Posted on 06/23/2005 7:56:36 PM PDT by andie74
Would it be wrong for the person thrown off his property to dump a bucket of dioxin (or similar chemical on the EPA bad list) on his former property as a going away gift? One anonymous call to the EPA and suddenly all development has to be shut down and the new owner has thousands of dollars of clean up.
I think that the Repubs that we have elected have no spines when it comes such forceful articulation.
It's time they got a message from their constituents. Until they use the nuclear option and quit kowtowing to idiots like John McCain and quit caring about what Katie Couric might say, the RNC gets NO money from me.
Wouldn't impeachment and replacement of the "Kelo Five" be better? We could do this with a majority vote and eliminated fillibuster, and then immediately have the newly-constituted Court reverse the decision.
Better yet, start a home-based church. Meet in your home. Then go back to the Supreme Court and see if it is okay for this Connecticut town to get rid of the first Amendment as well.
Now this is being extended to grant privilege to business as long as the business gives more $$ to the city/county/state coffers than some homeowner or previous business owner? So what that means is that if you live in a home on a residential block, and this block butts up against a mall, and if on this mall they want to tear down the J.C. Penny's and extend the area to put up a Costco or Sam's Club, they can claim that block of residential property as "public domain" ???
And who determines "just compensation" -- at least I hope it would mean fair market value for the house and land.
No, you are dead on, FRiend.
This is a case of illegal forfeiture, pure and simple. It is tyranny. It is a case of the government selling out the civil rights of the people to make a few bucks.
Very sad ... very angry. Yes ... Very sad that this would happen.
In that Boston.com article, where it said: Once, Supreme Court justices would have given short shrift to such a claim.
‘‘The despotic power ..... of taking private property when state necessity requires, exists in every government,’’ Justice William Paterson wrote in a 1795 case, Vanhorn’s Lessee v. Dorrance, but the state must not invoke that power ‘‘except in urgent cases.’’ He could not imagine any situation that would justify ‘‘the seizing of landed property belonging to one citizen, and giving it to another citizen. ..... Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature ..... can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?’’
That's the way I learned it in school when we were studying such things in the late 50s early 60s. ... "except in urgent cases" ...
The government determines just compensation. Since they've now been empowered to seize private land and hand it off to another private entity (who will generate more tax$$$$) how long do you think it will take them to decide that the property owner is already receiving a "benefit" from the new development...and refuse compensation?
Or give the compensation at a fraction of what the market value is and then tax that too.
The City can base it off of what you have been paying on your property tax(some cities are fair and will not do this.) Obviously in this ballooned real estate economy we are in most house would be under market value by a whole lot.
In other words if the city needs money guess what they will do.
The SCOTUS has just proved itself unfit. WE THE PEOPLE need to declare them unfit and demand that they be REMOVED..... NOW!!!!
In Texas there is a group of homeowners who protested the city's exercising "eminent domain" regarding their retirement homes and businesses to make way for a new football stadium. I am sure they felt the tip of this blade work.
Likewise, our house is also being slated for "removal" by our local city to make way for a proposed 6 lane road. There are now 4 lanes handling all the city traffic in our region. They want to add 3- 6 lane roads for a total of 18 lanes. This will help "spur" developers and promote business growth in our region. This is great, for the city tax base and for contractors. However, we have lived in our house (that was moved into this area 50 years ago) for over 20 years and now we can't sell the it for what it is actually worth. The city will "evaluate" the property value and then pay us what they say is a "fair" market value. They will not take into account the historic nature of the house, the oak flooring, moldings, etc. that make the house unique and desirable. Adding insult to injury, they pass zoning restrictions so that even developers will not touch our land. To buy and develop our property they have to pay the city the cost to bring in city Utilities to our land. Oh, yes, that's right, we aren't even in city limits, we are on the side of the road which is "county" property. But wait, there's more. They don't have the money to build the road yet. It may take another 5 years before they get started. Meanwhile, the property values are held flat by their fascist zoning chains. When I complained at a city meeting I was told "We are just being responsible with the taxpayer's money." So, what am I? I certainly pay my taxes (which they also just doubled)
An old Beatles line comes to mind....'you say you want a revolution welllll,....' .
I used to live in the People's Republic of Austin.
Being responsible with taxpayer money while screwing people out of their biggest investment and their individual civil rights. That is the objective of this city government.
Hope you are fighting. We'll back you up.
Given the level of tyranny, Jim Rob may make an exception. ; )
Yes. We're all utilitarians now. You were so wise to make the connection.
I have listened sporadically and I was SURE this would be a rallying point/clarion call throughout most of the shows today.
Quite disappointed in what I heard -- nada. Every time I had the chance to listen they're making a big issue of what Rove said -- really a "non-issue" -- I can't believe this isn't causing more rage. In fact people that I've been talking to on the phone today profess along the lines that "Oh, yeah, I heard something about that during the news on the radio but wasn't sure what they were saying." ... so I fill 'em in. They can't believe what I tell them "Nah, they can't do that -- take one person's property and give it to another private party/business just to generate more $$."
So I refer them HERE and tell them how to use the search function! LOL I have received a few apologetic calls back once they learned what actually happened yesterday at SCOTUS -- and that takes away from other calls I have to make. But at least they're getting educated. OK back to business ... will check back later. Maybe blood pressure will be lower then ...
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.