Eminent Domain..this is crazy

[Stephen]

If this is real, then it's a beautiful thing:

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

 

[JimG.]

If this is real, then it's a beautiful thing:

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

We can certainly hope so anyway :lol: :beer: !

 

[ctenidae]

I was just coming to post that link. Would have beat you, Stephen, except I couldn't stop laughing long enough.
Lost Liberty Hotel
Just Desserts Cafe
And a free copy of Atlas Shrugged instead of a Gideon Bible.

Made my day.

 

[SkiDog]

good one stephen I was coming to pist that now...does everyone read FARK? thats where I got it...

M

 

[ctenidae]

That's where I got it, too.
I think blackhalo over there is about to blow a gasket.

 

[Stephen]

Friend heard it on Rush Limbaugh.

-Stephen

 

[loafer89]

The story was just posted on Yahoo news, I thought it was funny too. :lol:

They have police cruisers patroling his house. :-?

 

[smitty77]

I hope the story is true, and I hope it all goes through. I would love to see it get shoved right up his arse. I don't care what the ruling implies. Sure states can pass legislation to close the loophole, but what if they do the opposite and open the floodgates for land-grabbing? I agree with SkiDog - I bought it, it's mine, and you're not going to take it from me.

Smitty

 

[dmc]

I hope the story is true, and I hope it all goes through. I would love to see it get shoved right up his arse. I don't care what the ruling implies. Sure states can pass legislation to close the loophole, but what if they do the opposite and open the floodgates for land-grabbing? I agree with SkiDog - I bought it, it's mine, and you're not going to take it from me.

Smitty

Just for arguments sake... Cause I love to play "devils advocate"...

What if you had several neighbors that had crappy trashed houses that were bringing your property values down and someone wanted to enact this law to put in nicer buildings that would crank your value back up and better the entire community?

 

[ctenidae]

Therein lies the problem, dmc, as I'm quite sure you know. I think that's part of why the SCOTUS basically said "Yep, it's up to the local gov't to decide." Kind of sucks, though.
Who wins? In the end, whoever has the most money/power/influence/lawyers/brains/take your pick.

 

[pizza]

[No message]

 

[pizza]

What if you had several neighbors that had crappy trashed houses that were bringing your property values down and someone wanted to enact this law to put in nicer buildings that would crank your value back up and better the entire community?

Generally speaking, a developer wanting to put up a hotel or something will approach the city's zoning committee to invoke the eminant domain laws. They don't care what kind of houses are already in the proposed site - they just want the land.

Also consider that because of the nature of the buildings that go up, this power is typically used to take out entire tracks of homes, not individual places. So if for some reason your neighbors were targeted because their houses were crappy, the entire neighborhood would be rezoned for the new development. In other words, they would also be targeting YOU.

That said, if a house is in lousy enough condition, it could be condemned for a number of things other than eminent domain. For example, if it is not up to code, a C of O could be revoked and the asshats inside would have to leave. Sometimes these houses are as ugly on the inside as they are on the outside, creating unsanitary conditions such that public health officials can remove the residents. Sometimes there's illegal activity that goes on inside. The list goes on and on. Bottom line: eminent domain is not the answer.

 

[Snickers]

You cannot have it both ways. I was taught this as a youngster and was led to believe that it carried over into adult life. I am glad it isn’t a sin to be wrong. Increasingly, the Federal Government (please note I make no distinction between parties, for all intent and purposes there is no distinction) has it both ways. I stand corrected, they have it their way.

The carefully crafted checks and balances of the forefathers no longer exist to any meaningful extent. The meaning of words changes over time. So what was said historically (or in a historical context) may be contrary to what the meaning becomes today. The end result is that those in power gain more power. Those not in power, slowly lose what they have.

This erosion of rights starts slowly, very slowly. Should it go unchecked the only recourse is war. (As Great Britain found in 1776). This is not a call to war. This is a call to alarm. Even the minutest of freedoms must be guarded at all times as though it is a great treasure, for this is exactly what it is. Any lost freedom regained is a cause for joy. The loss of any freedom for anyone is a cause for sorrow.

We are tired of being abused. Tired of having the Constitution ignored. Tired of being forced to forget our own heritage for the sake of “Political Correctness”. Tired of having our rights stripped away, one by one. And now, we are tired of having our homes taken from us, so someone else can profit.

There are those who would say that the constitution laid out for (what was at the time) an agrarian society cannot apply to what America has become. Truth is truth, whether you are a farmer, industrialist or engineer. So we must look at the Constitution of the United States and ask, “Is this truth”. It has (for the most part) held in tact for almost two hundred and thirty years. This is a pretty good indicator.

Either you hold tightly to what the Constitution boldly proclaims, or you are a traitor to this country. If you interpret it to make law, you have committed treason. If you do not consider the people when interpreting the Constitution you have committed high treason for the Constitution is OF, FOR and BY the people.

It is not for industries, municipalities nor even the Government itself (other than something to keep the Government in check). Read the preamble, I dare you. Start with the first three words, “WE THE PEOPLE”.

 

[JimG.]

Welcome aboard Snickers...I think there are quite a few folks who feel the same way you do.

 

[loafer89]

I live about 1 mile from the largest shopping mall in Suffolk County. This ruling kind of makes me wonder what might happen if the mall wants to expand?

Development has been rampant in my town and nearly all of the usable/buildable land is now gone. My town would sell the town hall to a developer for the right price :roll: :roll:

As an example, Sports Plus is a large sports complex that is located just next to the mall, and they had a beautiful par 64 golf course. The owner sold the land (about 20-30 acres) to build condominuims on. :evil: :angry:

 

[dmc]

For example, if it is not up to code, a C of O could be revoked and the asshats inside would have to leave.

Pizza - That was a great use of "asshat"... Good job...

I'm convinced that I'm hopelessly liberal cause I'm still a little unsure about this law... I can still kinda see where it could be good to serve the needs of the many but I'm starting to sway...

I'm enjoying the debate...

Last night I had dinner with my best buddies who's one of the Town Trustees of the Village of Hunter... I was joking that I would use this law take some property to open a bar - all I needed was his backing...
He assured me that it would never happen in Hunter...

 

[ctenidae]

I see the use for good of the ruling, but I think the probability of misuse is extremely high. Note, I said "probability", not "possibility".

 

[dmc]

I see the use for good of the ruling, but I think the probability of misuse is extremely high. Note, I said "probability", not "possibility".

I agree...

 

[jargen]

the L word

Interstingly, looking into it a bit more. It's not so surprising that the liberal judges voted for it. Actually, when you think about it, it's to be expected. Liberals aren't concerned with teh individual- they're concerned with the Public. That means everyone. COnservatives tend to be more concerned with individual rights and actions.

The prevailing 5-vote majority was comprised of Justices Anthony Kennedy (R-Reagan), David H. Souter (R-Bush), John Paul Stevens (R-Ford), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D-Clinton), and Stephen G. Breyer (D-Clinton).

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/

With Democratic nominees accounting for 2 of the 9 people on the Supreme Court, you've really got to suspend the factual reality of the matter to blame liberals for any Supreme Court decision these days.

 

[Stephen]

Re: the L word

With Democratic nominees accounting for 2 of the 9 people on the Supreme Court, you've really got to suspend the factual reality of the matter to blame liberals for any Supreme Court decision these days.

LOL There's a big difference between who appointed them and thier voting philosophy. I'd be hard pressed to call Souter a conservative.

-Stephen

By the way, welcome to the boards. So, are you into hiking, or skiing, or both? :wink: