Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
Nealz Nuze ^ | June 24, 2005 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 06/24/2005 5:11:41 AM PDT by beaureguard

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-158 last
To: TKDietz
Tkdietz:

As an employee of a government (albeit not a dept. directly involved in such roadbuilding) I ask you this:

How do you think the government decides which roads get built or widened?

Why, the ones near where the "right people" live, or the "right people" have snapped up all the available commercial property on spec, of course. Now we can add "or all the wrong people live nearby and it can be redeveloped."

Here in Houston, the Grand Parkway's route was determined by publicly allowing "land owners" to donate the property. Of course, those land owners were developers who had gone out and bought the land cheap. Then they donated tracts along the edges of their property--resulting in a route that wanders all over the place (so it's more expensive to build) to ensure ready access to the developments they will create.

And this is despite studies showing a negative economic and ecological impact from the Grand Parkway's development!
141 posted on 06/24/2005 11:55:38 AM PDT by ubu (End 'eminent domain' today! Pass the 28th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

I see your point. This spotlight may turn into something positive. Thank you again for your time.


142 posted on 06/24/2005 11:57:07 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Don't worry, they will ply us with whiskey first, then have us sign treaty.
143 posted on 06/24/2005 11:59:53 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (My tagline is currently being blocked by Congressional filibuster for being to harsh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

ping


144 posted on 06/24/2005 12:00:34 PM PDT by Snoopers-868th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
This spotlight may turn into something positive

It is possible. Some optimism would not hurt the mood of the day.

145 posted on 06/24/2005 12:05:06 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Just compensation doesn't matter. Gov't lowballs because it knows it can; once the gov't wants it, no one else is going to bother, so you can't get "market value."

Case in point:

"The UKMD (hail, comrade!) wants to create something they call a "community center" and offered to buy a two-story building for $1.9 million. It's owned by the American Automobile Association, and located o­n the Southwest Freeway near the Greenway Plaza; prime commercial real estate. Then the Girl Scouts, headquartered in the building next door -- even sharing the same parking lot -- found out it was for sale. It doesn't get any better than that. Either pay a lot of money to rebuild theur current structure, or they buy out their longtime neighbor. So they outbid the UKMD (hail, comrade!) , offering $2.2 million. (The property is assessed by the HCAD at $1.8m). The District decided that fine, they could meet that offer. This is great--capitalism at work! Someone's got a commodity, folks who are bidding have got the money. Lets do this!

Only o­ne side didn't want to play fair in a bidding war. Suddenly, the AAA broke off the negotiations with the GSA. Why? They got a letter from the UKMD (hail, comrade!) stating that if it had to do so, it would use eminent domain to take the building. The AAA, cowed into avoiding what would be a costly legal battle if they tried to defy the District, folded."


Emphasis added.

Full story
Almost a 25% difference between the assessed value and the last offer before the unelected "reinvestment zone" board cheated.
146 posted on 06/24/2005 12:07:14 PM PDT by ubu (End 'eminent domain' today! Pass the 28th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

Comment #147 Removed by Moderator

To: beaureguard

You will get a bad greeting if you show up here to seize my home - I don't give a rats butt what the Supremes said.


148 posted on 06/24/2005 12:09:40 PM PDT by sandydipper (Less government is best government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ubu
Most people don't have the knowledge or attention span to follow these municipal deals all the way and in detail. Those who do seem remarkably one-dimensional or dilettantes. Professionals can do it, right-of-way agents have the particular blend of character traits needed for success in this field of endeavor.

No doubt there will be more people taking a look at this kind of career, but the professionals will remain a small, select group.

149 posted on 06/24/2005 12:15:19 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Well, I see a reason for optimism if this is an issue of us simple folk just not being up to speed on things. If so, then perhaps more people will be moved to avail themselves of the opportunities set before them, inciting them to become more informed, take a greater interest in what their elected officials are doing, and take action at a local level.

But if this ruling means that those opportunities have come and gone, then screw it, I was better off sleeping. : )


150 posted on 06/24/2005 12:16:28 PM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty

Nope, control remains local. Get involved, attend city council meetings anyway. For light reading, the anti-federalist papers can spark some useful thinking.


151 posted on 06/24/2005 12:22:13 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Vicki

And we have a governor who was not elected.


152 posted on 06/24/2005 12:24:26 PM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
And we have a governor who was not elected.

We have already lost our rights. Let's get I-912 on the ballot and rub Olympia's noses in it!

153 posted on 06/24/2005 1:17:25 PM PDT by Vicki (Washington State where there are no rules or standards in elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Being primarily a local issue in most cases, the local community has a great deal of control.

If the property is under community control it isn't private property but rather communal property.

154 posted on 06/24/2005 3:34:10 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

pls. include me in this ping list


155 posted on 06/24/2005 3:39:43 PM PDT by indcons (The Koran - the world's first WMD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

I hate to say it but the Federal Government is fast becoming an illegitimate government. It is no longer a government in service to the people, but in service to itself by outright theft. The SCOTUS is completely out of control and impeachment proceedings are warranted. It may not be too early to start "shooting" the bastards anymore.


156 posted on 06/26/2005 10:51:51 AM PDT by Wolfhound777 (It's not our job to forgive them. Only God can do that. Our job is to arrange the meeting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ubu
You cite a bad example. There are plenty of good ones, examples of beneficial and even necessary roads that have been built or widened and in the process required land that had to be taken by eminent domain. Think about some of the interstate highways and so on that would not exist without eminent domain.
157 posted on 06/26/2005 3:22:49 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Actually, I'm thinking it would have multiple advantages, though the changes would not be without discomfort.

Fewer freeways = less urban sprawl. Over time, people will want to live closer to their jobs, since they can't move 30 miles away and expect someone to build or widen a convenient freeway. Thus the cities'population & tax base, etc. are enhanced. (Other possiblity, jobs move to smaller towns; it's a tossup.)

Fewer freeways = more congested traffic, hence more pollution (bad effect), but therefore more pressure to make cars less polluting and more efficient.

Fewer freeways & higher pop density = more pressure to build mass transit (in existing ROW's)

Since the completion of 95% of the Interstate Highway system in the 1970's, most of the freeway construction in this nation has been _urban_ to _sub-urban_, not cross-country (I-49 being the biggest exception, as would be the proposed "I-69 NAFTA" highway.)

Stop making it so easy for developers to do "greenfield" development and then grease palms to get roads built to their new "master planned communities" and the tax base of the cities will eventually begin to recover.
158 posted on 06/27/2005 11:05:52 AM PDT by ubu (End 'eminent domain' today! Pass the 28th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-158 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson