PDA

View Full Version : eminent domain



sliprock
06-28-2005, 10:58 PM
If the guy in the story below were to get the needed votes to take the Justice's property, would the Justice fight the decision? And if he were to fight, would he fight it all the way to the high court? And if it were to make it to the Supreme Court, How do think he would vote? This decision was a joke..


http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Wally_in_Cincy
06-30-2005, 06:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sliprock:</font><hr> ...This decision was a joke.. <hr /></blockquote>

The decision, to me, is quite frightening. Developers are the most politically connected people around. Now that they can basically take anyone's home nobody's home is safe.

There should be more outrage than there has been.

...nor shall private property be taken for [/b]public[/b] use, without just compensation.

pooltchr
06-30-2005, 07:35 AM
This is the most frightning decision the court has handed down in my lifetime. The core of our country is free enteprise and the ability of a private individual to own, buy and sell property. If your property can be taken away just to give to someone else, how far away from Communism is it????

I can't believe they made this ruling! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Steve

eg8r
06-30-2005, 07:50 AM
I agree Wally. I surely hope this developer goes through with it and gets the investors needed. It would be interesting to see how fast that judge backpedals.

eg8r

Qtec
06-30-2005, 07:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.

The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.

“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”

But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.

Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.

Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough.

“I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office.

In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain.
But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters.

The whole story,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml <hr /></blockquote>


How can this be Communism when its all about the money?

This is pure Capitalism in its ugliest form.
It used to be that if you had enough money you could buy anything thats for sale- now you can buy anything.
Q

pooltchr
06-30-2005, 08:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
How can this be Communism when its all about the money?

This is pure Capitalism in its ugliest form.
It used to be that if you had enough money you could buy anything thats for sale- now you can buy anything.
Q <hr /></blockquote>

If the Times wants the property and they can reach an agreement in price with the owner, that's capitalism. If the times gets the government to take it from the present owner and give it to them, that's communism.
I'm sure it will cost the Times much less to get the property this way, than it would if they bought it from the actual property owners.
The whole thing SUCKS!

JPB
06-30-2005, 08:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.

The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.

“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”

But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.

Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.

Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough.

“I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office.

In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain.
But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters.

The whole story,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml <hr /></blockquote>


How can this be Communism when its all about the money?

This is pure Capitalism in its ugliest form.
It used to be that if you had enough money you could buy anything thats for sale- now you can buy anything.
Q <hr /></blockquote>




NO NO NO NO NO NO.


This is what happens when you allow one person to gain a benefit by having the government use force on another person. It is the logical result of forceable redistribution of property by the government. Capitalism would not countenance such a thing. The fact you think this is capitalism shows how pervasive collectivist theory is. This is not capitalism, it is a form of collectivism, and the collectivists then call it capitalism so they can further destroy things. This result was almost inevitable once we allowed the first welfare check, the first government subsidy, etc...

You do know the result of all this is to turn people against one another so everybody hates each other, right? Then the envy is directed to more and more governmental theft and control.

Qtec
06-30-2005, 08:59 AM
I think it sucks too, but I still disagree that this is a Socialist policy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Its pure and simple a land-grab.
Q........someone you do an ED on the Whitehouse! How much does the WH deliver in taxes? Couldnt a huge Walmart make more money for the city? What about a huge Condo, health spa etc?/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
06-30-2005, 10:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is pure Capitalism in its ugliest form.
<hr /></blockquote> More correctly, this is you in true form. If it was true capitalism, these people would be offered a sum of money that they could not refuse. That is not the case, they are being offered nothing and the government is taking it and it is wrong.

eg8r

eg8r
06-30-2005, 10:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think it sucks too, but I still disagree that this is a Socialist policy. <hr /></blockquote> No one called it a Socialist policy.

[ QUOTE ]
Its pure and simple a land-grab. <hr /></blockquote> Theft with deadly force.

[ QUOTE ]
someone you do an ED on the Whitehouse! How much does the WH deliver in taxes? Couldnt a huge Walmart make more money for the city? <hr /></blockquote> While we all know the White House does not fall under the same laws, your mention of Walmart is interesting. I am sure this has been going on for a long time, but about 2 or so years ago, Walmart was in the news trying to take a bunch of private land in Alabama. I think they won, but it might be still held up in higher courts, I am not sure.

I am waiting to see when some developer is going to walk into Islesworth and tell Shaq, Penny and Michael Jackson they are losing their house because they want to put in a beautiful, park and public ramp to the Butler chain of lakes.

eg8r

catscradle
06-30-2005, 10:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ... it is wrong.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

It certainly is wrong and completely at odds with the principles upon which this country was founded. To quote from Sandra Day O'Connor's desenting(sp?) opinion ...

<font color="red">
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random, the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
</font color>