total horsechit
eminent domain abuse
- Thread starter bypassfilter
- Start date
- Status
Yep, it's official. The little guy only gets to "rent" his property in the U.S.
Isn't it odd that the justices that are made out to be the "caring & compassionate" bunch are the ones who mopped the floor with the rights of the "little guy"? While the "big business corporate stooges" vehemently disagreed? Hmm . . . let's chew on that for a while.
All started with the idea that property could be taken for other than public use. Called Asset Forfeiture, now we all can lose whatever we have at any time for any reason.
Anyone ever wonder why attacks on second amendment rights go hand in hand with this type of foolishness. Our masters wont let us protect what we have worked for.
Dan
Anyone ever wonder why attacks on second amendment rights go hand in hand with this type of foolishness. Our masters wont let us protect what we have worked for.
Dan
So where, when you need it, is the idea that the invisible hand of capitalism (market pricing derived by the intersection of unmanipulated supply/demand) perfectly allocates resources to where they are best needed?
This is another great example of how business people/powers-that-be talk out of both sides of their mouth. They are pro-socialist/anti-capitalist if that benefits them today, pro-capitalist/anti-socialist if that benefits them tomorrow.
P.S. - Yeah, yeah, I know this is nothing new, that in the real world this is the way the powers-that-be have always gotten to that position (by using the government as their enforcer in order to feed at the public trough), but I'm talking in the sense of how people justify their actions and what we allow them to get away with.
[ June 23, 2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]
This is another great example of how business people/powers-that-be talk out of both sides of their mouth. They are pro-socialist/anti-capitalist if that benefits them today, pro-capitalist/anti-socialist if that benefits them tomorrow.
P.S. - Yeah, yeah, I know this is nothing new, that in the real world this is the way the powers-that-be have always gotten to that position (by using the government as their enforcer in order to feed at the public trough), but I'm talking in the sense of how people justify their actions and what we allow them to get away with.
[ June 23, 2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]
Totally agree. I just saw this on Yahoo news and was about to post it when I saw your post. Holy crap this chaps my arse. I am sick of this government going out of control. Some say it's chicken little sky is falling, but when you can find an example of it AT LEAST every week, I don't think so.
I wish I didn't need to work or I think I would offer to stand on this guys property when they try to tear it down. In fact everyone should. Chain themselves to it so they can't remove them. In fact I don't think I am out of line for suggesting they ought to equip themselves with body armor and firearms, if need be. effin BS!! Screw the gov't. so sick of this.
Last weekend they had to turn a town parade into a police state as well. Tons of cops telling people they must stay out of street. Etc. Yeah what freaking fun, throwing candy but you have to stand on the curb like a drone. I didn't listen to them. Cop didn't come back much after people next to me harrased him. Good. It's not like the kids were running by the cars. I'm not even 30 but I guarantee it wasn't like this 30 yrs ago (I'm sure parades were just a bloodbath back then). Probably not even 10. Just more conditioning to accept more and more controls, slowly but surely. Stand on curb? Yes master. Give us your house? Yes master, if it's whats best for you. Anything you say.
Geez... you need the property, he doesn't want to sell,Oh well. ...either offer more money until he does or you will just have to wait 20-30yrs until he dies. Craziness.
I wish I didn't need to work or I think I would offer to stand on this guys property when they try to tear it down. In fact everyone should. Chain themselves to it so they can't remove them. In fact I don't think I am out of line for suggesting they ought to equip themselves with body armor and firearms, if need be. effin BS!! Screw the gov't. so sick of this.
Last weekend they had to turn a town parade into a police state as well. Tons of cops telling people they must stay out of street. Etc. Yeah what freaking fun, throwing candy but you have to stand on the curb like a drone. I didn't listen to them. Cop didn't come back much after people next to me harrased him. Good. It's not like the kids were running by the cars. I'm not even 30 but I guarantee it wasn't like this 30 yrs ago (I'm sure parades were just a bloodbath back then). Probably not even 10. Just more conditioning to accept more and more controls, slowly but surely. Stand on curb? Yes master. Give us your house? Yes master, if it's whats best for you. Anything you say.
