[ummbikes]

This should even freak N8 out a little.

The Supreme Court allows a developer to have a neighborhood condemed in order to build a office complex, by the way it's a waterfront area.

Does this anger anyone here?

What is the view from Republicans?

Dems?

Libertarians? (Shock, horror, and rightious rage is my response.)

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Helloooooooooooooooo yesterday

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122889

 

[Ridemonkey]

I think that at the very least the gubment should have to pay fair market value + 50% if they are going to steal someones property.

 

[valve bouncer]

I think that at the very least the gubment should have to pay fair market value + 50% if they are going to steal someones property.

Dream on....they'll be lucky to get market price and a :nuts:

 

[ummbikes]

Helloooooooooooooooo yesterday

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122889

Hello Lounge! Hello not getting away with snarky remarks! Hello who the hell goes to the Lounge for politics!

Uhh ya, double post my bad...

So anything worth reading in that thread?

 

[ummbikes]

I think that at the very least the gubment should have to pay fair market value + 50% if they are going to steal someones property.

The thing of it is, it isn't the government stealing, it is a developer. he just uses the gubment to facillitate the deal.

But ya, more than market value sounds fair.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

eh I just browsed that thread.. sorry.

FYi... often (but not always, and not in the most recent publicized cases). The "appraised" value by the gubernot is considerably more then fair market value. Especially if the area truly is blighted. I have seen a number of positive (where the property owner makes out better) examples here in South Florida.

I still dont like the premise though.

 

[Snacks]

The whole idea makes me ill

So we all just wait for a knock on the door from the government telling us they are taking our house to build a mall? :nuts:

 

[stevew]

The whole idea makes me ill

So we all just wait for a knock on the door from the government telling us they are taking our house to build a mall? :nuts:

It is for the betterment of society to have a Hot Topic in every county. So teens will have access to edgy attire and t-shirts by crappy bands.

 

[Ridemonkey]

It is for the betterment of society to have a Hot Topic in every county. So teens will have access to edgy attire and t-shirts by crappy bands.

It really is sickening. This country is going to complete ****.

 

[Velocity Girl]

What a crock!!! I can't believe that the Supreme Court actually voted to allow this. What a scary door this opens....as parts of this country continue to grow at such a rapid pace land, and especially prime real estate, is harder and harder to come by so I can only see the frequency of such a thing continuing to increase. Very unsettling

 

[Ridemonkey]

People in the NW might be aware of the Klamath Basin water war. It's been in most major publications. Anyway - theres not enough water for eveyone and there is a lot of agriculture in the area. The government has offered to buy the farmers out of a tough situation by giving them more than the value of their land so that the number of farms can be reduced.

So its ok to pay more than market value for land so that it can sit empty - but at the same time its ok to seize someones property and put up a fricken mall and they deserve no other compensation that fair market value? I hope the **** really hits the fan over this one.

 

[N8 v2.0]

It will take nothing short of a constitutional amendment to change this ruling I'm afraid.

*edit: do you like my HillaTroll doll avi?

 

[stevew]

So it was the "neanderthals" like Scalia who were opposed to this.

Interesting.

 

[N8 v2.0]

So it was the "neanderthals" like Scalia who were opposed to this.

Interesting.

Dissenting: O'Connor (Reagan), Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (Nixon), Antonin Scalia (Reagan) and Clarence Thomas (Bush).

 

[Archslater]

I can sort-of understand when gov't takes private property for infrastructure/public buildings/etc........ as it is necessary sometimes for progress. It makes me sick to my stomach though when they take private property and hand it over to a private corporation to profit from.

 

[Damn True]

Nothing short of facism. (In a facist state individuals can own property, but the government decides which individuals get that privelege see Italy 1930's)

Another example of our judicial branch gone completely out of control. This sets up local governments to allow a private individual (developer) to have the govt seize your property and transfer it to their ownership. The justification for this is insulting, divisive and most often discriminatory to the lower income portion of the populace.

Prior to this "imminant domain" could be enacted to provide land for public projects such as courthouses, libraries, roads etc (read Justice Thomas' dissent) this move will allow municipalities to decide simply upon basis of tax revenue wether your house is serving the public good or not.

So imagine this. An older neihborhood of homes owned by largely lower income people, perhaps homes that have been passed on to a second or third generation. The porperty values will be relatively low. Which means, the taxes on those properties are pretty low as well. A developer comes along and determines that a strip mall would provide an increase in the porperty value and an increase therefore in tax revenue to the city not to mention additional retail sales taxes and ba-bing. Those people lose their homes.

 

[Damn True]

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

The dissent begins on pg27.

For the record, the Supreme Court just took the 5th amendment to the constitution and tossed it in the trash. That is NOT the way this is supposed to work.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

I hope the **** really hits the fan over this one.

It has already hit the fan, and the final word has been spoken (which is EVEN SCARIER!)

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

The dissent begins on pg27.

For the record, the Supreme Court just took the 5th amendment to the constitution and tossed it in the trash. That is NOT the way this is supposed to work.

Unfortunately they (The Supreme Court) are the one's that make that call.

I guess this should REALLY MOTIVATE people to vote in their local elections. Being in a "Hot" Real Estate market down here in S Florida we see local campaigns won and lost on the "Pro-Development" stance all the time.

No matter how you look at it, it is a scary proposition.

