Cool. Now citizens can't own property

Page 5 of 6 First ... 3456 Last

  1. 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


  2. 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.
    •   
       


  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
    •   
       


  6. 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

  7. ...or like going to a lawyer for advice on reforming the legal system

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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
  14. 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.


  15. 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...

  16. Awesome post Brooklyn

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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..

  20. 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.

  21. 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.
    Amen to that! I'd also like to ask the government why Im getting ass-raped every payday, and why Im getting so little for the money that I put into 'the government' in general.

    BV

  22. 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.
    The fact is the person will not get near the price for the home if they sold it themselves. I know someone who recently got a divorcé and had to give half of the value of the house to her ex husband. The house was valued at 360,000. The problem is that there are houses half the size of hers that are selling for more than 400,000. If she put the house on the market she could probably get 500,000 for it. Now, lets say that someone bought her house for 500 k and a year later the town decides that for the "greater good" ( more tax revenues for the town) they want to bulldoze the area and put in a golf course, million dollar homes, and a large corporation. The town says that the "fair price" is 360,000. That leaves them with a 140,000 dollar debt. In the SJC Connecticut case someone owned around three properties and was making a money renting them out. Now that person is screwed. You want to leave what is "fair" up to judges? I sure don't. You are playing roulette with the out come. There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.
    Bet you the next case was a drug possession offense where the person got 30 years and had no violent history.

  24. I am always amazed at the amount of time and extra money that most of the teachers I know put into educating someone else child and usually don't complain that much about it. Or the amount of extra money they have to pay to go back to add more degree because it is required of them or the amount of extra time that is put in every summer at their school because they want to have things read for the upcoming year. Or all the other extra stuff that goes into making a successful year in any grade.. but that is never brought out to the public, they are EXPECTED to do that but if you were asked to do that for your job you would be having ripping duck about it because "HEY! I don't get paid enough for that!" and don't give the crap that it is not expected because it is.. and for the most part, it is gladly suffered but at the same time we don't want to unholy amount of crap from people that think that they know what is going on... just try stepping into a classroom for one semester at a elementry, junior high, or high school level at some of the schools in any state in this union and you MIGHT get a small idea of what is happening. Does the few teachers that don't do their jobs and don't work they way they are supposed to piss me off... Hell yes but at the same time, I know not to lump things into one big stinking basket, by saying that the free market model needs to be applied.. because with education it just will not work, you will end up with a huge class of have nots and a small group of haves... and like I have said before, the tenure laws are not the problem... it is the documentation that needs to be done, any job this day and age it needs to be done... there are way to many times, I have seen other teachers bummed into the way that adminstration wants to do things and if they tenure laws were not there then they would have been let go over a stupid disagreement on how things were to do be done.. and most of the time, it is your good teachers that are going to say something.. NOT the half ass teachers... the half stepping teachers are the ones that lay low and don't say anything but at the same time, don't do anything either. Merit pay has its advantages but the thing I worry abotu is how, what do you base the pay increase on? There are so many intangibles in teaching, and before you think it, it can't be tied to standardized testing... those things are the devil, for the most part only provide a bad snapshot of the student's overall ability at a given time. Do I have the answers.. nope but I will keep looking for something and still keep railing against the system that is in place now.... CDB, I quoted you but I am not trying to single you out and I hope that you don't take any of this personally.. because it is not meant that way... I have just heard all of these arguements for so long and I know that for the most part... they are good questions but not solutions... if you want to look up some things, try looking up the success of charter schools or teaching before the tenure laws.. I have family that can tell me about the last one and they were abused more than a good teacher is now...

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    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.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    The fact is the person will not get near the price for the home if they sold it themselves. I know someone who recently got a divorcé and had to give half of the value of the house to her ex husband. The house was valued at 360,000. The problem is that there are houses half the size of hers that are selling for more than 400,000. If she put the house on the market she could probably get 500,000 for it. Now, lets say that someone bought her house for 500 k and a year later the town decides that for the "greater good" ( more tax revenues for the town) they want to bulldoze the area and put in a golf course, million dollar homes, and a large corporation. The town says that the "fair price" is 360,000. That leaves them with a 140,000 dollar debt. In the SJC Connecticut case someone owned around three properties and was making a money renting them out. Now that person is screwed. You want to leave what is "fair" up to judges? I sure don't. You are playing roulette with the out come. There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.
    Hey man, as for the value of the home, you are preaching to the choir. My personal belief is that the compensation paid should be in the amount that will put the person as close as possible to the position that he or she would be in if their property had not been seized; that includes moving expenses, the fair market value of the home, considering the neighborhood and school district, compensation for improvements made that are not reflected in the fair market value, and compensation for the loss of the sentimental value of the home. However, again, the town does not say what the fair market value is. The court determines it based on what a licensed real estate appraiser appraises it for.

    As for judges, like I said before, there are good and bad in every profession.

    /karp
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 02:19 PM
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 06:42 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, 10:00 PM
  4. Now that you can make your own transdermals....
    By good_guye28 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-02-2004, 11:14 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, 12:18 PM
Log in
Log in