn't good. Such a glaring conflict of interest should be dealt with harshly but, more often than not, falls under an ever-rising bar of what's acceptable. And I can't believe Myers Park Pat can say this with a straight face:
"This is the first I've heard of this. (It is) just amazing this attack on the private sector," McCrory said.
Welcome to fricking Bizarro World. He uses his (government) position to confiscate private property, and then characterizes the revelation of that bad behavior as an "attack on the private sector"? I'd say stealing private property is a much bigger attack on the private sector than just talking about it.
Here's more from Justice Lake, which sounds frighteningly similar to complaints that have been filed recently by victims of Keystone XL land grabs, not to mention numerous fracked farmers in PA and elsewhere:
Had the excellent unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeals been affirmed, as it should have been, the practical effect of such decision would be that the City would get an easement to bury its pipeline underground and to maintain it in the future, and the Cooks would still be able to use their property as a dairy farm, as they have since at least the early 1960s. Private property rights would be respected, and the legitimate public use in question would proceed unimpeded. The result of the majority's decision will be to split the Cooks' dairy into two separate, disjointed parcels and keep them from using the land even for grazing. The decision will also allow the improper use of the power of eminent domain to circumvent the intent and purpose of the carefully devised statewide legislative plan for settlement of electric service areas between electric suppliers, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 62-110.2.
If supposed Libertarian groups like Civitas and JLF wanted to remain true to (stated) principle, they would have already been banging the property rights drum about McCrory's history and the Keystone land grabs. The silence is deafening.