It began in New London
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: It began in New London |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 10:10
Profile
Current laws allows the taking of private property by government upon the showing of a public purpose and the payment of just compensation for the property. Ballot Measure 39 makes changes to Oregon statutes by limiting the authority of the government to condemn residences, business establishments, and farms or forest operations if the government intends to subsequently transfer an interest in the property to another private individual. A Yes vote indicates approval of a change in the current law. A No vote indicates approval of the current law. As always, discuss. There are plenty of underlying issues and non-issues here. Poll Information This poll contains 1 question(s). 20 user(s) have voted. You may not view the results of this poll without voting. function launch_voter () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=vote;pollid=SVpcHmjwGmXF"); return true; } // end launch_voter function launch_viewer () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=view;pollid=SVpcHmjwGmXF"); return true; } // end launch_viewer function launch_window (url) { preview = window.open( url, "preview", "width=550,height=300,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status,menubar=no,scrollbars,resizable,copyhistory=no" ); window.preview.focus(); return preview; } // end launch_window   -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 10:37
Profile
I vote change the law. The intent of the law is to allow proper functioning of government and planning of societal development. Things like highways, nature preserves, derelict structures that affect groups rather than individuals. However, that intent can be warped to allow one's private interests to be advanced vis a vis other private interests in the name of profit. This is not good. 1st post on topic. 1st for me. Woo hoo. Note these are spammed thoughts with little intellectual thought and less clarity of organization. -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Dollop of Whipped Cream
Member # 391
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 12:12
Profile
Homepage
I voted yes for the same reasons as 2bit. -------------------- "Tyranicus is about the only one that still posts in the Nethergate Forum." —Randomizer Spiderweb Chat Room Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things. Posts: 562 | Registered: Friday, December 14 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 12:54
Profile
Homepage
Three questions: 1. Was this measured sponsored by an out-of-state group? 2. Are Oregonians frequently complaining about either this measure or the problem it attempts to solve? 3. If this measure passes, will it increase the likelyhood of Oregon schools being featured in Doonesbury comics again? Dikiyoba would like to be an informed voter, you see. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 14:28
Profile
quote:Well isn't that special? She wants to be informed... Fine. Yes, some kindly folks from "away" sponsored this ballot measure. Yes, I've heard lots of complaining from Oregonians. Now that election time is upon us, I hear more complaining about this particular issue. There may be some connection. Yes, it is likely that Doonesbury will lampoon this state shortly after the election. Not necessarily for this BM though. ... The major change to the law is that in the event of a successful appeal by the property owner, the state must pay all legal fees used in the defense of the property. Also, or further, the state will pay all legal fees if the final accepted offer from the state is higher than the initial offer by the state. ... The state of Oregon allows concerned (actually, anyone) parties the right to have published their opinions (pro and con) about each ballot measure. Pro ballot measure parties... David Hunnicutt (chief petitioner, Neighbors helping Neighbors Committee, 12 paid opinions) Oregon Assoc of REALTORS. Anti ballot measure parties... League of Women Voters of Oregon American Planning Association One argument in favor refers to a close friend of mine, who was driven off her ancestral lands (since 1946) by the invasion of a big box store. She is now a richer woman, but lacks the roots provided by owning a piece of property for a real long time. Any more informed and you will actually be able to vote effectively. ;) -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 15:17
Profile
Homepage
Thank you kindly, sir. I have now voted. quote:We get to vote on the BM that will result in lampooning next, right? Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 15:35
Profile
If I am to understand correctly, this retards the power of the state to exercise eminent domain in development of private industry, right? If so, yes. If it's the opposite, no. We have an initiative here in Nevada called TASC that I'm surprised hasn't gotten national press. It's two-pronged: one is a law to prevent any tax increases without something preposterous like a 2/3 majority or a statewide election or soemthing like that, another is a law that treats a failure to vote on any ballot measure as a vote against that measure. In other words, the idea is to legally transmogrify Nevada into a corporate fief. They flew the signature-collectors in from out of state at the movement's expense, pseudo-legally collected thousands of signatures (generally in private property without seeking a right to do so), and then paid them by the signature. (Something like $5 per, too - really good money.) Thankfully, the Nevada Supreme Court struck the initiave down, because it is baldly unconstitutional. It's still kind of scary, though. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 15:50
Profile
quote:Soon. quote:Correctly interpreted. quote:$5 is a nice figure. It might almost tempt fraud.... :) Edit - Odd look corrected. Odd thoughts retained. [ Thursday, October 19, 2006 16:27: Message edited by: Spookee Salmon ] -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 16:17
Profile
Homepage
No! How would you be able to sleep at night knowing your government doesn't even have enough power to demolish your house in order to build a training facility or emergency nuclear missile base? Vote no, or the terrorists win! -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 18:46
Profile
Lately the power of eminent domain has been used to remove established businesses and homes to replace them with some company that contributed big bucks to get the building site of its choice. There is nothing that stops governments from doing it for public good, but it shouldn't mean that the government gets to decide which business has a better right to the property. If a company wants the land it should have to pay for it and not force the owner to leave. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 21:14
Profile
Homepage
Read what the law does Emperor. You've got it a bit wrong. If eminent domaine was used for a school or something, I'm okay with that. But when land is sold to private developers, that's bad. It sounds like something that could lead to corruption. -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 21:17
Profile
Homepage
Yes, for reasons already stated. Besides, the government has better things to spend its money on than giving the private sector a helping hand. —Alorael, who would really like to know how that little bit of Nevadan fun slipped through the press cracks. That's the kind of political horror that needs to be poked, prodded, and then set on fire. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 22:11
Profile
Homepage
In that case, Andraste, the law does need to be changed, after all. Obviously, if a business is powerful enough to sway the motives of the government, then it deserved that land, no matter who it belongs to! The laws should be made even harsher! It makes for stronger businesses which makes for a more powerful nation. Getting rid of eminent domain allows the weak to flourish, and will hurt more people overall. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 22:19
Profile
Homepage
Answering serious real-world political questions in-character is less fun than you think it is. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 22:44
Profile
Homepage
I guess you would have preferred something like "oh, the poor small businesses, wah, it just not fair, complain, complain, complain." Just because I tend to exaggerate my opinions when I explain them doesn't mean it's not what I really think. By the way, it is too fun. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 23:23
Profile
Homepage
Even from a hard-boiled neoclassical economist's perspective, compulsory acquisition of land is just not good for the economy. Forcing people to sell their property at a price set by the buyer creates an artificial oversupply of land. As supply increases, prices drop, other developers move in, prices start to go up again, speculators see prices going up and start buying, and wham, you have a housing bubble. If someone wants land in a particular area to start a business, they can buy it like anyone else. If they can't find enough people in the same area who will sell for a price they're willing to pay, then obviously the land is worth more to its owners than to the developers. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 00:02
Profile
The government can evoke eminent domain to purchase land below its market value because and only because it possesses a certain mandate: to serve the interests of its constituents with development in the public interest. Schools, roads, airports, and other public works projects are not, generally speaking, particularly profitable - no matter how inexpensive the land on which they are built may be. Exercising eminent domain to build those helps fulfill a government mandate that might otherwise go unsatisfied. The only benefit accrued by the use of eminent domain to transfer land within the private sector is to bring profit to whoever the beneficiaries happen to be. It satisfies no particular mandate, enjoys no particular legitimacy, and is just dumb tyranny. Tullegolar, I bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 6581
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 03:37
Profile
Homepage
Guess who is the only one that had chosen "Abstain". quote:Holy words. -------------------- Download Geneforge 4: Rebellion You have 6 posts. Nobody cares what you think. - Thuryl Wikipedia may be your friend, but UBB is not. - Dikiyoba Posts: 1310 | Registered: Tuesday, December 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 04:57
Profile
Just watched Superman returns. Instead of passing new laws regarding constraints on eminent domain the government should just acquire some crystals and grow new land, perhaps displacing damp, musty Britain? -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 13:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:Nope, not anymore. I chose it because I'm curious as to how much more difficult the measure will actually make the process. And because I'm not from Oregon. I'd like to vote yes, though. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 14:08
Profile
I'm not sure that difficulty of process is the issue here. The ballor measure differentiates between two types of condemnations of real property. In the new classification system, if the condemned property is transfered to a different private party there are certain things that can happen. One thing that can happen is that the government takes property, never uses it for a public purpose, then sells it. If this happens, the original owner can take the issue to court. If condemned property is used for a public purpose, but the agreed price of condemnation is higher than the first offer, all attorney fees must be paid by the state. What this essentially means is that the buyer is setting the price at the highest level they can afford. This is not market price. If the buyer choses to bargain, they assume all costs incurred by both parties during the bargaining process, encouraging property owners to haggle for a higher price. This will change the dynamic of property ownership, weaken the right of condemnation, and cost the state government more money. The money that is paid by taxpayers and would otherwise go to stupid things like schools, paving roads, replacing broken bridges, schools, state police, and schools. Estimated cost to the state (annually) is $8 to $17 million. Estimated cost to local government (annually) is $8 to $13 million. ---- To be noted is that there are two solutions being presented in this ballot measure. One is a ban on a certain type of condemnation. The other is a financial penalty on all types of condemnation. Do we accept both because one is good? Or do we say no to the good because we can't accept the bad? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 14:54
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Jumpin' Salmon: quote:It would really be sensible to be able to vote on them separately, but then again, humans aren't always sensible. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 15:19
Profile
Homepage
The poll is currently 65% for vs. 25% against, so this thread looks like a good example of why Bush managed to win two terms in a row and why we have a Republican governor in California. From what I understood from Salmon's posts, the measure would make it much more expensive to use eminent domain for anything, including schools, roads, and other things left-leaning Spidwebbers would find appealing. Here is the key part: quote:Looks like Salmon already explained the implications of this while I was wondering whether to post, so I have only one things to add. When looking at any ballot measure the first thing to look at is who is supporting it and who is opposing it, ignoring the names of fake organisations and looking for thing you recognise. In this case we have: quote:Basically, it's realtors with enough money to buy lots of ad space vs. League of Women Voters and whomever that planning association represents. ("Neighbors helping Neighbors Committee" sounds like a typical name of a fake organisation created to conceal the identity of real backers of a measure.) PS In case my initial paragraph wasn't clear, I think this thread is a good example of how easy it is to fool people into voting for things that go against their views or best interests. Here we have mostly liberal Spidwebbers overwhelmingly voting for a measure that would benefit realtors at the expense of public works projects. The issue of government taking land to benefit other private entities seems to be used as a cover to sneak in a law that would have much more far-reaching consequences. [ Friday, October 20, 2006 15:21: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 15:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:I was under the impression that yes was to limit the seizure of private property. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Friday, October 20 2006 15:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:That's my point: your impression is right as far as it goes, but you missed that "yes" vote also makes it more expensive to build public works projects such as schools and roads. If you don't think government should be building schools and other infrastructure, you are entitled to your opinion, but I doubt that is the case. :) PS I haven't read the measure outside of this thread, so Salmon could just be playing devil's advocate in his last couple of posts, but it's usually enough to look at supporters and opponents lists to decide whom the proposed measure is really benefiting. I doubt that realtors would be pouring tons of money into passing a law to benefit average people, and League of Women Voters would be defending interests of WalMart. [ Friday, October 20, 2006 16:04: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2