'Spite mounds' of the Denny Regrade, Seattle development, ca. 1910. The mounds are topped by the houses of landowners who refused to see the developer's vision and give him their property.
Posted on 07/04/2005 7:39:45 AM PDT by Alexander Rubin
Put yourself in the homeowner’s shoes. You buy a home for your family. Perhaps it’s even handed down from your father or grandfather. It’s a place you can afford in a neighborhood you like. The children have made friends. You intend to stay for the rest of your life.
As you plant your garden, landscape the yard, put up a swing set for the kids, and mold your land into a home, unknown to you, certain city officials are meeting around a table with developers. In front of them are maps, plats and photographs — of your home. They talk of dollars — big dollars. Tax revenues for the city, huge profits for the developer. A shopping center with all the trimmings begins to take shape. You’re not asked for input or permission. You’re not even notified until the whole project is finalized and the only minor detail is to get rid of you.
Then the pressure begins. A notice comes in the mail telling you that the city intends to take your land. An offer of compensation is made, usually below the market price you could get if you sold it yourself. The explanation given is that, since the government is going to take the land, it’s not worth the old market price. Some neighbors begin to sell and move away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounts on you to sell. Visits from government agents become routine. Newspaper articles depict you as unreasonably holding up community progress. They call you greedy. Finally, the bulldozers move in on the properties already sold. The neighborhood becomes unlivable. It looks like a war zone.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
'Spite mounds' of the Denny Regrade, Seattle development, ca. 1910. The mounds are topped by the houses of landowners who refused to see the developer's vision and give him their property.
That's simply breathtaking...Great picture.
It happened almost exactly as above to my wife's elderly mother, only the proposed "taking" was even a worse insult to her property rights. The city had engaged a real estate developer to pretty up a "blighted" area but when the parcel proved to be too small for the proposed development, it was only natural that the "blighted area" was expanded until it was large enough. This meant having to take dozens of well-maintainted homes.
Happily, the deal all fell apart because it turned out a city official had not really followed due process. But nothing says these homes are still safe. Do you think any of them are maketable for anywhere near what they used to be worth? Who wants to buy a home that could be Soutered-away at any moment?
This madeness must be stopped, and soon.
Yep. Control the means of production and all that. "For the greater good, of course."
Absolutely true. And worse than that, it manipulates the American sensibility to do the right thing. There are very responsible aspects of sustainability, just as there are with the environmental movement. But, both are presently mechanisms of neo-marxists interests.
from Conservation Economy: The Architecture of Statism
Conservation Economy in theory is a means to encourage Sustainability through Man’s social and professional endeavors. According to this model, the health of ecosystems and communities alike suffer when choices remain unregulated. Economic dependence on so-called ‘destructive’ activities creates stresses in the system components that threaten its very existence. The model therefore seeks to create an economy that focuses on human needs while protecting natural systems. Growth is to be maintained ‘organically’ filling new niches and enriching 'human capacities.' Economic arrangements are ‘designed’ to include abstract considerations of value ordained according to dictated models for idealized conditions of preferred balance. They include, but are not limited to Natural and Social assets, the Fundamental Needs of people and the Ecosystems which sustain them. Additionally, desirable characteristics are given notable consideration, including Social Justice, Fairness, and Cultural Diversity, to name a few. This is thought to be the starting point for an alternative economic prosperity; a sustainable conception transcending the trivialities of consumption, production, and wealth.
In fact, the Conservation Economy model risks a substituting of the moral concept of liberty with an indefinable abstract called fairness. It seeks to replace systemic equilibrium with a proscribe definition of balance; exchanging the emancipating mechanism of the dollar with the coercive submission to regulation, and the demoralizing capital of obedience. Personal desires are surrendered to authoritarian whim. Property rights, likewise and by necessity, must be severely limited and ultimately abolished altogether; forfeited to collective stewardship. Choice is likewise relinquished by finite sets of mandated alternatives dictated by collective consensus on ‘poorly understood’, ‘loosely measured’ variables oddly deemed to be ‘chronically undervalued.’ But, undervalued by whom? The market is not a hypothetical, after all. It is the moral representation of the exercised liberty of productive people recognizing, achieving and enjoying their own individual existence. In a free nation, moral decisions are encouraged. Philosophy and religion provide ethical guidance. Government is the manifestation of these values and operates from that basis in accordance with a set of ideal principles. But, ultimately all choices are left to the individual as the primary benefactor of the dividends and consequences. The shift to a Conservation Economy will scrap that concept nearly entirely, alternatively imposing the experimental bridle of Behavior Economics onto a dynamic system of Capitalist mechanisms with the reigns pulled tight by powerful government oversight.
"Growth is to be maintained ‘organically’ filling new niches and enriching 'human capacities.' Economic arrangements are ‘designed’ to include abstract considerations of value ordained according to dictated models for idealized conditions of preferred balance."
As we are all part of the collective.
To maintain Cultural Diversity you may sell your home to any of the following:
Trivialities, my foot.
In fact, the Conservation Economy model risks a substituting of the moral concept of liberty with an indefinable abstract called fairness.
Aw, that just gives me the warm-fuzzies.
This is all such a load of hogwash! And scary, to boot.
If you want to see how Gov. works.
This is a email reply I got back from a person who works in this field when I forward him this post
In his email the person had the means and the abilty to fight back. And get whats due.
Santa Cruz considers eminent domain on long-empty downtown lot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292948/posts
It's sure better then the case I had awhile back in LA. The city took this guys property, which had a liquor store, deli, check cashing service & was Grossing $300K to $350K PER MONTH.
He had a big corner where all the trucks come off the docks unto Alameda St. & the semis could pull in & pick up a sandwich & a drink. The next closest liquor store was 3 mi. away, & this was the closest to the docks & a big marina for pleasure boats.
The city of L.A gave him a generous $79,000 Yes, that was it, they said since the land was zoned industrial that was all the land was worth.
The building would still be standing, but the new R/W line was 3 ft. from the front of the building & there was to be no access. They said he could do something with the building. It was a complex case since the Koreans who owned it just said give us our $500,000 relocation & loss of business amount & we go back to Korea.
The Koreans who had sold it, sold it for 2 million, $750K for the real estate, the rest for the business & inventory & the down payment had been $250,000, the rest only had the real estate as security. The buyers were just going to walk away with the relocation money & leave the sellers holding the bag. It took awhile to get the 2 Korean sellers into the case, but the atty did & they had to start a foreclosure against the buyers to be able to get to court..
We settled on the court house steps for $1,800,000 ,(Inc the business but no inventory) PLUS the $500,000 relocation fee, PLUS, the city had to buy two adjacent lots and pay for the construction of a new building on the two lots, AND provide access to the new property from Alameda St. The appraiser for the city was still saying., how can an industrially zoned property be worth that.
I asked the city Real Estate Dept. manager how they could justify using an appraiser like that. He said, "We love his work, we use him all the time" That is why cities using eminent domain get such a bad rap.
Now, here is the best part, 6 mo later I was at a legal seminar & had lunch with 4 attys, 3 from the City of L.A. I brought up that I had just been the appraiser on a big case against the city & they knew which one right away. One said she had been assigned the case but knew the case was really bad & got out of it. The city put a brand new atty on, (the city hired an outside law firm also), & the city attorneys office had a betting pool as to how big the city was going to take a hit when they found the case was going to court.
Also, think of all the other folks who's property was taken using this type of appraiser and who could not afford to go to court or who did not get a really good attorney (and of course that attorney hiring a really good appraiser on the case).
So that's what happens in many of these cases. Also, many cases in Redev. are not blighted at all, but they use that to cozy up to a particular developer.
This case does not seem like that however & in this case I agree with the city. I don't know what the lot is really worth, but $70/sq.ft. for an ugly looking hole in the ground does not seem out of line. PS The atty & the clients felt I did such a good job they gave me a $2000 bonus on top of the fee I billed-only the 2nd time in my career that has happened!)
This is all terrifying stuff.
Check out my tag line. I had a half dozen shirts made up and my friends sucked them up in a heart beat.
I see this organized theft as another step to the frivolous lawsuits (not all lawsuits) that are nothing more than legalized extortion, taking from the innocent and redistributing the wealth to the greedy and the demented.
Or, you made on up based on your tagline (about the "all I got was this stupid t shirt")? That's pretty funny too.
yes I did, went to a local T-shop and had a half dozen made. I got to go back because all my buddies took'em.
I used my tagline, my wife thought it was pretty clever.
Sweet. That's a good tagline. I thought that shirt I saw was pretty funny too. I think some of the cafe press prices are a little bit high. But, there are some really good shirts out there.
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.
