1 posted on
06/30/2005 11:52:19 PM PDT by
CHARLITE
To: CHARLITE
I might have missed this in the article, but the NYTs new home in NYC was taken by eminent domain. There was really no reason for it, there were businesses in the first floor and apartments above.
No wonder they like this method, they are one of the takers.
2 posted on
06/30/2005 11:59:01 PM PDT by
ProudVet77
(NASCAR - Because it's the way Americans drive.)
To: CHARLITE
Then again, since the owners of the Times have implicitly identified the paper's new digs as a "public use," perhaps they wouldn't mind.
So once you get your property by exercising eminent domain you might have to comply with all the other social experiment stuff that is going on. Title IX for Times.
7 posted on
07/01/2005 12:19:34 AM PDT by
carumba
To: CHARLITE
"a setback to the 'property rights' movement."Great! Now, according to the NYT, those of us who dare to espouse our Constitutional rights are starting insurgent "movements." The insanity continues.
Impeachment proceedings should have begun on the gang of five within an hour of this decision being announced.
9 posted on
07/01/2005 12:21:51 AM PDT by
garandgal
To: CHARLITE
And the staff at the Times own property where?
10 posted on
07/01/2005 12:32:23 AM PDT by
Waco
To: CHARLITE
12 posted on
07/01/2005 5:21:44 AM PDT by
B4Ranch
( Report every illegal alien that you meet. Call 866-347-2423, Employers use 888-464-4218)
To: nutmeg
14 posted on
07/05/2005 10:09:30 AM PDT by
nutmeg
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson