Posted on 06/24/2005 5:11:41 AM PDT by beaureguard
The Supreme Court decision is making the chickens scurry around the yard. Otherwise, nothing has changed.
Come to think of it.......:^}
The liberals are just as upset by this ruling as we are, just take a look at DU.
" It was strangely unsettling to find myself agreeing with anything uttered by Colmes."
Tums, Rol-Aides, or the pink stuff? ;0)
"just take a look at DU"
Not gonna do that...wouldn't be prudent!
You, I think, are looking at those, like us all, oppossed to this terrible ruling. You see no ability for us to affect anything upon it. All just talk.
Yes and no.
For the primary actions are already underway -- from those looking to exploit this ruling.
No effective action.
Nothing was going to change anyway, property is a bundle of rights.
Alaska might make property rights more explicit, and that merely affirms that property rights come from the State in the first place.
Bush hasn't had an opportunity to nominate a single Supreme Court justice yet, and the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are stonewalling him on his constructionist appointees to lower federal benches.
His nominees bear out the obvious: Bush wants less activist federal courts. Save your ammunition for the actual culprits.
they are. ck out the DU, I don't know which surprises them more, that their "liberal champions" pulled this outrage, or that they are in agreement with us Freepers.
But that's all the libs will do; they're sheep, remember? Or perhaps, lemmings is the better description...
It matters not what our state representatives do. Big brother has spoken. We are serfs residing on the Kings land. They have said our land is not ours--that is their decision, regardless of what a state legislature decides, that is the way they feel. They can change their mind and nullify the states decision to be different whenever they want.
TLR
I don't feel secure here in Washington state where in Unincorporated King County if you own 5 acres or more you cannot use 65% of your land. You cannot build on it. You cannot plant on it, heck you cannot even pick berries or clear out invading weeds.You own it and pay taxes on it, but you can't use it.
How can we have faith after state and federal elections laws were violated and ignored. Laws mean nothing here.
Here here.
I noticed you have mentioned on several threads that nothing has changed. Please bear with my ignorance, I am trying to catch up with the issue at hand and would appreciate any insight you can provide.
I recall hearing about a family in Coatesville, PA that was had a long battle over their property with the city of Coateville. Here is a link to their site - http://www.saveourfarm.com/index.htm
The city was trying to have the property condemned in order to develop a municipal golf course. The family fought the city for several years and eventually agreed to sell 5 acres of their 48 acre property.
Now, what has changed is that with the Supreme Court ruling, again, I am not up to speed on the details, but on the surface, it would seem that Coatesville could simply take the property they wanted and the Saha's would have no legal recourse.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts on the matter.
I think he could have called.
For further interest, possibly academic interest only, see Bentham, concept of Utilitarianism, which is commonly studied in Ethical Theory as it applies to the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time. Utilitarianism was intended as a principle of operation for gov't, principle meaning literally first take.
Take was a poor choice of words. The Saha's had no intention of selling and would have preferred to keep their land. They managed to lose only 5 acres. Now, can the local government purchase all 48 acres and the Saha's would be forced to sell?
Thank you for the additional reference. I will look into it all.
Yes, they may be forced by court order to sell. This was always the case, however now it comes as a surprise to many, both on the Left and on the Right. It seems there was something left out of our public education class in civics. Or maybe we slept in class that day--all of us.
You noted that it was always the case that the Saha's may have been forced to sell. I do not see that as always being the case. That is, the Saha's (at a great expense) were able to resist the local government for several years- mainly because their was some question as to whether the proposed project (a municipal golf course) was deemed necessary for the good of the public. But with this new ruling, it would seem that what was once in question is now more than ample reason to force someone to sell their land and so, if the local government wished to act, they could now force the Saha's to sell without a fight.
Yes, there is no doubt that I've been asleep. I appreciate your insight.
Being primarily a local issue in most cases, the local community has a great deal of control. Public hearings, sympathetic representatives in the city or county, legal challenges, all can delay or stop any development or zoning meaasure. We have had these controls all along, but not a lot of citizens show up for public meetings. There will be more interest for a while at city council meetings.
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.