Kiss your house goodbye

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, September 16, 2003 | Neal Boortz

[JohnHuang2]

A few weeks ago, I wrote about private-property rights. I wrote about the clash between the rights of individual Americans to their property, and the never-ending quest by politicians for more money to spend on their various vote-buying schemes. That previous column didn't generate enough of an outrage, so I'm back to try again. How about listening up this time?

Maybe it would help if I could be more concise. This time, maybe I can make you understand that the very foundation of liberty is under attack.

Just what is the basic foundation of human liberty? Self ownership. It's just that simple. You own your life. If you don't believe that you own your life, then you are admitting that some other person or entity claims that ownership – either in whole or in part.

You will spend part of this life that you own earning money. You will then exchange that money for property. That property, then, represents a part of your life. To deny you that property is to deny you that portion of your life you expended to acquire that property.

Simple, right? Yeah ... so simple even a Democrat could follow it.

Free societies recognize freedom can't exist unless this right to self ownership is recognized. When you are denied your right to your own life, and that which you produce, you are denied your basic liberty.

To protect your liberties, and your right to your life, laws in free societies have always placed strict limitations on the power of government to deprive you of your property. While the law has long recognized the right of the state to seize property, our Constitution limits that power to the taking of private property for public use, and then only with just compensation.

Now, here's the rub. While you might think that a "public use" would be something like a school, a fire or police station or roads and bridges, politicians are developing a completely different definition. In many states a "public use" is defined as nothing more than maximizing the taxes that can be collected on a particular piece of property.

In other words, if a politician figures out your property would generate more tax revenue for government if it was owned by someone other than you, it would then be perfectly OK to use force to seize that property from you and give it to the party who is going to generate the higher tax revenues. You will then be paid for your property based on a bureaucrat's decision on what it is worth, rather than a price negotiated between a willing seller and purchaser.

I first brought this new excuse for the seizure of private property to your attention a few weeks ago writing about Alabaster, Ala. The politicians running this town of 24,000 have decided a new shopping center with a Wal-Mart would be such a wonderful thing for their community ... and especially for sales tax revenues. So, the Alabaster City Council is in the process of seizing the homes of about 11 private individuals so the property can be handed over to the developer for the shopping center.

Today, I bring this up again to tell you about Duncanville, Texas, and the unbridled arrogance of one particular city official. In Duncanville, the politicians have decided to seize the property of Deborah Hodge. They want her house, the pasture, the swimming pool – all of it. They want to hand over the property to a private developer for a Costco. Why? More tax money. The Costco will pay more in taxes than Deborah Hodge and her husband.

Now … listen to this. Kent Cagle is the city manager of Duncanville, Texas. How does Kent Cagle feel about government seizing private homes and then handing the property over to developers who will, in turn, hand over more tax money? Well, apparently Kent Cagle rather likes the idea. Here is what he had to say about the Hodges. Just feeeeel the arrogance: "They don't have the option to say no to us. We have made it clear we want that property. The only thing that will be settled in court is how much we have to pay for it."

That just about says it all, doesn't it? The state of private-property rights in America in 2003. If the government wants another, richer private entity to own your property, you have no option but to say "OK!"

Freedom cannot survive in a society that does not protect property rights. So now you know where the greatest threat to our freedoms resides. Just visit your local city hall.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

Quote of the Day by auntdot

[At _War_With_Liberals]

There are also many other insidious groups trying to erode property rights, the foundation of America.

I read about state committees set up by socialists, under UN mandate, to seize private property for environmental reasons (bio zones?)

[nutmeg]

ping!

[Consort]

Another reason to vote straight Republican until further notice.

[c-b 1]

Another reason to vote straight Republican until further notice.

I won't disagree with you but it takes more than that, once they are elected their feet must be held to the fire.

Self governance is not a spectator sport.

[hedgetrimmer]

Do a google search on Agenda 21. See how many Agenda 21 cities there are in America. See how Agenda 21 is a plan to completely control the citizen, the enviroment and the economy through "sustainable development". See Agenda 21's roots in the World Socialist Party, who's former vice president, Gro Harmlem Brundtlandt, helpt to create during the 1987 UN Commission on Environment and Development. This is one of the ways communism has made so much headway in this country.

"Finally, in 1987, came the granddaddy commission of them all, The Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. Chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the commission introduced the concept of "sustainable development." For the first time the environment was tied to Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report, "Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality."

One world, one media, one authority for development, one source of wealth. One international army. The construction of a "just society" with political and social equality rather than a free society with the individual as the sole possessor of rights. It´s wrapped in Orwellian double-talk guaranteeing exclusive and universal power for a restructured United Nations. Welcome to the world of Commonism.

The New America in the New Global Order

In the wake of the euphoria following the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, Socialists wasted little time implementing their plans. The former Soviet Empire gave birth to a hoard of Socialist democracies. Western Europe fell in line, discarding the tradition of once-proud sovereign nations, forming the European Union with its common regulations, common currency and common Socialist agenda.

In the United States the agenda is moving forward faster than any Socialist could ever have hoped for. It has been expedited by President Clinton´s use of Executive Orders as he fully implemented "sustainable development" and moved to strengthen U.S. involvement and subservience to the United Nations.

Republicans, too, have embraced the agenda, proclaiming Commonism´s version of free trade as the vision of our founding fathers. When Republicans gained control of the Congress, Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich agreed the lame-duck 103rd Democrat-controlled Congress should reconvene to pass the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

A comparison of the NAFTA and GATT documents show them to be indistinguishable from the agenda outlined in the Brandt and Bruntland Commission reports from the 1980´s. Most Republicans continue to dismiss the United Nations as a threat to U.S. sovereignty. The double-speak of Commonism has lulled too many of them to sleep."

http://toogoodreports.com/spotlight/110100-td.htm

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Great post.

"To the Socialist or Communist, democracy primarily means economic or social equality with or without parliamentary means. To the Socialist, if property, wealth, choice or communication need to be taken from one group in order to create "equality" for another, that is social democracy. In socialist philosophy, law becomes an instrument to advocate the redistribution of rights, riches, and property, in the name of equality to "enforce" a new international economic order."

That article was very good...

[At _War_With_Liberals]

h

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Another reason to vote straight Republican until further notice."

No doubt. Even when I didn't follow politics, I knew that was a given...

[kingu]

The article was spot on in describing the effects of the problem, but ignored the problem itself. Many in this country blame Prop 13 and the follow-on statuates enacted across the United States following California's bold step in cutting the taxes paid by home owners.

Rather than curb their spending, lawmakers instead changed the system. Rather than making sure that the majority of city revenue came from property taxes, they changed it to a percentage of sales tax. In a very real manner, Prop 13 took away the incentive to make quality of life better by not giving the city additional tax revenue to match the efforts. IE: Why build a hundred acre park for public enjoyment when you won't get as much additional tax revenue from it when you can use that same hundred acres to build big box stores and get that added revenue in return.

How can this change? You got me. Aside from tossing out Prop 13 (which I don't like the idea of) there's no real measurable increase that cities can get for improvements to quality of life. They get rewarded for huge shopping centers with more money to spend and don't get rewarded for large parks, so of course they build shopping centers.

We faced that issue in our city. There was a plot of land that a large number of people wanted to turn into a park. It would drastically improve the quality of life. The city wanted to build a huge shopping center on the site. Because of geographical considerations, the area was disconnected from a large percentage of the city, and while the opponents were able to force the city to put the issue up for a vote, the people voted for the additional tax revnue and now we have a Sam's Club, Home Depot, Kohls, auto dealerships, etc on the property.

Home values in the area have dropped, but the city feels no effect from that, only from the increase of sales tax collected. Even with the drop in home values, because many of the homes in the area have been owned for many years, the city doesn't feel any loss, since people still pay the purchased price value in property taxes and it is not reduced or increased from their efforts. Additionally, when the homes are sold, they get the bonus of the sales taxes for a home that has mostly dramtically increased in value.

The system needs a good looking over to determine if this is what is really desired, and no sound bite will ever offer a good solution.

[hellinahandcart]

You beat me to it. ;D

[sauropod]

Don't forget about the Nature Conservancy (the Federal Governnment's Real Estate Broker) and the friendly folks at Club Sierra.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Property taxes are bad enough. You 'own' your land. But if you do not pay the govt shakedown, they will take and sell the land.

[AAABEST]

Good post my man. He really makes a very precient point when he points out that your property is actually your life materialized.

After knowing you a while JH, I've discovered you're a closet property rights freak. This tells me you "get it".

[StriperSniper]

One international army.

If there is only one international army, who do they propose to fight? Why the citizens(serfs) of course! All those clamoring for this thinking that it will bring peace, don't realize they are empowering their oppressers and painting targets on themselves.

[Rocky Mountain High]

Kent Cagle, City Manger of Duncanville, 972.780.5017

Freep this fool!

[JohnHuang2]

Why, thank you, friend. Great Neal Boortz fan here, too :-)

[Lurker]

"They don't have the option to say no to us. We have made it clear we want that property. The only thing that will be settled in court is how much we have to pay for it."

Oh they have options Mr. Cagle. They have options you apparently haven't dreamed of.

Perhaps the price will be higher than Mr. Cagle imagined.

I certainly hope so.

L

[Lurker]

Here's another bit of information about our fascist amigo, Mr. Cagle.

He can be found here, every Friday:"We meet for lunch every Friday at 11:45 A.M. at Dr. Pepper Star Center, Corner of Hwy. 67 and Main Street in Duncanville."

Information graciously provided by the Duncanville Lions Club in the Public Domain.

Any Texas Freepers available this Friday?

Just a thought.

L

[Lurker]

FYI:

Here's Mr. Cagles contact info:

City Manager Kent Cagle 972-780-5017 kcagle@ci.duncanville.tx.us

Have fun.

Regards,

L