Cool. Now citizens can't own property
- 06-24-2005, 12:11 AM
I agree the government has the power to take the land in certain cases. Hell, the 5th Amendment authorizes it.
My problem, however, is that many landowners are not given just compensation. The courts say that just compensation is fair market value. Often, the FMV of land is far below what it should be for some reason or another, or the landowner has put a lot of money into the land and therefore has a significant investment, but the FMV does not reflect that.
- 06-24-2005, 12:12 AM
Look, I'm not saying I completely agree with this ruling.
But you know how you feel when someone hears something about steroids on 20/20 and goes on and on about how bad they are for you without taking the time to educate themselves? That's what a lot of you are doing right now.
The media plays on people's fears. They love the fact that people are going to be outraged and are going to tune in to find out all about this. So they are going to sensationalize it as much as possible to create exactly the kind of reaction we are seeing here.
You can't adequately compensate with 'fair market value' for messing with someone's life, bulldozing their home and telling them to deal with it.
A better idea for 'fair compensation' in this case would be to give a share of the profits from the intruding private industry to the families' that had their homes taken. AND 'fair market value' AND relocation expenses. Make it good for everybody.
- 06-24-2005, 12:14 AM
This ruling is far less significant than many people are making it out to be. There is not suddenly going to be a rush of people losing their homes. And use of eminent domain still requires a court to rule on the taking of land.
My posts above were to try to get people to calm down instead of going off half cocked.
06-24-2005, 12:14 AM
I agree completely with those sentiments.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
06-24-2005, 12:15 AM
That's the fifth ammendment. Note the statement right before 'nor shall private property taken...'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Its not that signifigant NOW, but laws like this make way for crazier, more haneous laws in the future. Like the ability of the FDA to 'emergency schedule' a bodybuilding supplement, or an otherwise innocent person spending more time in jail than a rapist for growing a marijuana plant...laws like this one do have their long term repurcussions.This ruling is far less significant than many people are making it out to be. There is not suddenly going to be a rush of people losing their homes. And use of eminent domain still requires a court to rule on the taking of land.
06-24-2005, 12:16 AM
Yeah, that is one of the more clearly written Supreme Court opinions I've read. I posted the link before I had read the opinion.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
06-24-2005, 12:17 AM
Yup. But what people are missing is that there will still have to be court proceedings for the land to be taken.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
EDIT: Although the proceedings will be more about how much money they get rather than whether or not the land is taken.
06-24-2005, 12:20 AM
Right...It's now easier for private industry to make the case for taking someone's land. Who knows, maybe the people who have their homes taken will get plenty of compensation and everyone will be better off. But somehow I doubt it.Originally Posted by jrkarp
06-24-2005, 12:24 AM
Well, private industry can't do it. It still requires an action by a government body, and those are people in elected positions who can't abuse this power too much or they will be out of a job come next election.
06-24-2005, 12:27 AM
If it starts to get taken too far, what's going to happen is this: someone is going to go to court after their land gets taken, and eventually it will end up at the Supreme Court again. They'll say "****, that's not what we meant," and they will issue a ruling that will "narrow" and "clarify" this ruling so that it is applicable in fewer situations. That kind of thing has been happening for the last 200+ years. It's actually a good way for the court to later correct unintended consequences of their rulings. Some people end up getting screwed in the process, but that is never completely avoidable.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
06-24-2005, 12:36 AM
Hey, I know what we should do. We should all of us, the people, get together and pass an ammendment to the Constitution that protects the rights of property owners ...
Oh ... wait ...
06-24-2005, 12:44 AM
Multi-millionaire industry tycoons have much more influence on politicians than the average joe. You're right though, if something like this got too out of hand someone in the government would have the sense to shut it down.Well, private industry can't do it. It still requires an action by a government body, and those are people in elected positions who can't abuse this power too much or they will be out of a job come next election.
It's the fact that a law like this is actually on the books that is frightening to me. What if that was your house? Or my house? I dont think either of us would be looking at it objectively.Some people end up getting screwed in the process, but that is never completely avoidable
And you know, if whatever land developer/corporation/etc was offering these people enough for their property, it wouldnt be a problem. They don't want to be fair, they want to get these houses for as little expense to them as possible. That's business, it's all about the bottom line and always will be.
The fact that there is a law that could allow a private interest to take someone's land for developments that may positively affent the greater good and just maybe will end up making them millions of dollars just isnt right.
I know in this case, the city has a clear cut plan for developent that will result in 1000+ jobs in the community, and in a sense I can see their reasoning. But who knows, in other cases where this law may be applied it may not be so clear cut.
And then, this average American Citizen who just got 'fair market value' for his hard earned property has to find money to get a lawyer to protect his rights, in addition to taking time off work to find a new house and move, etc.
And who has more resources to fight this battle? The Corporate entity with near-unlimited financial resources and an in-house team of highly paid lawyers, or some poor sod making $40k a year trying to feed a family of 3?
That's the kind of situations you'll see because of this law, in the not-so-extreme case. The fact that its possible just isnt right.
06-24-2005, 12:51 AM
First they take your property and next goes your supplements ........
06-24-2005, 12:54 AM
06-24-2005, 01:04 AM
Charley Daniels said it best when he song "all this world needs is a few more rednecks"
The next presidential election in 2008 I'm going to vote for Larry the Cable Guy
GET 'R DONE!!!!
06-24-2005, 01:47 AM
Oh Geez...Originally Posted by Phoenix rising
06-24-2005, 01:50 AM
The city [New London, CT] has budgeted $1.6 million to pay for the 15 homes. Von Winkle said he's been told he will get $638,000 for his three houses. Von Winkle figures that's not even close to fair. He owns the homes mortgage-free and says he earns about $120,000 a year in rent.
The holdouts and their 15 homes were all that stood in the way of plans to build a hotel, office space and upscale homes.
I saw an interview with one of the homeowners. His property is a 10 bedroom house on 1/2 acre 200 feet from the waterfront. The city originally offered him $60K, but upped it to $150K. He said that local market value was actually more than $300K.
These people aren't getting just compensation, these people are getting BONED!! The horrific part is that any one of us could be next.
Sad day for our system.
06-24-2005, 02:38 AM
I'm glad you could appreicate my post reply BigVrungaOriginally Posted by BigVrunga
06-24-2005, 07:48 AM
In TN and Texas I believe it is legal to use deadly force in order to remove a trespasser from your property. Back at my parents house which is way off the road. All we'd have to do is let the dogs on them and if they came back and messed with the dogs well then they'd be messing with the "persuader" and he doesn't listen to much bull ****.
In all honestly if some smart ass corporate guy came out and after I tell him no your not getting my house and then the show up with a bull dozer. Some body will die plain and simple and then I will use my life savings to declare my inocence to the jury, which I am sure they could relate. Just my .02cc's not as an educated answer to the problem but it sure as hell would make a much louder outcry to the twisted government, politicians, courts, and corporations.
06-24-2005, 08:19 AM
This is a pretty naive stance. Private industry controls the government in this country. Who do you think pays to put these people in office? Do you really think the 'common man' could run a grass roots campaign against the corporate establishment, with their multimillion dollar campaigns, and win? Try it, I bet a few friends might vote for you, unless the recognized your opponents name from a TV ad saying what a great person he is or because his father was a politician before him.Originally Posted by jrkarp
In the beautiful city of Philadelphia, where I live, we have been going through a nasty 'pay to play' scandal where city officials where taking kickbacks to give out city work to private contractors. How hard do you think it will be for a developer to buy his way into the land he wants through the city? Throw in a generous donation to the reelection bid and the average person is screwed again in favor of corporate interests. Especially when the politician can easily justify his actions by saying, "The new shopping/housing will generate ten times more tax revenue for the city than before." Is the government in the business of making money also? Or, are they there to represent the people.
Now, I'm not saying that corporations have no right to make money, or that our system of government is run by charlatans. However, this seems to be an issue of moral fairness on every level, and it is not remotely fair. This is a utilitarian dream, it is a move that makes a group of people very happy at the expense of another, smaller group. I am happy to see so many posts that are riled up about this, I do not believe it is a 'hot-button' issue with people overreacting. I think it is the 'straw the broke the camel's back', and people are beginning to wake up to see that our rights are being trampled upon.
06-24-2005, 08:28 AM
It's not naive at all. I am very much aware of the corporate influence in politics. I am also aware that most of the people who elect these officials are not involved with the corporations, and that given the hysteria that this court ruling has generated, politicians that use this power are going to be on very thin ice.
Where do you think that the money comes from that pays for services like education, health care, police, snow removal, etc? From taxes. So yeah the government is in the business of making money so that they can provide services for the people.Is the government in the business of making money also? Or, are they there to represent the people.
06-24-2005, 08:29 AM
BTW Bush never got arrested for cocaine.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
He got a DWI.
06-24-2005, 08:32 AM
Once again the condemnation comes from the local government, not a "corporate guy." It still has to comport with requirements of procedural due process, meaning a notice and an opportunity to be heard.Originally Posted by Funny Monkey
If there was going to be a problem it would be police, not corporate types, who were removing you from your property. And shooting police officers most certainly does not go over well in Tennesee or Texas.
06-24-2005, 08:33 AM
People, what I'm saying here is not that this ruling is a good thing.
What I am saying is that the media is turning it into this huge thing and a lot of people are going off half cocked without knowing what it really means or even what it really says. You can't trust the media to lay it all out for you.
06-24-2005, 08:46 AM
Yeah that statement was in error...BTW Bush never got arrested for cocaine.
He got a DWI.
he was "allegedly arrested for cocaine use"
06-24-2005, 09:05 AM
AFAIK that never even happened. I never read anything about even an alleged cocaine bust, but I could be wrong. Where have you read that?
06-24-2005, 10:19 AM
No good. I'm always half cocked.Originally Posted by jrkarp
06-24-2005, 10:28 AM
Do a google search on 'George Bush Cocaine" and a bunch of stuff comes up. Most if it is all heresay and speculation though.AFAIK that never even happened. I never read anything about even an alleged cocaine bust, but I could be wrong. Where have you read that?
06-24-2005, 10:34 AM
And of course no one thinks of the issue from this angle: why is it such a good thing for the state to get more money? They do nothing but waste most of the money they have, they'll do no different with any more money that comes in. What, generate more tax revenue for them so they can have another year or two of of hearings on whether or not we should be able to buy creatine? Plus such 'plans' always end up backfiring and costing taxpayers more than planned because the new malls/stadiums/whatevers always get a healthy government subsidy and always end up going way over budget and never seem to bring as much business in as they predict. Which is actually common sense, because if these plans really were going to bring in that much business private industry would have been able to fund it on their own. They wouldn't need the city to do a land grab for them. The basic premise is that a bunch of political whores know better what will be good for the economy than the people who actually make up the economy. It's central planning at its most idiotic.Originally Posted by joecski
06-24-2005, 10:38 AM
Yeah, I've seen all that, I was just wondering if you had seen something more concrete.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
06-24-2005, 10:44 AM
You know that your roads, schools, police, snow removal, airports, plus free clinics, public transportation, and dozens of other things are paid for by tax revenue, right?Originally Posted by CDB
Um, the private industry does fund it on their own. They pay the "just compensation." The problem is that they need the land, which is where the government comes in.Which is actually common sense, because if these plans really were going to bring in that much business private industry would have been able to fund it on their own. They wouldn't need the city to do a land grab for them. The basic premise is that a bunch of political whores know better what will be good for the economy than the people who actually make up the economy. It's central planning at its most idiotic.
06-24-2005, 10:46 AM
corporate guy, politician, police officer, fireman, army, old lady, little children. If they are trying to take my home just so a mall, store, or facility can go there I am going to use whatever means to protect my property and my family. I could care less if you are wearing a uniform or not.Originally Posted by jrkarp
06-24-2005, 10:48 AM
All of this is simply not right. It is not ethical or moral. Politicians should have some ****ing balls and say "well these people do not want to sell so either make them a higher offer or find somewhere else". We need people to stand up no matter the cost.
06-24-2005, 10:54 AM
I don't entirely disagree with you.
But everyone acts like this is something new.
Eminent domain condemnations have been going on since this country was founded and long before that. The constitution specifically authorizes it.
06-24-2005, 11:10 AM
Yeah right....Bush and co. keep saying that they've increased jobs and all this crap, well these are the wrong KIND of jobs. All these takenover homes are taken over so that mini malls and shooping centers can be built, nothing more. How the **** are you supposed to support yourself, nonetheless raise a family when all of these jobs pay minimum wage? So waht it boils down to is they're kicking out these families, taking away their homes, and replacing htem with minimum wage jobs....yeah, that's a GREAT way to up the economy.new jobs and increased tax revenue
All this is, is a front to try and lower the deficit....nothing more...and they threw in "increasing jobs" in order to sugar coat it.....bull**** man, this country keeps shooting itself in the foot. And I mean cmon, is it really that shocking when you got arnold ****ing schwartzenegger as gov? OR how about all these other idiots that just happen to be "popular" and run for office and the the ignorant people of this country elect them...my god...political corectness, the deficit, the war in iraq, are all examples of how this country is turning to **** and they all could have been avoided or lessened to a considerable degree with a little more thinking and a lot less greediness.
06-24-2005, 11:13 AM
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that eminent domain meant the government could take land for 'public use', such as a school, highways, public works, etc., and not for private development. The part of this ruling that sticks out in my mind is that the government can now take land for use by private developers. That is what is fueling the outrage.Originally Posted by jrkarp
BTW, the government used the priciple of eminent domain to take Native American land at will and eventually they took the entire southwestern US from Mexico. That wasn't exactly the moral thing to do either, but it could be said that that was natural expansion of the US for the good of the citizens. This new ruling is natural expansion of the private for the corporate benefit - at the expense of the public. I guess since the government can't take our land by force anymore they have resorted to using the law.
06-24-2005, 11:19 AM
Read the case from the link that I posted above.Originally Posted by joecski
The court has NEVER held (at least not in the last 100 years) that 'public use' only meant for public works like schools or roads. They explain the history of the jurisprudence in detail.
06-24-2005, 11:23 AM
The really funny thing is that so many people are bitching about Bush with all this, when the liberals on the court were the ones who voted for the decision, and the biggest conservatives on the court (that is, the ones closest to Bush's political views) are the ones that voted against this ruling. This decision is very much un-republican and un-conservative.Originally Posted by lifted
Which is why it is weird to me that I don't completely disagree with the ruling, since I am usually a pretty hard core Republican.
And once again, it's not like there is an epidemic of this happening. This kind of thing happens vary rarely on this kind of scale. Usually, the taking is a portion of someone's land for a highway or something like that.
06-24-2005, 11:47 AM
I never said it was Bush's doing. I said that bush and co. keep telling hte AMerican people that they've increased jobs, and they are the wrong kind of jobs. I don't know where you got that I said it's bush's doings.Originally Posted by jrkarp
With that said, I still think Bush is a ****face. He's made many bad decisions during his term, and continues to do so. And for the record, I cannot stand "party followers". Is it just me or is it pretty dumb for someone to vote for a republican simply becasue it's "their party?" When in reality, the average joe doesn't know a fifth of what really goes on in the gov't or what they're even about...makes no sense...
06-24-2005, 11:52 AM
I wasn't referring specifically to you. Sorry if it came across that way.
For the record, though I identify myself as a Republican, I have voted for Democrats in the past and will probably do so again.
When I call myself a Republican, I mean the views and beliefs I hold, not who I always vote for.
Similar Forum Threads
- By dsade in forum PoliticsReplies: 47Last Post: 09-18-2009, 01:19 PM
- By KmuL in forum SupplementsReplies: 29Last Post: 12-11-2008, 05:42 PM
- By bigrich954rr in forum SupplementsReplies: 6Last Post: 11-09-2005, 09:00 PM
- By good_guye28 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 8Last Post: 01-02-2004, 10:14 AM
- By Conceptions in forum General ChatReplies: 22Last Post: 03-24-2003, 11:18 AM