Cool. Now citizens can't own property - AnabolicMinds.com - Page 3

Cool. Now citizens can't own property

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last
  1. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    638
    Rep Power
    461

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    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.
    THERE is an epidemic of these things happening. I had to stop listening to boortz for a while becuase this was all he was complaining about during every show. Walmarts in Alabama taking peoples farms, developers in Texas taking homes away for develpers to make a new private community of million dollar homes, same thing in FL, VA.......

    Using ED to take a portion of someones property to widen a road is different then taking private property away from an individual to make it private property of another individual, all in the name of higher property tax revenue, is it not?


    What justifies this treatment of Kelo and the other owners, who simply want to be free to live on their own property? The seizures and transfers, the government says, are in "the public interest"--because they will lead to more jobs for New London residents and more tax dollars for the government. This type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property. The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99ยข Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: "99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?"

    To such government officials, the fact that an individual earns a piece of property and wants to use and enjoy it, is of no importance--all that matters is "the public." But as philosopher Ayn Rand observed, "there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals . . . .the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." In the context of the Kelo case, the idea that "the public interest" trumps private property rights simply means that the desires of some individuals for property they did not earn and cannot get from others voluntarily trump the rights of those who did earn it and do not want to sell it. Why are their rights trumped? Because some gang with political pull doesn't happen to like how these individuals are using their property.

    This is unjust and un-American.
    indeed

  2. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    It's not just higher tax revenue. There are other benefits, like increased jobs, etc. I've never said I completely agree with it.

    Let's think of an example. Say they bulldoze down a couple blocks. They put up a hotel, some shops, etc.

    The construction of those buildings employs people. While they are employed, they go to local businesses for food, coffee, cigarettes, etc, so the local businesses profit and prosper. Local building suppliers make money providing materials for the construction. Once they are built, the hotels and stores employ people. The sales from the hotels and shops provide sales tax revenue. Parking meters near the site provide revenue for the city. People in the area for the hotel and shops go to other businesses in the area, whose sales are increased and the business owners make more money, and may hire more people.

    That's a very simple example, but you can see that the beneficial effects from something like this are not limited to mere property tax increases.

    /karp
  3. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    638
    Rep Power
    461

    Reputation

    I know you haven't , and I know it's not just the tax revenue, but whether or not an office park should be built, should be between the developer and the individual that owns that property. If the owners don't want to sell what they have worked all of their lives for, or the developer doesn't want to pay what the owners want for the property, then that should be that. This ruling just sets a horrible precidence, the developer will just pitch to the city council that the tax revenues, jobs will increase, blah blah and bam your home is gone. The police power of the state should not be used to take away from one private party to give to another private party.

    I might just be paranoid because I believe on a whole local governments are waaaaaaaay more corrupt then their federal counterparts. We had 12 houses in our neighborhood taken over through ED and demolished to make room for a local private girls college to build a 3 story parking garage.


    I understand what you are saying, but it shouldn't matter. It's still the wants of the many outweight the rights of a few (Holy communism batman)
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    I agree this could be subject to serious abuse. But there is still due process involved, so the homeowners will still have an opportunity to be heard.

    My biggest problem is that the courts call "just compensation" is actually just fair market value, which is often way below what would really be "just."

    /karp
  5. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    638
    Rep Power
    461

    Reputation

    Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, AND now with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers - maybe NOW we can get some of these bleading hearts off the damn bench.

    I have a bad feeling we will be losing renquist and possibly another conservative off the bench within the next month. If we don't get some good new "conservative" judges up there we ALL be scewing-the-pooch.
  6. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    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?
    Indeed I do. I also know it's more than possible to have them delivered by private companies and would prefer it that way.

    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.

    /karp
    If they need it that bad they can buy the land on the market. In other words the project can't generate the investment needed to get the land they want on the market. So the government has to do a grab and force the owners to sell the land at a discount. Articles abound about the unintended economic consequences of these land grabs, the errosion of property rights, and the boondoggles that end up raping the tax payers and the private market afterward.
  7. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Indeed I do. I also know it's more than possible to have them delivered by private companies and would prefer it that way.
    I don't entirely disagree with you there, although I think that some services, like police, should be government functions.

    If they need it that bad they can buy the land on the market. In other words the project can't generate the investment needed to get the land they want on the market. So the government has to do a grab and force the owners to sell the land at a discount. Articles abound about the unintended economic consequences of these land grabs, the errosion of property rights, and the boondoggles that end up raping the tax payers and the private market afterward.
    Most of the laws that authorize this kind of thing would require that the developer demonstrate a need for that particular land. It's not quire as simple as the developer saying "Hey, I want these blocks, take them for me." Remember that due process still applies so the seizure is not automatic. In general, if used properly (meaning rarely) and under the right circumstances, and if people are justly compensated, I don't always think that this is a bad thing. If abused, this can be catastrophic.

    /karp
  8. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    The construction of those buildings employs people. While they are employed, they go to local businesses for food, coffee, cigarettes, etc, so the local businesses profit and prosper. Local building suppliers make money providing materials for the construction. Once they are built, the hotels and stores employ people. The sales from the hotels and shops provide sales tax revenue. Parking meters near the site provide revenue for the city. People in the area for the hotel and shops go to other businesses in the area, whose sales are increased and the business owners make more money, and may hire more people.
    Several socialist countries have tried to run economies with just this type of government made or government enabled central planning. The results aren't good. If there were a market for the business to develop as they want it to, it would be a ble to attract the necessary investment. The problem is governments run their cities into the ground with taxes and then need to artificially stimulate the economy to generate more revenues to cover their over extension. I'd recommend the book Abuse of Power: How the government misuses Eminent Domain, by Steven Greenhut. Covers the subject nicely, with an ideological perspective of course.

    The economic problems that arise from this are the common ones that come up with any attempt at central planning. The jobs that are 'created' and the revenues that come in don't take into account the revenues and productivity that were destroyed or used in the contruction that could have been used elsewhere. Like I said, these grabs almost always involve some kind of subsidy from the government. In a way it's similar to those who claim hurricane damage is good for the economy because of all the opportunity afterward for repair and recovery. This is completely false, because it's saying it's better to spend money to keep bring the economy back to where it was than to spend money to advance it beyond that point. It ignore opportunity costs. It's the fallacy of the broken window. Here it would more appropriately be called the fallacy of the dirty window. The government wants to clean it and show everyone how wonderful it is afterward, never taking into the account the cost of the cleaning, nor admitting it was probably their own screw ups and mismanagements that dirtied it to begin with.
  9. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    You make some excellent points. I don't like the idea of central planning being the norm any more than you do. Generally I think that the markets should run themselves, but there are times when this kind of thing either is necessary or beneficial.

    It is impossible to have a bright line rule about this kind of thing; it needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Generally, I would argue that there should be a strong preference against this kind of thing, but in certain cases it is justified.

    /karp
  10. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    In any case, I'm not really qualified to debate the economics. My original intent in this thread was to try to get people to understand that the media is blowing this outof proportion and that this ruling does not mean everything they think it does.

    /karp
  11. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    585

    Reputation

    Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Nope

    Yes they do.

    Read the 5th Amendment.

    /karp
    So you are telling me if Wal-Mart buys off a bunch of politicians in a town and decides to bulldoze my neighborhood that I am going to get the same price as if I sold it on my own? It never happens.
  12. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    I never said that.

    What I said was that there is compensation.

    You get fair market value, as determined by a court.

    And the politicians can't decide to take your house just for Wal-Mart. The case specifically says that property cannot be taken to benefit one specific private entity.

    /karp
  13. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    In general, if used properly (meaning rarely) and under the right circumstances, and if people are justly compensated, I don't always think that this is a bad thing. If abused, this can be catastrophic.

    /karp
    I could agree. Now just name one power the government has that they don't abuse, and I will agree.
  14. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    I could agree. Now just name one power the government has that they don't abuse, and I will agree.
    That's easy! What about the power to .... ummm ... let me get back to you on that one...
  15. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    507

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    I never said that.

    What I said was that there is compensation.

    You get fair market value, as determined by a court.

    And the politicians can't decide to take your house just for Wal-Mart. The case specifically says that property cannot be taken to benefit one specific private entity.

    /karp
    So, it would take a combination of Walmart, Lowe's and maybe Target. Nice to see the government is concerned about multiple entities getting rich by stealing our property!
  16. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    Damn it, CDB does it again with the super-hot-chick in his avatar. Screw all this government crap, take me to pretty lady town

    BV
  17. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    676

    Reputation

    Actually, family of mine had this happen to them and it didn't work out so bad. The gov. has always been able to clear property for roads etc; Lowes tried to buy out family of mine, they refused, but then were given the ability to LEASE my family's land for 99 years... they now get a nice big check every month
  18. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    I could agree. Now just name one power the government has that they don't abuse, and I will agree.
    Hmm... Depends on your definition of abuse... But under any definition... Umm... Lemme think about that.

    Oh wait! They don't abuse their power to deport illegal aliens or keep our borders safe! In fact, illegal aliens are welcome to stay here, get free medical care, and send their children to our schools! Even better, our borders are wide open!

    The thing is, no matter how bad our system is, overall, it's still better than any other system out there.

    /karp
  19. Registered User
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1309

    Reputation

    that may be true so far, but it's not a law of nature: it could be pretty stinking bad in its own right, and comparison to other states wouldn't improve the aroma.

    Personally, I think the media is *downplaying* this - not pumping it up at all (then again, I don't watch TV, so what do I know?)
  20. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    Oh wait! They don't abuse their power to deport illegal aliens or keep our borders safe! In fact, illegal aliens are welcome to stay here, get free medical care, and send their children to our schools! Even better, our borders are wide open!
    Good catch, but you're just pointing out a different kind of screw up: lack of enforcement. I'll rephrase: show me one thing the government hasn't messed up, either through abuse or lack of action.

    There is also a difference between those situations, as the government really has nothing to gain by enforcing laws against illegals. They do have something to gain by abusing the law we're talking about here.

    The thing is, no matter how bad our system is, overall, it's still better than any other system out there.

    /karp
    I wouldn't argue that. But isn't that kind of like passing a field full of cattle and bragging to your friends that the night before you ****ed the prettiest cow there? It's like being valedictorian in summer school. It's true, but not really an accomplishment worth bragging about when viewed in context.
  21. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Good catch, but you're just pointing out a different kind of screw up: lack of enforcement. I'll rephrase: show me one thing the government hasn't messed up, either through abuse or lack of action.

    There is also a difference between those situations, as the government really has nothing to gain by enforcing laws against illegals. They do have something to gain by abusing the law we're talking about here.
    This is true. However, must legal analysts feel that there is not going to be a huge rush by governments following this ruling, outside of a few isolated incidents. Also, several states have laws sharply restricting or even prohibiting the use of eminent domain except to reduce blight.


    I wouldn't argue that. But isn't that kind of like passing a field full of cattle and bragging to your friends that the night before you ****ed the prettiest cow there? It's like being valedictorian in summer school. It's true, but not really an accomplishment worth bragging about when viewed in context.
    Those analogies are tempting, but they both presuppose the existence of a better alternative. Obviously it is better to **** a girl instead of a cow and it is better to be valedictorian of a regular class at a school or college. However, there are no better alternatives to our government. While it can improve, there is no currently available better government. A better analogy is being stranded on another planet with a bunch of ugly fat chicks. At least you can say to your buddy, "Well, they're all nasty, but I ****ed that one and at least she's not as fat as the others, plus she has all her teeth."

    /karp
  22. New Member
    pttbll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    123

    Reputation

    jrkarp,

    Im growing tired of your thinking that this ruling is not going to be widely utilized.
    Both the Mayor of my city and the nearby major city have already stated their intent on using this ruling.
    The Mayor of the city I live in stated this will allow them to get rid of "delapitated" homes to go forward with commercial construction. The Mayor of the nearby major city is going to be romoving homes to accomodate the new football stadium.

    Dont be so nieve jrkarp, it is and will be utilized-I am witness to it already.
  23. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by pttbll
    jrkarp,

    Im growing tired of your thinking that this ruling is not going to be widely utilized.
    Both the Mayor of my city and the nearby major city have already stated their intent on using this ruling.
    The Mayor of the city I live in stated this will allow them to get rid of "delapitated" homes to go forward with commercial construction. The Mayor of the nearby major city is going to be romoving homes to accomodate the new football stadium.

    Dont be so nieve jrkarp, it is and will be utilized-I am witness to it already.
    I'm getting tired of people not reading what I'm saying, not reading the court's opinion, not reading up on the law to understand what is going on, not realizing that there is still due process provided under the 14th Amendment which means that homeowners still have an opportunity to be heard in court and contest the seizure, and not realizing that there is still just compensation (as determined by a court) provided under the 5th Amendment. ALL the ruling says is that it is still "public use" even if the land goes to private entities. THAT IS ALL IT SAYS. It DOES NOT give cities carte blanche to take what they want.

    You are not witness to it already. You are witness to a couple of politicians spouting off. If and when the homes are taken and bulldozed, then you will be witness to it. And in any case, two mayors (or even ten) expressing mere interest in using eminent domain after this ruling hardly makes it widespread.

    And finally, if you don't like my opinons, don't read them.

    /karp
  24. New Member
    Bigfishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    31
    Posts
    161
    Rep Power
    197

    Reputation

    Well I guess I should jump in and start swinging. From an economic stand point this new policy seems like a decent idea, if applied correctly. One of the problems with our governements "takings" applications is that the government would give poor people a couple bucks, rip down their house, and then look the other way. The problem is that many of these poor communities are very old, with families who have occupied the same house for a long time. In this situation the market value of the house is not enough for these long time occupants to restablish themselves somewhere else, not to mention that a huge chunk of low income housing was just destroyed, raising the demand and therefore the price of low-income housing. So what do we have... a bunch of pissed off, dissplaced, poor people, who can't afford a place to live and a new super freeway. Well since we just put in a freeway the cities economy starts to rev-up a bit creating new buisness, and yes you guessed it... NEW JOBS. The theory is that these poor people would ride this up-turn in the economy (trickle-down) finding new opportunities which previously didn't exsist. In doing this the city would have not only eliminated a ghetto, but created more economic opportunity for everyone. And this works! Everybody does indeed get richer when the economy improves both rich and poor. The only problem is that if these displaced poor people don't get back on there feet quickly they will become part of an "underclass" which is the poorest of the poor, who have no ability to climb the socio-economic ladder. Now to the new policy. If this new policy is used for urban renewal purposes it could indeed improve all of our lives. If you bulldozed a few houses in a poor area and built a manufacturing plant you would create jobs for many of the poor inhabitants. Now that some jobs were created other jobs will need to be created to cater to those who now have money to spend, creating more jobs and more money etc. All of a sudden a previously poor area has money flowing though it and has been revived. As long as the governement has programs in place to care for and get the few people dissplaced back on there feet (bottom-up approach) its a winning strategy. In essence you have made urban renewal much more poor people friendly. Lastly, if somebody tried to take my house he would have to do so over my dead body, but i'm not below the poverty line and therefore not concerned.
  25. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    This is true. However, must legal analysts feel that there is not going to be a huge rush by governments following this ruling, outside of a few isolated incidents. Also, several states have laws sharply restricting or even prohibiting the use of eminent domain except to reduce blight.
    The do indeed. Read that book I recommended and see how loosly "blight" is defined. Cases of blight have been defined as simply as cars with only one car garages, or yards that weren't big enough. Then the houses are bulldozed and higher priced housing or commercial development takes their places.

    Maybe we have a difference of perspective. I read pretty much libertarian journals and the most conservative sites on the internet, and they're hot as hell on this issue. Incident after incident, abuse after abuse is reported. As far as i'm concerned abuse of these laws is already at epidemic levels. Do searches at places like lewrockwell.com, mises.org and anti-state.com. Article after article detailing massive abuses. Do searches at the regular papers' sites and you'll see a similar cache of articles, all couched in progrovernment sieze language for the most part. When I first did this I was amazed at how many articles there were, how many land grabs a year, how many people's homes were being ripped down.
  26. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    I will check those out, although before even doing so I have to say that you can't exactly take information from sites that lean hard one way or another at face value. That's like going to a PETA site for information on cooking steak.

    /karp
  27. Registered User
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1309

    Reputation

    ...or like going to a lawyer for advice on reforming the legal system
  28. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    In a lot of cases, you are correct.

    People with vested interests in a system should not be the only ones in charge of reforming it. Same goes for teachers, doctors, etc.

    /karp
  29. New Member
    nodgodbod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    163

    Reputation

    welcome to globalisation - I hate to say it - but i do believe that within a century our entire planet will be governed by a handful of large corporations that have the financial and economic assets to sway the government of any country. I can hear the politicians already: "You people should give up your houses and look at the bigger picture - imagine how many jobs will be created by the wallmart/large store/ whatever that's going be built where your house is right now". Take the oil industry for example - some of todays major US political figureheads just happen to sit on the boards of companies like Enron etc etc. Is it any wonder bush pulled out of the Kyoto agreement? or that no mass produceable hydrogen fuelled cars exist? Money rules everything and everyone - Dark times ahead
  30. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    585

    Reputation

    I never said that.

    What I said was that there is compensation.

    You get fair market value, as determined by a court.

    And the politicians can't decide to take your house just for Wal-Mart. The case specifically says that property cannot be taken to benefit one specific private entity.
    The problem is " fair" is a relative term. The reality is 9 times out of 10 you are going to get screwed. In other words if you could get 300.000 for you house you would be given a "fair price" of 150,000.
  31. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    In a lot of cases, you are correct.

    People with vested interests in a system should not be the only ones in charge of reforming it. Same goes for teachers, doctors, etc.

    /karp
    Disagree with you on the teachers and reform.. it is the adminstrators that have a hard time with reform.. which in the case of most of the school in my area, ex-football coaches
  32. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    The problem is " fair" is a relative term. The reality is 9 times out of 10 you are going to get screwed. In other words if you could get 300.000 for you house you would be given a "fair price" of 150,000.
    "Fair" is a relative term, but "fair market value" is not. It comes from appraisals by court approved real estate appraisers.

    The FMV determined by the court is usually an accurate estimation of what a home or business would sell for. The problem is that compensating people by giving them just the FMV of their home is not just, since it does not take into account moving expenses and money invested in improvements that were made to the house but that do not increase the FMV very much. I have always believed that in order to give people "just compensation" as required by the 5th Amendment, we need to give them more than just the FMV of the property confiscated.

    /karp
  33. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew D
    Disagree with you on the teachers and reform.. it is the adminstrators that have a hard time with reform.. which in the case of most of the school in my area, ex-football coaches
    I think it's both sides. I've seen far too many incompetent, ineffective teachers that held on to their jobs because they were protected by tenure. Talk about getting rid of tenure and see how teachers react.

    /karp
  34. New Member
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    206

    Reputation

    Exclamation


    Here we go again.

    However, there are no better alternatives to our government. While it can improve, there is no currently available better government.
    Of course there are better governments, or ways in which to run a government. We're just not employing them.

    You get fair market value, as determined by a court.
    Wow, those courts sure are objective. I really believe that the typical local/county court is going to award a true fair market value to someone that has no choice or recourse in which to save their land. Right. It's like going to trial without a lawyer. You may be just as innocent as you would be with a lawyer, but the court is going to perceive you as if you just committed the crime in front of them. When your house is already lost, why would they decide to be fair about compensation? Since when does the government play fair?

    From an economic stand point this new policy seems like a decent idea, if applied correctly.
    Huh? ::Scratches head:: You're kidding, right?

    One of the problems with our governements "takings" applications is that the government would give poor people a couple bucks, rip down their house, and then look the other way. The problem is that many of these poor communities are very old, with families who have occupied the same house for a long time. In this situation the market value of the house is not enough for these long time occupants to restablish themselves somewhere else, not to mention that a huge chunk of low income housing was just destroyed, raising the demand and therefore the price of low-income housing. So what do we have... a bunch of pissed off, dissplaced, poor people, who can't afford a place to live and a new super freeway.
    Ok, I'm with you so far.

    Well since we just put in a freeway the cities economy starts to rev-up a bit creating new buisness, and yes you guessed it... NEW JOBS. The theory is that these poor people would ride this up-turn in the economy (trickle-down) finding new opportunities which previously didn't exsist. In doing this the city would have not only eliminated a ghetto, but created more economic opportunity for everyone. And this works!
    Wha...? Is this a propaganda paper for Reaganomics? This has to be one of the most absurd and far-fetched economic theories I've ever heard. "Trickle-down" doesn't work, it's an idea hatched by the rich to make poor people believe that by supporting big business, they will eventually benefit and find their financial situation drastically improved. It's a joke! Since Reagan, big business is richer than ever, and the poor are poorer. The middle class is eroding. No, the middle classers did not get too rich to qualify as middle class anymore. They got too damn poor. This does NOT work.