 

[ridetoofast]

Nothing short of facism. (In a facist state individuals can own property, but the government decides which individuals get that privelege see Italy 1930's)

Another example of our judicial branch gone completely out of control. This sets up local governments to allow a private individual (developer) to have the govt seize your property and transfer it to their ownership. The justification for this is insulting, divisive and most often discriminatory to the lower income portion of the populace.

Prior to this "imminant domain" could be enacted to provide land for public projects such as courthouses, libraries, roads etc (read Justice Thomas' dissent) this move will allow municipalities to decide simply upon basis of tax revenue wether your house is serving the public good or not.

So imagine this. An older neihborhood of homes owned by largely lower income people, perhaps homes that have been passed on to a second or third generation. The porperty values will be relatively low. Which means, the taxes on those properties are pretty low as well. A developer comes along and determines that a strip mall would provide an increase in the porperty value and an increase therefore in tax revenue to the city not to mention additional retail sales taxes and ba-bing. Those people lose their homes.

one of the local councilman here in norfolk is already talking about a property that he wants to seize, turn it into a PARKING lot, to keep the local coca cola bottling plant here. he was on air talking about it the DAY of the ruling.

 

[Damn True]

I encourage you all to write or call your Representative to the House (find that info here http://www.house.gov/writerep/ ) and your Senator (find that info here http://www.senate.gov/ ) and tell them that

a) you are opposed to this decision and demand legislation to counter it and defend the 5th and 14th amendment
b) you are fed up with the judiciary legislating from the bench

 

[Damn True]

More info:
http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/ED-Report-DBerliner.doc

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/Gov-Highest-Bidder-JKramer.doc

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/RoomWO-A-View-DBerliner.doc

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/Home-Not-A-Castle-DBerliner.doc

http://www.ij.org/private_property/norwood/6_20_05pr.html

 

[Damn True]

Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, “It’s a dark day for American homeowners. While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected. Every home, small business, or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the Court, that’s a good enough reason for eminent domain.”

“Justice O’Connor wrote, ‘Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.’”

 

[Silver]

How much do you think it costs to bribe a couple of city councillors in a middle sized city? Going off of what Congressmen get, it's gotta be less than $1000.

Ah well, look for the day (coming soon, I'm sure) when a city councilman somewhere gets shot. I won't be crying for him.

 

[Atomic Dog]

I was listening, on some talk radio show I believe, to someone relating a story about how a corporation was offered a bunch of tax breaks to build a factory in their town. The corp. moved in and stayed till the tax incentives expired, then packed up and moved somewhere else.

I can't wait to hear about something like that happening after a bunch of homeowners are displaced.

It's interesting that while this forum is usually pretty well divided on most issues, pretty much everyone agrees this is a really bad idea. So the question is, who the hell thinks it's a good thing?

 

[Damn True]

I was listening, on some talk radio show I believe, to someone relating a story about how a corporation was offered a bunch of tax breaks to build a factory in their town. The corp. moved in and stayed till the tax incentives expired, then packed up and moved somewhere else.

I can't wait to hear about something like that happening after a bunch of homeowners are displaced.

It's interesting that while this forum is usually pretty well divided on most issues, pretty much everyone agrees this is a really bad idea. So the question is, who the hell thinks it's a good thing?

Developers, large corporations, The Gap and city councilmen.

 

[ridetoofast]

How much do you think it costs to bribe a couple of city councillors in a middle sized city? Going off of what Congressmen get, it's gotta be less than $1000.

Ah well, look for the day (coming soon, I'm sure) when a city councilman somewhere gets shot. I won't be crying for him.

mark the calendar..silver and i agree...i'd like to be the one that shoots the SOB

 

[Damn True]

You'd do better to knock off a few supreme court justices while a Republican is in office.

 

[ridetoofast]

i know its not a terribly christian/moral thing to say/think...but i could NOT agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Silver]

You'd do better to knock off a few supreme court justices while a Republican is in office.

I'd like to keep homosexuals out of camps, thanks...

And, by the way, a majority of the justices that voted for this were appointed by...wait...here it comes...you may have guessed it!...a Republican president.

Stevens by Ford, Kennedy by Reagan, and Souter by Bush. So, I guess that throws out that theory, eh?

 

[Damn True]

It was a tounge in cheek statement. There are many guilty parties in this. The Justices who seem to think that they can crap on the constitution and legislate despite the will of the populace, corrupt local govt officials and the corrupt developers.

I figure the best place to start is at the top.

...and I know who appointed those justices, thanks. Interesting to note though that Regan's and Bush v1's appointees were split. Kinda flys in the face of the left's arguments regarding Republican appointments.

(PS I don't actually condone knocking off anyone.)

 

[valve bouncer]

This topic must be a first on the PD forum. Everyone agrees it sucks.

 

[valve bouncer]

(PS I don't actually condone knocking off anyone.)

Too late True, the brownshirts are on the way to your door as we speak.

 

[Damn True]

Too late True, the brownshirts are on the way to your door as we speak.

Ack! OMIGOD!

You'll never take me alive copper!

 

[valve bouncer]

Ack! OMIGOD!

You'll never take me alive copper!

Damn True? Don't know who you're talkin' about.

 

[ioscope]

Yeah, teenagers suck
stupid teenies, drinking slushees and riding their BMX bikes thru traffic