NopeDo the people still get fair compensation for their homes ?
This is bad......... really bad
Anyone read men in black yet?
I agree. My dad and mom invested a lot into their home. Losing it can't be replaced by a new house. I just can't believe the gov't is increasingly not giving a **** about its citizens.Originally Posted by mtruther
Anyone notice CNN very very quickly moved this article to the side?
It was printed on their homepage for a few hours, now it is extremely difficult to find.....
I wonder why....
No, because the only truly fair compensation is one that's an amount you're willing to accept at a time you're willing to accept it. It's no different than me taking your car and leaving a check for the blue book value. Except of course when the government does it, it's 'legal.'Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
The underlying problem is that no market can function without a decent level of security in private property. Why buy when you can take? Property wasn't really a law as such until fairly recently. It's more discovered law, in that as land became scarce some kind of social convention or agreement was necessary to prevent chaos. When it stops being seen as something that's innate or inherent in a person's rights like their right to free speech and starts being seen as a grant by the government which can be taken away just as easily, that you get stupidity like this. People don't effectively own anything anymore, and haven't for long time. This is because all your assets are forfeit, including your freedom, to repay debts to the government should it decide you owe it to them. Nothing is sacred.
It's also, to be a little more on topic, one of the underlying principles behind prohibition of steroids and other drugs. In order for the government to be able to say what you can and cannot put in your own body there is an implicit statement of ownership: their judgement supercedes yours even when it comes to your own body. They know better than you what is and is not good for you, and claim the authority to exercise that judgement. Now they're blatantly saying what they've been doing for while, claiming they know better than you what use to put your justly aquired property.
bullets will fly soon.
Finally a topic on which everyone seems to agree. This is a misinterpretation of the Constitution which amounts to communism in action. Kansas City is one place that already does this extensively. There are rows of houses which are being bulldozed in order to build bigger roads, or put a bigger supermarket in, or whatever the local council or zoning board decides. The people who probably worked all their life to get that house? They're S.O.L., and you know what that means. They get a small amount of money, whatever the government thinks is fair (which is never anywhere close to market value) and they get the boot.
I'd like to see these government scumbags would feel if it were their houses that were being taken from them to put a new Target or McDonalds in its place.
Yes, as I've said, FDR was a communist. Everything he did was not far off from what his friend "Uncle Joe" Stalin would have done in his place. The Supreme Court should be made to realize that what they have just done is effectively reversed the Supreme Court decisions which declared Roosevelt's actions Unconstitutional.Under Roosevelt, the federal government seized square mile after square mile of land, most of which it never used. That which it did use, well, let's just say that there are silos down at the bottom of lakes in Tennessee, and the people who owned those silos got paid crap in compensation.
You think that in most countries in Europe, they have to worry about something like this? Hell no. You buy property, it's yours. There's none of these b.s. property taxes, no threat that the government might just decide to take your hard-earned property one day. I blame the public first and foremost for tolerating these actions. Voting is the best way to show your disapproval. The majority of America should try it sometime.
Let those mother****ers try to take my house.
Me too, but it'll never happen. Just like when their kids get arrested for steroid or some other drug possession, somehow they don't end up in jail when anyone else would.Originally Posted by Brooklyn
You mean like when Dubya's daughters get caught underage drinking?
Or when Dubya himself gets busted for cocaine ends up president of the United States.
All that law says is that its now perfectly legal for rich people to take the land of those less fortunate in order to make more money for themselves. Those ****s in the supreme court would have never passed this law if their property, or the property of their little clan of Skull Society pansy bitches would ever have the possibility of being threatened.
Last edited by BigVrunga; 06-24-2005 at 12:04 AM.
Yes they do.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Read the 5th Amendment.
That's not what the ruling says at all.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
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.
I havent had that much legal training, and that doc is easy to get through. Thanks for posting the link...
That's all well and good, but Justice Thomas says it best:We emphasize that nothing in our opinion
precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose â€śpublic useâ€? requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domainstatutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings
may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom ofusing eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Courtâ€™s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the Cityâ€™s proposed condemnations are for a â€śpublic useâ€? within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
This is where the deterioration of our 'inalienable rights' starts. With laws that start out taking away our rights 'for our own good'. Its bull****, no matter how you spin it.The consequences of todayâ€™s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called â€śurban renewalâ€? programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property
solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending
the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically
beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities
are not only systematically less likely to puttheir lands to the highest and best social use, but are also
18 KELO v. NEW LONDON
THOMAS, J., dissenting
the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification
for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions
that protect â€śdiscrete and insular minorities,â€? United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great forceto the powerless groups and individuals the Public UseClause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages â€śthose citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political pro- cess, including large corporations and developmentfirmsâ€? to victimize the weak.
Don't we have the right under the Constitution to force anyone out of office we collectively believe should be removed? I know the consensus on this will be identical; the majority of America doesn't want this.
karp, it does look like you totally agree with the ruling by the comments you have been posting.
Look at the wording of this ruling and tell me that this is not a land grap in the making for rich developers... all they have to do is get enough city elected officials to say that is a public work and then there goes you land.. and what is FAIR compension?
for once I have to agree with Thomas