    If this new policy is used for urban renewal purposes it could indeed improve all of our lives. If you bulldozed a few houses in a poor area and built a manufacturing plant you would create jobs for many of the poor inhabitants. Now that some jobs were created other jobs will need to be created to cater to those who now have money to spend, creating more jobs and more money etc. All of a sudden a previously poor area has money flowing though it and has been revived.
    Wow. *Poof* and Presto change-o, we have a brave new world. A nice fantasy, but there's no reality to it. Most properties which are confiscated in this manner are destroyed to make room for retail businesses, road construction or entertainment complexes. Factories are made in places like Korea and China. Most "eminent domain" reclamation does not make new jobs, or if there are new jobs, they are minimum wage jobs which only adds to the blight of the community. Your suggestion is to take the people's houses and then give them jobs at the new Wal Mart. That's urban improvement!

    As long as the governement has programs in place to care for and get the few people dissplaced back on there feet (bottom-up approach) its a winning strategy. In essence you have made urban renewal much more poor people friendly.
    Yeah, it's real friendly when the cops come to your door and tell you you have to leave the house you worked your ass off all your life to afford and invested your blood, sweat and tears into because the government just doesn't make enough money off you. That's people friendly!

    Lastly, if somebody tried to take my house he would have to do so over my dead body, but i'm not below the poverty line and therefore not concerned.
    Well I'm glad to see that other people giving up their hard-earned property is ok, but just not for you. Or are you saying that you'd take the meager amount of money the government would give you and buy another house, since you're obviously filthy rich in order to afford doing so? Tell me, what happens when they decide your new house is on land they want as well? Why is it that no one cares until the problem comes home to their doorstep? Try giving a damn now, before it's too late.

    "When the Nazis came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak out because I was a not a Catholic. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out because I was a not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." - Pastor Martin Niemoller

    "Fair" is a relative term, but "fair market value" is not. It comes from appraisals by court approved real estate appraisers.
    The court could appoint Mr. Magoo as the real estate appraiser for your property. The court thinks like a District Attorney does, conviction minded. Courts will find appraisers who appraise at the lowest possible prices for the property. This saves valuable tax dollars, which are necessary in running a business. You see, you're being kicked out of your home because you weren't profitable enough to the USA. If you had contributed more in property taxes than the next owner, you'd still be living there. This is the problem. Money is worth more then people.

    This is not something which will be wisely and sparingly used. It's already being done. Kansas City is a great example of eminent domain laws being loosely interpreted and many people being forced out of homes regularly because the government has some wacky idea or other about making more money one way or another. Let's see the politicians give up their homes to put a Target there, or a new arena.

  35. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    I think it's both sides. I've seen far too many incompetent, ineffective teachers that held on to their jobs because they were protected by tenure. Talk about getting rid of tenure and see how teachers react.
    /karp
    People that don't teach don't realize that it is easy to get rid of a teacher that is not doing their job but the trick is getting the principals to document what is going on. Most principals don't have tenure now, so things are getting to be very different in the game. I would really like to hear more about the incompetent teachers you had... I have been in the game for a while and I have seen a few but I have seen much more that are great at their jobs and all they do is catch the **** from those that think they know what they are doing... ie politicians and others...
  36. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Awesome post Brooklyn
  37. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    Here we go again.


    Of course there are better governments, or ways in which to run a government. We're just not employing them.
    I never said there were better possible governments. All I said is that there are no better governments now.

    Wow, those courts sure are objective. I really believe that the typical local/county court is going to award a true fair market value to someone that has no choice or recourse in which to save their land. Right. It's like going to trial without a lawyer. You may be just as innocent as you would be with a lawyer, but the court is going to perceive you as if you just committed the crime in front of them. When your house is already lost, why would they decide to be fair about compensation? Since when does the government play fair?
    By this logic the entire judicial system is a sham and we might as well trash it. I guarantee that there are many judges out there that are as disgusted and outraged by this ruling as the people in this thread. You cannot impute to every judge the desire to abuse power, even though so many of them have the potential to abuse it.


    The court could appoint Mr. Magoo as the real estate appraiser for your property. The court thinks like a District Attorney does, conviction minded. Courts will find appraisers who appraise at the lowest possible prices for the property. This saves valuable tax dollars, which are necessary in running a business. You see, you're being kicked out of your home because you weren't profitable enough to the USA. If you had contributed more in property taxes than the next owner, you'd still be living there. This is the problem. Money is worth more then people.

    This is not something which will be wisely and sparingly used. It's already being done. Kansas City is a great example of eminent domain laws being loosely interpreted and many people being forced out of homes regularly because the government has some wacky idea or other about making more money one way or another. Let's see the politicians give up their homes to put a Target there, or a new arena.

    Appraisers have to be certified and licensed. Again, by your logic, our judicial system is a sham and our due process rights don't mean anything. This I refuse to believe. While it is true that power corrupts, it does not corrupt everyone. I know that you think that everything is a conspiracy, so of course you will say that the court is not going to appoint a competent appraiser.

    Is there anything that you don't see as a conspiracy?

    /karp
  38. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew D
    People that don't teach don't realize that it is easy to get rid of a teacher that is not doing their job but the trick is getting the principals to document what is going on. Most principals don't have tenure now, so things are getting to be very different in the game. I would really like to hear more about the incompetent teachers you had... I have been in the game for a while and I have seen a few but I have seen much more that are great at their jobs and all they do is catch the **** from those that think they know what they are doing... ie politicians and others...
    Maybe the problem is the principals then.

    When I said that earlier, I didn't mean that incompetent teachers were the norm. In fact, I have had and known a lot of excellent teachers, and I think that bad ones are the exception, rather than the rule. But for examples, I could start with the two teachers I had who were, despite being a few years short of retirement, showing quite obvious signs of senility (to the point where I would hear other teachers commenting on it). I've had teachers who knew students were cheating and ignored it. But the most common example is the teachers who simply cannot teach. Teaching is an art, not a science, and some people are wonderful at it, and some people, no matter what good people they are, are terrible at it. Like I said, it doesn't make them bad people, but you have to admit that teachers enjoy a lot of job security that many other people simply do not have.

    Part of the problem is that teachers are not paid well enough, and a lot of people who would make good teachers pursue other vocations, partly because they want to make more money. My mother used to be a teacher, and I have the utmost respect for them. They put up with an incredible amount of bull**** for far less pay than they deserve.

    /karp
  39. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    That I can understand, but you and I can't seem to get it trough some peoples heads that teaching is an art... it does have a science component to it, but that comes from research on why good teachers are good.. IMO.. and you are right, the pay is BS for teachers.. but that will not change anytime soon... you should have seen the fight in my state about funding a 6% pay raise.. it was crazy..
  40. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    Part of the problem is that teachers are not paid well enough, and a lot of people who would make good teachers pursue other vocations, partly because they want to make more money. My mother used to be a teacher, and I have the utmost respect for them. They put up with an incredible amount of bull**** for far less pay than they deserve.
    /karp
    The problem is the government controls nearly the entire educational system. This is at the root of every problem, from nonaccountability when it comes to budgets, to costs that seem to be going ever upward with none of the every increasing funds ever ending up in teacher's pockets. The problem with giving teachers more money is the system that allows the bad teachers to get the same jobs and job security as the good ones is what you'd be putting that money into. It's not just the good ones who get a raise, it's all of them, which works out to a net loss in the end. But, try and tie raises to performance, who fights it first? The teachers. Try and get rid of tensure and who fights it first? The teachers. Worse, try and introduce a free market idea into the system so people will have a choice what schools and teachers they give their money to, who fights it first? The whole educational establishment. I always found it laughable the special, magical thinking people have when it comes to certain topics. The free market can drive down the price of every good and service on the market to the point where almost anyone can afford them, but somehow education and healthcasre are immune to those same market forces.

    I'm always amazed when people start talking about giving teachers more money, or the educational system more money in general. What they should be doing is asking the government why the hell they're getting so little for the money they're already putting into the system.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 12:19 PM
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 04:42 PM
  3. i just ran a cycle of trimax can i run clen now
    By bigrich954rr in forum Supplements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-09-2005, 08:00 PM
  4. Now that you can make your own transdermals....
    By good_guye28 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-02-2004, 09:14 AM
  5. Conceptions-I've been owned and now I'm banned!
    By Conceptions in forum General Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-24-2003, 10:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in