Skip to comments.
Schwarzenegger opposes eminent domain measure
Sacramento Bee ^
| April 25, 2008
| John Hill
Posted on 04/25/2008 6:06:10 PM PDT by calcowgirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: calcowgirl
Good old Arnold, he doesn't care what it cost people, take their land, tax them blind, who cares as long as the government gets their share and he can appease his wife.
2
posted on
04/25/2008 6:08:55 PM PDT
by
calex59
To: calex59
There are some people who want the govt to use eminent domain to build the trans-border security fence.
3
posted on
04/25/2008 6:11:29 PM PDT
by
Perdogg
(Reagan would have never said "She's my girl")
To: calcowgirl
The Californians did this before. Instead of creating a law that simply says EM cannot be used for private purposes, the proposers of the new law tack on all sorts of other things in their peculiar interests.
4
posted on
04/25/2008 6:15:37 PM PDT
by
Shermy
(These are the waffles we have been waiting for/ Lame Duck Legacy Obsessed American President)
To: Perdogg
This is about transferring private property to other private parties, not to government.
5
posted on
04/25/2008 6:15:54 PM PDT
by
DB
To: calcowgirl
EM?
I meant ED, eminent domain.
;)
6
posted on
04/25/2008 6:16:12 PM PDT
by
Shermy
(These are the waffles we have been waiting for/ Lame Duck Legacy Obsessed American President)
To: calcowgirl
Proposition 98 bans the use of eminent domain to transfer property to a private party,....It bans taking property for its natural resources. This is a good thing.
How can a Republican Governor be against this...oh, wait, never mind.
To: calcowgirl
We need this law to prevent instances such as
this.
8
posted on
04/25/2008 6:26:43 PM PDT
by
South40
(Amnesty is a slap in the face to the USBP!)
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: Perdogg
There are some people who want the govt to use eminent domain to build the trans-border security fence< And that makes imminent domain alright? as I have said in other posts, the ends does not justify the means, this is a communist ideology and has no place in America.
10
posted on
04/25/2008 6:30:09 PM PDT
by
calex59
To: calcowgirl
Eminent Domain should be a measure of last resort for public projects, not private. It should go for infrastructure stuff, period. Anything else is theft.
11
posted on
04/25/2008 6:30:42 PM PDT
by
DesScorp
To: calcowgirl
Maybe he got his marching orders from the skirt:
To: calex59
this is a communist ideology and has no place in America. So can we assume you don't drive freeways and roads because the land used to build them was taken from private landowners using the "communist ideology" of eminent domain?
13
posted on
04/25/2008 6:36:16 PM PDT
by
South40
(Amnesty is a slap in the face to the USBP!)
To: calcowgirl
Well, Arnold, it’s nice to see that when developers and enviral nuts buy your support, it stays bought.
14
posted on
04/25/2008 6:37:32 PM PDT
by
LexBaird
(Behold, thou hast drinken of the Aide of Kool, and are lost unto Men.)
To: South40
Emminent domain is an abomination and a blot on the constitution of the USA. The communist ideology I was talking about was taking private property and giving it to private land holders, such as Wal-Mart. But as long as you ask, Yes I drive on freeways on land that was stolen from private owners, I have ridden railroads, the biggest rip off of private property in the history of the US. If you are comfortable using stolen property for freeways and such, fine, I am not comfortable and will fight it legally when ever I can.
15
posted on
04/25/2008 6:44:09 PM PDT
by
calex59
To: calcowgirl; All
since it would only inhibit the abuse of eminent domain in the government forced transfer of land between private owners, is it arnold’s point that PRIVATE developers of “water” and other “infrastructure” projects should not have to use their own resources to coax out the sellers of the land they need????
16
posted on
04/25/2008 6:52:33 PM PDT
by
Wuli
(.)
To: calex59
I, too, oppose using ED to give the land to private developers and said as much in post #8 of this thread.
What I don't oppose is using the land for infrastructure that we all need and use.
If you do, fine. But you'd make a much more convincing argument if you weren't hypocritically using the highways built through the very process you decry.
If you do not oppose the taking of private land for use in infrastructure you need to revise your comment that ED has no place in America, it does.
17
posted on
04/25/2008 6:53:45 PM PDT
by
South40
(Amnesty is a slap in the face to the USBP!)
To: South40
So can we assume you don't drive freeways and roads because the land used to build them was taken from private landowners using the "communist ideology" of eminent domain?
Typical Commie Boy, Let's Just Sidestep/Divert the issue, tho thweet.
18
posted on
04/25/2008 7:04:43 PM PDT
by
knyteflyte3
(Freedom is not for FREE)
To: knyteflyte3
Typical Commie Boy, Let's Just Sidestep/Divert the issue, tho thweet.I've addressed the issue head on.
Judging from the mindless nature of your post, I'm not surprised that fact has escaped you.
19
posted on
04/25/2008 7:09:45 PM PDT
by
South40
(Amnesty is a slap in the face to the USBP!)
To: calcowgirl
Thank goodness! Where would California be with property rights? Or that what's the Governator wants the state's residents to believe.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
20
posted on
04/25/2008 7:28:18 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson