Posted on 06/25/2005 8:17:22 AM PDT by snowsislander
Most of what you say is true. However, our locality specifically excludes party affiliation from local elections. We elect a fair number of officials who are not members of the Big Two. In fact, statewide, the Big Two do not have a lock on the political system, not even at the level of the top office. So, from this corner of the continent things do not look so disquieting. Also, we can see trends as if from a distance, as if from a foreign country, in a disinterested manner. At the same time, it is true that our state is totally under gov't ownership and control.
I agree with the question about public use. How the hell can they justify seizing property from one private owner to hand it over to a different private owner? Since when did these cities become real estate agents?
People are gonna get hurt over this ruling, mark my words!
I live in OR 10 miles from the CA border. Roughly 83% of the state is owned "publicly" - fed or state. The valley I live in is even more than that - I think it's 87%. What does that mean? Lots of pretty scenery, but no one can live there, buy it, do anything with it.
It is very, very wrong.
When are we going to wake up? This country is now run by the Supreme Court with their recommendations that our LAW should be determined by international law. When is America going to take the stand we use to and be the country that stands in strength, not with those that would have Socialism be our doctrine? Makes me want to weep!
"May our coup actually be the taking back of America!"
Hear, hear!
"Very good news for the U.N. and those who are implementing communism, you mean."
Communism?
Oh no.
WalMart, Costco, the large investment banks and real estate development houses like Vornado or even M. Trump are not Communists. They are full-fledged capitalists, skilled in the art of the deal. Businessmen always use whatever tools are at their disposal to get the best economic terms for themselves. The new Supreme Court decision makes it easier and faster for large capital players to more easily remove small landholders from obstructing large capital, for-profit developments, and will allow large capital players to obtain such properties at lower cost, especially lower legal costs.
This is not communism at all.
What it is, is capitalism freed of cumbersome regulation and allowed to unmask more of the pure power of money without intrusive, anti-capitalist laws standing in the way of the weaker party.
All of this talk of local action sounds a lot like the unionization talk of the past. Workers then felt exploited by the power of capital and the willingness of government to support capital (of COURSE government supports capital in a pay-to-play system such as America's. Why WOULDN'T it?). So they organized and used collective action to oppose the power of capital. It worked somewhat, chiefly by gaining control of some of the levers of government and using them to pass regulations of labor law which reduced the discretion of capital power.
The revanche of capital was, over the course of the Republican revolution starting in the 1980s, to replace pro-labor control of government with pro-capital officials, who then removed the regulations in favor of labor and allowed capital to assert the power of money without the interfering power of government regulation. That is capitalism.
This Supreme Court decision is simply another plank in that platform. Law and regulation has stood in the way of allowing the full power of capital to be brought to bear. With the removal of restrictions on eminent domain power (which has ALWAYS existed under the Common Law, and was always exercised by government in the US and England), capital is able to negotiate more freely with government to more quickly purchase and develop land. Individuals, with the least capital, have the least bargaining power in the free market. They are still paid, by the government, but they are not able to use government regulation and law to block capital from negotiating deals with government on better terms than before.
The UN and Communism has nothing to do with this.
This is pure Anglo-Saxon Common Law tradition going back to the Enclosure Acts. In American history, it closely parallels the relative bargaining power of government, capital developers such as mining interests, railroads and land speculators, and Indian tribes. Simple homeowners in America are now in the position of the Indian tribes of the 19th Century. They can, of course, still get paid fair value by negotiating with the government. This worked for the Indians, and no reason that the same American tradition will not work just as well for simple American landholders who happen to have parcels of land that would have greater capital use in a larger development than in mere habitation.
In France and elsewhere in Europe, but not England, it is much more difficult to take people's houses. Land is trapped in less efficient economic uses because capital cannot as easily obtain land for development. Individuals can block it. The Enclosure Acts were the early Anglo-Saxon solution to this, and were a clear departure from traditional beliefs about land ownership being absolute.
The Common Law tradition is quite different from the Civil Law on this, and what the US Supreme Court did two days ago is eminently in the Anglo-Saxon Common Law and US federalist tradition. It has nothing to do with Communists or the UN. This was an American Court, using American precedent, to impose quintessentially American law.
This ruling has nothing to do with international law.
In fact, private homes are much, much more protected in France than in the US from takings. One old lady with a pigeon coop in France will hold up a large project for years.
