Posted on 06/24/2005 10:38:12 AM PDT by jeffers
Make it a gun supermarket and ammo store with an indoor range and you have a deal.
""Why are you replying to me?
Well, I wouldn't mind a nice fat check for my house from a greedy developer (and the city makes sure everybody knows how much it's worth thanks to the property tax) but, no I'm not the CEO of an evil corporation out to buy up lots of low-cost land for development. I just have an interest in the truth and cutting down the unnecessary hyperbole.""
Where does it say in the constitution "public good" or "to benefit the public". The Phase "public use" is pretty clear, if they meant something else they would have stated that way.
I am simply pointing out a mistruth about the ruling and what is stated in the constitution.
Just because governemnts have gotten away with it in the past doesn't mean it is OK now.
Sorry, but due to the girlieman Republicrat majority, the feeding tube for private property rights has been pulled.
All your property is now theirs.
All your information is now theirs.
All your children are now theirs.
Welcome to the New World Order.
Resistance is futile.
Signed, and thanks for the ping.
In Inglewood, CA, Walmart made a bid to build a supercenter. It was voted down en masse. Now what? Inglewood=South Central Los Angeles, btw. Home of the Rodney King riots....
I'm afraid you can take the "Soon" out of that sentence.
Start a new thread with the same title as this, only replacing "Indianapolis, Indiana" with "Denver, Colorado".
This thread is an offshoot of one similarly named referring to Texas.
With the Supreme Court abdicating our Constitutional protection, state law is our last peaceful recourse to protection of our property rights.
Put those governments on notice, right in the headline of a new thread.
I believe it. They have tried to seize land from several of the towns surrounding O'Hare and one time they actually did offer to buy my parents former home. They offered about 1/4-1/3 what it would have been worth on the open market.
What use is a law when the Constitution itself has been overturned in effect?
Thanks for the ping. I've been so busy on the e.d. threads that I haven't even looked at the tax reform threads lately.
Tag line change bump
I'll agree that no state law was overturned. However, SCOTUS has made it known what states will now have to abide by relative to property rights. As far as I am concerned they treaded on states rights. They could have refused to hear the case and sent it back to the state. The state legislature could then enact whatever law they wanted. Now it will take a State Constitutional amendment to overcome what SCOTUS has ruled and even that may be thrown out by the SCOTUS because of their ruling. And then there is the following from another website: Eminent domain is a practice indirectly sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment's protection against unwarranted government interference adds a caveat: "Nor shall property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
One could argue a military (i.e. national security) issue for railroads, at least in the past. I think the interstate highway system was put in place and federally funded exactly so that tanks could move around if necessary.
Stadia have a similar problem. They need many acres of contiguous land. (Parking, etc.)
They are not essential for national defense nor for essential government services. True, they "need" a lot of land, but people living in a free country "need" property rights too.
Your idea of "just compensation" is interesting, but it ultimately inshrines this bad idea of ED into law. For "public use" the value of property often goes down or is unable to be properly assessed (a public park, for example) because it cannot be used privately.
That's a good point, but there are plenty of examples where a landowner is evicted so the city can rezone to more valuable land, allowing a developer to cash in at the former landowner's expense. Maybe a good solution would be to stipulate that "just compensation" is for FMV if the land will be zoned to a less-valuable state after the ED taking, but is for FMV after the planned rezoning, if it is rezoned to a more-valuable state. (But, no fair rezoning to a garbage dump for the purpose of minimal "just compensation", and then rezoning again to office space after the 1-year-and-1-day deadline passes, stiffing the landowner.)
BTTT
It would be interesting for an enterprising lawyer to argue that "just compensation" can be calculated from the revenue expected from the recipient. I don't know that it hasn't been done already.
Oh, Eisenhower designed the highway system so that planes could land there in an emergency. That is why the highways have several miles of perfectly straight road, then twist and turn, and go straight again.
You are quite misinformed. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
well said.......
I already anticipated that and call it distinctly unjust.
Oh, Eisenhower designed the highway system so that planes could land there in an emergency. That is why the highways have several miles of perfectly straight road, then twist and turn, and go straight again.
That might have been a designed capability for the roadways, but I don't think it's the reason the highway system was built in the first place.
Beg your pardon, but I do not believe I am misinformed.
""What good will a State law do when all they have to do is take the case to the Supreme Court and we already know how they will rule.?""
no state law was overrulled yesterday
I am not sure in this case of a statium you can call that private use.
If the statium is going to be publically owned, yesterdays ruling has no effect on this type of eminent domain.
Yesterdays cse was about private development not public development
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.