[VanillaGorilla]

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.

[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

[CDB]

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.

[Nullifidian]

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...

[joecski]

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!

[BigVrunga]

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

[MaynardMeek]

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

[jrkarp]

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

[BodyWizard]

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?)

[CDB]

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.

[jrkarp]

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

[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.

[jrkarp]

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

[Bigfishy]

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.

[CDB]

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.

[jrkarp]

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