Geez... you need the property, he doesn't want to sell,Oh well. ...either offer more money until he does or you will just have to wait 20-30yrs until he dies. Craziness.
John D, you are so right!
Almost unbelievable. I really hope that people take a stand and don't leave their homes.
I saw in those articles that states have the right to more restrictively control eminent domain.
I propose one state jump in the fracas... New Hampshire strikes me as a good place to start... and in their state constitution(s) guarantee if one owns land, they own it, as long as they pay their taxes etc and follow the "classic" (tight) eminent domain rules.
People will invest in "safe" land more than unprotected land. Its value will rise and the government will generate more tax revenue. NH is my local example because they depend heavily on RE taxes.
Conversely if one's house is in the crosshairs of development, why bother to maintain it or expand it... activities that lead to increased tax revenue?
I propose one state jump in the fracas... New Hampshire strikes me as a good place to start... and in their state constitution(s) guarantee if one owns land, they own it, as long as they pay their taxes etc and follow the "classic" (tight) eminent domain rules.
People will invest in "safe" land more than unprotected land. Its value will rise and the government will generate more tax revenue. NH is my local example because they depend heavily on RE taxes.
Conversely if one's house is in the crosshairs of development, why bother to maintain it or expand it... activities that lead to increased tax revenue?
Freedom is no longer freedom.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Anybody who believes he "owns" property (land) in the US better think again. Don't pay your property taxes and see what will happen to "your land."
I'm so sick of the government. Just the other day, the Memphis city council approved camera lights to be put on stoplights throughout the city. they say it makes the civilians safer and results in less automobile deaths. it also generates huge azz $$$$ revenue!!!!
Get in line if you're upset about losing land to teh government. A number of years ago Slade Gorton introduced a bill which in part would have revoked treaties with Native Americans. From what I can recall the Indian lobby studied the proposal and actually supported it. Legal precedent for the treaties is based on international law, and one possible outcome would be returning land if the treaties were broken.
The State of Indiana "seized" my parents house in 1973 in order to build Indiana University Southeast, a satellite campus for IU. They paid my parents way over the market value of their house which enabled them to buy a much larger house than they could have ever afforded for me and my brother and sister to live in.One isolated example of course but it worked out for us. Interesting to note that the dissenting justices where Republicans...
I'm not against eminent domain if it is for the public use, like roads, bridges, schools, etc.
But what the Supreme Court did today was outrageous.
But what the Supreme Court did today was outrageous.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
and one possible outcome would be returning land if the treaties were broken.
Returning it to whom? The one granting it ..or the one it was taken from to begin with?
My old backyard of my parents rented house is now I-495 in Norton, MA. Mazda USA is now down the street. The two bedroom house still sits there ..but the vast woods that I hiked in ..is not.
I'm sure that there's a lot of "slightly soiled" politics involved in such things. The land owners are pretty much out of the fortunes that are gained in the process.
I don't think that this is all that out of whack. The part that is out of whack is that the original land owner doesn't get a fair piece of the fortunes that will be earned by the developer, the contractors, and the city/municipality. What they get for their property is (probably) current market value ..and an increased cost of living if the economic vitality of their former home pays off.
Returning it to whom? The one granting it ..or the one it was taken from to begin with?
My old backyard of my parents rented house is now I-495 in Norton, MA. Mazda USA is now down the street. The two bedroom house still sits there ..but the vast woods that I hiked in ..is not.
I'm sure that there's a lot of "slightly soiled" politics involved in such things. The land owners are pretty much out of the fortunes that are gained in the process.
I don't think that this is all that out of whack. The part that is out of whack is that the original land owner doesn't get a fair piece of the fortunes that will be earned by the developer, the contractors, and the city/municipality. What they get for their property is (probably) current market value ..and an increased cost of living if the economic vitality of their former home pays off.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
I simply have a problem with the concept that something that supposedly is mine can be taken. It's not about compensation, which may well be generous. It's about the fact that what's mine isn't really mine if it can be taken.
- Status
Similar threads
