Posted on 07/04/2005 4:30:29 PM PDT by tryon1ja
ROMULUS, Mich. The sign at the edge of Romulus, Mich. (search) proclaims: "Industry and its citizens working together." But try convincing cabinet shop owner Ed Hathcock.
snipe.
Hathcock's property abuts Detroit's airport where the county had planned a 1,300-acre industrial park. But when Hathcock turned down the county's buyout offer, the local government made a play to take his land to use on the project.
The Supreme Court of the United States (search)' recent ruling that local governments can seize private property for private economic development has put the affected property owners across the country in a fighting mood, but those in favor believe taking property is justified if it suits the public good.
snipe
The majority of landowners accepted Wayne County's buyout offer for the industrial park, but Hathcock claims he got a raw deal.
So the county took him to court to seize his land, wielding its power of eminent domain (search). Hathcock lost in two lower courts but won a ruling last year in Michigan's Supreme Court.
"Every American believes that ... they have sanctity in their land, that holding land is a right and that it's not a right that can be alienated by a politician because he feels he has a better use for it," Hathcock said.
Hathcock's victory reversed two decades of legal precedent in Michigan and made the state's eminent domain laws among the strictest in the nation. For a government to take land from a private property owner, it has to be for public projects only, such as road construction or for parks.
snipe
... A company says, 'Do I locate in China or do I locate in the Midwest? What are the advantages that I have?' One of the biggest advantages is being able to assemble land," Fiacano said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What's the Supreme Court going to do next? Rescind the Third Amendment? What they just did comes dangerously close to that.
I agree. The test is "Can You Read....the Constitution?"
You still have to know what is going on to be informed enough for a reality check before rendering a decision. I don't think they weigh the consequences. But, if you make decisions based upon the constitution and not on international law or whatever, you do not need to consider the consequences. They are not part of the equation.
I think at 75 they ought to be forced to retire. Earlier if they show signs of dimentia.
Sounds good to me.
What's the Supreme Court going to do next? Rescind the Third Amendment? What they just did comes dangerously close to that.
Don't say that too loud.
He won in court. Not because he has sanctity in his land, and not because a politician might feel something or not. Pretty words, but useless.
Yes. Bump. CW2. BITS. FMCDH.
FMCDH(BITS)
They do have trouble sometimes, here for example, when they tried to get a grant from public land. They eventually got a piece of private land through subdivision.
great quote
Then go to China you S.O.B.
Thought at first you meant this for me. Couldn't think what I had said wrong. But, it sounds good to me. If you don't like how things should be done here, and prefer China's style of government, then by all means cart yourself over there.
I tried wading through it. Now I feel whipsawed.
You guys figure this alloidal title stuff out.
Horsepucky! There's plenty of land.
What they want is LOCATION! In other words, they want already proven land.
Unless I'm mistaken, Neal Bootz ranted on Walmart at Alabaster Alabama using eminent domain.
Nonsense...There are hundreds if not thousands of vacant factories all over the U.S...Already set up for manufacturing...
And they can be picked up for back taxes and actually for free in most places...In fact, places like Michigan will pay you to move in...There's no shortage of space...
I agree, developers look at this as a way of dealing with that last holdout owner on the cheep.
MARK Goldblatt. Right. Sorry.
FL has mandatory retirement for all judges at 70.
HOWEVER (there is always a however) they use the retired judges as senior judges to hear loooooooong civil cases which would just kill the docket of an unretired judge.
The retired judge (senior judge) hears the one case which can take MONTHS. For some judges, they just keep working for free after the pay cap on retired judges runs out because they enjoy the work.
The elected judges are pushing for merrit retention as a way of means of job security. Instead of being exposed to potential oponents, they get a yea or nay vote. Appelate judges, who have merit retention, have never been removed on such a vote. (even the 2000 election FLSC judges).
How about just capping it at 20 years of service.
Oops, didn't mean to startle you!
If I had been refering to you it would have meant Sweet Old Buddy /wink
I believe there actually was a time when his type knew they were amoral and crooked. I don't think they do now. Which I find even more alarming.
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.