To: skimbell
One of the problems is that there is no consistency. I know of one area that the local courts have ruled that in order for a government to seize private property the owner needs to be reimbursed to the tune of 3 times FMV. Obviously there's not a hell of a lot of eminent domain there. There just has to be some consistency and regard for personal property rights. This is a far cry from taking someone's land for the railroad to come through or to build a courthouse. This is taking someone's land and turning it over to a private developer so he can make a profit. It's an outrage.
337 posted on
06/23/2005 10:43:07 AM PDT by
GOPJ
(Deep Throat(s) -- top level FBI officials playing cub reporters for suckers.)
To: GOPJ
This is a far cry from taking someone's land for the railroad to come through . . . . Do not forget, that when the railroads first went through, they (the robber barons) and the lumber mills they owned, received one square mile of land on either side of the tracks as far as the tracks ran.
434 posted on
06/23/2005 12:26:05 PM PDT by
Bear_Slayer
(DOC - 81 MM Mortars, Wpns Co. 2/3 KMCAS 86-89)
To: GOPJ
I had forgotten about Jesse James, too.
482 posted on
06/23/2005 1:17:22 PM PDT by
hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson