Cool. Now citizens can't own property
- 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.
Is the government in the business of making money also? Or, are they there to represent the people.
- 06-24-2005, 08:29 AM
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
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.
06-24-2005, 12:03 PM
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.......Originally Posted by jrkarp
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?
indeedWhat 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 99ΒΆ 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.
06-24-2005, 12:05 PM
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.
06-24-2005, 12:19 PM
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)
06-24-2005, 12:26 PM
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."
06-24-2005, 12:31 PM
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.
06-24-2005, 01:06 PM
Indeed I do. I also know it's more than possible to have them delivered by private companies and would prefer it that way.Originally Posted by jrkarp
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.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.
06-24-2005, 01:35 PM
I don't entirely disagree with you there, although I think that some services, like police, should be government functions.Originally Posted by CDB
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.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.
06-24-2005, 01:38 PM
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.Originally Posted by jrkarp
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.
06-24-2005, 02:24 PM
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.
06-24-2005, 02:33 PM
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.
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