Nor does it have anything to do with Socialism.
This ruling was by an American Court, citing to American precedents, in the Common Law tradition of England and America going back through the Indian Treaties all the way to the Enclosure Acts.
Lashing out at the rest of the world is an inappropriate response. The UN didn't do this to you. The Socialists didn't do this to you. The French didn't do this to you, and actually are more protected in their homes than you (commercial property is a different state). The United States Supreme Court, operating under the US Constitution and Common Law tradition did this to you. And the US Congress and US President has not said a peep about it, and won't.
100% of this problem lies in American law and the American constitutional system, and noplace else.
Barking at foreigners is barking up the wrong tree this time, mon ami.
This ruling has disempowered the individual and empowered the "Intra city municipal politicians", and, as you say, the big investor.
Let's call it 'Socialist Capitalism'.
If it is 'socialistic capitalism' then where is the individual worker, that stands for the 'American Work Ethic" that made our streets paved in "GOLD"? If the international globe has more freedom to KEEP their property over their municipal government - what is the message that the American government is sending to us fellow Americans?
No question in my mind - it's the screaming silence of the GOP. I trusted them to fight for and protect our God-given rights. But if their lack of response is any indiction...
Actually, I see 'socialism' as being an oxymoron in that it really isn't about the individual, but about control over society by 'social workers', usually government employees. It is this socialism that has given us so-called "social-welfare" (another oxymoron), Hillary's health care plan, etc. I see this decision as a form of socialism with a capitalist twist- now, realtors and big investors will be able to play social worker at the expense of you and I.
"Barking at foreigners is barking up the wrong tree this time, mon ami." Thank you for the kind closure! And yes - you are correct - i was using this string as an opportunity to keep the flame going regarding our Supreem Court Justices and the inherent lacking of logic - though our Consitution does allow for eminient domain, it was not for "individual sales from government (municipal or other) for profit, disguised under "development opportunities for the community". Such opportunities end of being a drag on current fiscal budgets and opens the doors to more prop 2 1/2 and soaring taxes for the 'working' slob like myself. I pride myself in being a strong American worker that provides my taxed (already) dollars to the dupport of my community, I do not like being held hostage by the Teachers (it's all about the children) or that the senior (which should have the support already) need the rides to their activities, where are the families to support these seniour - oh right - they all moved to Florida. I digress...I wanted to really state that I am tired of bing a hard working American that finds her government cow towing to the international world because they all feel that we have it too good. Well good is as good as it gets- meaning - I worked hard to get where I am and have an intelligent voice to sound off on the crummy government that has the opportunity to do good but we sit on our A@@ and let the same individuals rule with no repercusions. I apologize for sp errors as I am feeling quite emotional at this time. Mon ami, have a great day!
It's gonna end up being just a way to increase the cities tax roles. That's it. Highest bidder. Whoever has the deepest pockets.
So if any city tries to come along and say "We're doing this for economic development", they're lyin their a$$e$ off.
The ONLY way they should be allowed to use emminent domain is if the parcel comes off of the tax roles.
I agree, and I think the key here is the phrase 'economic development'- for whom? For the people who live in the city, or for 'THE CITY'? Obviously, this benefits THE CITY, and not the people of the city.
Let us hope that the local residents in these graft ridden municipalities flush them from office as we would a toilet!
In NJ, the county level of Government does not have zoning power nor the right of eminent domain! Of course, that is only specifically stated in the NJ Constitution, which means that the Supremes are not bound by it. Similar to granting the wish of Lousenberg to be placed on the ballot, after the specific deadline for changes had passed!
If SCOTUS were truly concerned with states' rights, they should have and would have simply refused to take the case and left this to the state of Connecticut.
Instead, they took the case, based their decision in part on the US Constitution, and cited cases from across the country. As a result, they've essentially created a precedent for all state courts in the country to follow and unarguably (as we see in this announcement) given elected thieves both inside and outside Connecticut the green light.
Notice that the US Conference of Mayors didn't making this announcement when it was just the CT Supreme Court ruling in favor of eminent domain. The fact that SCOTUS took the case de facto made it a federal decision that guides all the states -- no matter how much lip service they paid to states' right in the decision.
Don't forget that you and the other people in your city have the power to vote those thieving city councilpeople out. Make them pay at the ballot box.
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.