Posted on 06/27/2017 7:03:16 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In a recent video posted to YouTube, Dallas city councilperson (we don’t want to accidentally misgender anyone) Sandy Greyson can be seen ranting about how upset she (oops, we assumed its gender) is that the city can’t just claim eminent domain over a man’s land.
“This is an eminent domain case for a much needed water line” Greyson starts off. She continues with “And the Council is being asked today to go to settle this case with a man who has fought us for years and has cost Dallas taxpayers millions of dollars and intends to cost us millions more unless we settle with him by going around his property. Now other, ordinary people, regular people like you and I, who can’t afford to fight the city of Dallas over an eminent domain case for years and years, I mean, we end up getting our property taken. And sometimes it’s very necessary. We need water lines, we need roads, we need some of these public improvements. So I’m not blaming anyone that we’re settling this case today, I mean, I totally understand that we’re doing kind of what we have to do here, but it’s just INFURIATING that if you are rich enough you can hold the city hostage for years and then get what you want. There’s something really wrong with that. I’m so conflicted on this vote, didn’t want to make the motion, because while I so want to vote “NO” on this, neither do I want to continue to spend more money fighting with this guy, because in the end, we’re settling because he’ll probably win. But it is just infuriating. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Hanging in the public square seems about right for these snippy little proto-fascists.
The NERVE of that stinking peasant!!! /s;)
She is madder than a wet hen.
Sometimes, it’s the principle of the thing, not just the principal. If this guy ever cuts her off in traffic, that may give her the excuse to let her guard down and tell him how she really feels.
After a proper flaying of course.
L
What she said IOW is that if you are just a peon the city will screw you every time unless you can find the money to defeat them in court; and if you have the money it’s a travesty of justice.
Does she own property? Go find a snail darter or marijuana plants on it.
If applied appropriately, the city shoukd have able to receive immediate use and possession. This allows the city to move forward with construction while the legal process moves forward. If the city tried underhanded tactics then this explains the length of the legal action.
Its really nothing more than a negotiation, the city makes a fair market value offer, the other party counter offers. If the process breaks down then agree to see each other in court.
The people of Dallas elected this nincompoop.
In her own rant she condemns her own position.
She admits the city is likely going to have to lose the case, because (though she doesn’t say it the law is on his side) because even using eminent domain you cannot just take someone’s property. They are entitled to just compensation and can go to court if they think you - the government class - are not paying just compensation.
That is an implied admission in her rant.
That makes her rant boil down to how it’s just unfair that the city has to pay what it will have to pay, because if that citizen did not have the means to fight you in court, you could cost them more in court costs than they could pay and force them to take less than they deserve.
It has now possibly cost Dallas more in court costs to fight the brave citizen than if the city had settled sooner.
And that is what is needed in all eminent domain cases.
The government entity should be forced by circumstances to (1) pay truly just compensation and (b) settle as soon as possible. How can we do that? Change the laws so that in any suit the loser pays the winners court costs, even if the loser is the government, ANY part of government. That and a total reversal of Kelso, and like decisions before it, will end the eminent domain grab all around.
There is nothing wrong with eminent domain. But “public use” must be strictly applied as originally intended, and just compensation should reflect a current, honest, assessed value. Adding loser pays to the law regarding lawsuits will help spur government units to act rightly in eminent domain cases or not act at all.
well stated
I have no problem with proper use of ED. But the “state” should be required to pay taxed assessed value plus 10% or fair market value.
That is exactly what she just said.
“The government entity should be forced by circumstances to (1) pay truly just compensation “
Disagree. If the government is taking your property under eminent domain you should get significantly more than just compensation. You get “just compensation” when YOU choose to sell it. When it’s being taken from you, you should get MUCH more.
That’s hilarious.
And she’s actually saying “We can steal from the poor.”
Excellent.
Condemn her property!
I disagree. Thr law should require 200% assessed value at minimum because the seller is not a willing participant.
What kind of deal you say? A 'deal' 'deal'!
Free hookup to the new service i.e.; water/sewer. Stuff like that. Or cold hard cash. Never was turned down.
Ed
The people of Dallas elected this nincompoop.
________________________________________
It is mostly other peoples’ money she is throwing away. The taxpayers of Dallas are going to pay the legal costs for her land grabbing efforts.
She pretty much epitomizes the Left - make the people small and helpless so their necks snap real easy when Big Brother’s boot is applied...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.