Posted on 06/24/2005 6:53:25 AM PDT by jim_trent
"A home is NOT an investment, W/G, but merely a place to live."
Posted on 03/26/2001 16:27:50 PST by pigdog
To: pigdog, Willie Green
It's amazing how many people view a home as an "asset," as well. It's a frickin' LIABILITY.
You'll report to your new job at the Kremlin when WE SAY you report.
(smacks you with a rifle-butt)
I'm just sick for the people there.
You are wasting your time if the last few months are any indication on here -- facts don't count!
So if I contribute to Joe Demonsenator, because I want that choice riverfront land, and make a compelling case they'll get more tax money from it, it's constitutional to 'rub my belly' like that?
What sort of banana republic have we become?
OH, yes that's what I meant. Please don't report me to the KGB!
The point is, if someone doesn't want to move ...
... they shoud feign discovery of the highly endangered white-spotted-hushpuppy-muckraker on their premises and then report it to the enviro-whackos. That'll keep the developers at bay.
I live 20 miles from New London. The Fort Trumbull section of New London is middle class. The homes they are stealing are owned by middle class people. There is no blight in New London, only submarines. The CT Supreme Court and the SCOTUS noted that in their holdings. No blight, just politicians and friends with deep pockets who want the land. The "takings clause" shall henceforth be known as the "want clause" as in if I want your home and I've got deeper pockets and friends on the commission the land is mine for the taking.
YOW! I think you hit it!
Once again:
A church pays NO TAXES. Under this new ruling, where it is in the public interest to collect taxes on that property, could not the local officials condemn the church property, sell it to a developer, and gain taxable property?
Now can Cities have a right to cross county lines. If a rural county is next to a major city can the city say "we have no where to go but over there"?
(The following is from from FoxNews.com)
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was also clearly outraged at the decision, and issued a stinging dissent.
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” Justice O'Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
“Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded ie given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public,” she wrote.
You could always be executed for treason. If some local government decides being a Christian is treasonous because it puts God before the country, then they decide to start executing Christians.
The Supreme court in a divided vote agrees. You come on and post a screed saying nothing has changed. All you need to do is elect different people, and it will stop.
Correction: This WAS a fundamental right.
The Soviet Union didn't respect property rights.
We beat the Soviets, then we became them.
my general statement is accurate according to the decision and dissent which i read.
my point was the the difference between before and after yesterday is the need to condemn propery before transfering to another private owner for development.
Sensible answer.
A more permanent remedy would be to amend the state constitution. About a half dozen states already prohibit these kinds of takings.
The devine right of kings?! Apparently the entire reason this nation seceeded from Britain escapes you. There IS no devine right of kings in this nation. Royalty is specifically banned in our Constitution, and for good reason.
The American People are the sovereign in this land, period. We hold ALL political power and delegate some of it to governments:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
The People never have delegated power for the government to take land from one man and give it to another. Instead, government took that power. Rest assured, we're going to take it back.
I'm actually glad you associated the "Boss Hogg Empowerment Act" with the "devine right of kings". You're not supposed to be so candid. It gives people a good idea of exactly what you represent. Next time keep with "its for the common good". It fools more people.
discussed a bit here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429706/posts
The Constitution says nothing about "projects"; it specifies "public use". This is the crux of the problem. Government officials and the courts have been allowed to redefine and expand the definition of public use beyond the original intent of the Founders and beyond the original meaning derived from centuries of Engish common law.
It is very telling that the term used in the language of the majority decision is "public purpose", not "public use". They are not the same thing.
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.