Really constitutional U.S. government rights?
| Author | Topic: Really constitutional U.S. government rights? |
|---|---|
|
Apprentice
Member # 5881
|
written Saturday, June 25 2005 13:04
Profile
Eminent Domain,the controversial has been going on for years about what it truly means. I know it is used when they want to improve roads,and buildings. Since the Supreme Court ruling, they seem to be saying we only need to offer you 1/5 of the value of the property or confiscate the property forcefully. Is it just me or does it seem like the american dreams of our fore-fathers has diminished greatly after the death of former President JFK? Why should we give up our homes for a business when they should approach the small guys and buy it legally? Posts: 21 | Registered: Friday, June 3 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Saturday, June 25 2005 13:20
Profile
Well, it was actually the Connecticut Supreme Court. Luckily it doesn't apply to the rest of the country, and several states' Supreme Courts have ruled against eminent domain. Unluckily for me, the New York Supreme Court has upheld it. The New York Times Magazine had a brief interview with Bruce Ratner this weekend. Ratner is using eminent domain to seize land in Brooklyn for a new Nets Stadium; many people are losing their homes and businesses. Apparently the New York Times doesn't like him very much either — their questions for him were on the verge of mockery. -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, June 25 2005 13:34
Profile
Actually it was the US Supreme Court, and Sandra O'Connor wrote a scathing minority opinion. Already there is talk in the House of a constitutional amendment. Better yet, ask your county gov't the best way to stop it on a county to county basis. Tell them to make it applicable only for public works projects or the like. But yeah. I almost went all sushi on some innocents when I heard that news. *this message sponsored by responsible urban growth : 0% is a good thing* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Saturday, June 25 2005 13:48
Profile
quote:Oops. :o Constitutional amendment? What would it say? -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 878
|
written Saturday, June 25 2005 18:41
Profile
I can understand requiring people to sell thier homes when some large facility is being built so the project isn't derailed by some lone person who doesn't want to move. But thats just one thing. What I don't like is how they try to avoid paying what its worth so these people can't use what they are paid to buy a new home or business. For instance, my mom told me someone she knows noticed thier property tax assesment for a business this year was half the previous year for no apparent reason, and they discovered its the same for some nearby businesses. So its obvious to conclude some developers got the city government to devalue the property so they can buy it for a fraction of its value. -------------------- Warning: Posts may contain misspellinks and typo.s Posts: 409 | Registered: Sunday, March 31 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, June 25 2005 21:21
Profile
I would recommend to anyone that doesn't see a huge problem with the recent US SC decision on eminent domain to read up on property rights, especially stuff about staking a claim, proving it up, and registering your claim. The argument that someone can make more money off your land than you currently are doing is translatable to a lamentable extent. If Microsoft claimed they could do a better job ruining (sp?) the country than the current type of government, should they too have the right to buy out the Feds? Obviously an extreme example, but still similar. *this message supplied by Mailliw Setag, your future is secure* [ Saturday, June 25, 2005 21:22: Message edited by: Jumpin' Salmon ] Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 4506
|
written Saturday, June 25 2005 23:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:Is that possible? I mean, you sound like you're in america, so you have Bush. Bush - - - Gates ~ Where's the difference in goodness? - Archmagi Micael -------------------- "You dare Trifle with Exile?" - Erika the Archmage -------------------- My Scenarios: Undead Valley : A small Undead problem, what could possibly go wrong? -------------------- Proof of Richard Black's existance: Richard Black - PROOF of his existance (the Infernal one's website). Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5881
|
written Sunday, June 26 2005 09:02
Profile
The government can do anything for economic reasons now.. Still... They are taking away everything that America's dream stands for. Private industries who take our land through the government should be paying for the land. If we say no, we are acting within our fore-father's dream. Now the US Supreme Court is saying we have no dream nor rights to live our dream of owning our own land/house,etc.... Posts: 21 | Registered: Friday, June 3 2005 07:00 |
|
Mongolian Barbeque
Member # 1528
|
written Sunday, June 26 2005 10:55
Profile
I think the U.S. Supreme Court should be torn down and a shopping mall built in its place. -------------------- The A.E. van Vogt Information Site My Tribute to the Greatest Writer of the Science Fiction Golden Age Posts: 907 | Registered: Monday, July 15 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, June 26 2005 13:29
Profile
Homepage
I find nothing wrong with attacking the legal concept of eminent domain. I mean, I'm a white male, so a government whose hands are legally tied in the private sector does not hurt me at all. Oh, wait. We're pidgeon-holing this discussion to 'property rights', aren't we? And not the wider implications of assaulting eminent domain as a legal concept? In that case, I invite anyone who is losing sleep to this decision to have a nice, long chat with whoever legally owns the property on which the insomniac lives on the fine points of property rights. Chances are, you can find him or her in Oklahoma. [ Sunday, June 26, 2005 13:30: Message edited by: George A. Custer & The SE Party ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 878
|
written Sunday, June 26 2005 13:46
Profile
I have little against the principle of eminent domain, what I have the problem with is how in practice they rarely pay what the property is truely worth (cost of buying a similar building), due to using tricks like how I mentioned of drastically lowering the property tax evaluation the year before. -------------------- Warning: Posts may contain misspellinks and typo.s Posts: 409 | Registered: Sunday, March 31 2002 08:00 |