Posted on 09/16/2015 5:08:07 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
if I ever thought that eminent domain was going to be used to take my property for others to profit from. I would contact every person that the project was trying to take there property get them all to bundel the property up together then put it all up for sale at a price that would suck up what ever profits the developer would make on the project. that way when it is taken to court I can claim that the developer just doesnot want to pay what this property is worth when it is all put together as one unit to develope. I hateeminent domain when it is used to steal from the public.
if I ever thought that eminent domain was going to be used to take my property for others to profit from. I would contact every person that the project was trying to take there property get them all to bundel the property up together then put it all up for sale at a price that would suck up what ever profits the developer would make on the project. that way when it is taken to court I can claim that the developer just doesnot want to pay what this property is worth when it is all put together as one unit to develope. I hateeminent domain when it is used to steal from the public.
LOL! Silly boy.
Until developers and their coconspirators find themselves on the receiving end of a load of buckshot to the face, this will continue.
I’m waiting to hear why voters in CT have not insisted that State Laws be changed. This I find so very strange.
Trump did the same thing to a woman in Atlantic City pre Kelo. But he and the government goons lost in court. Of course that was pre Kelo and pre the current 5 Lords of the SCOTUS.
Because freedom loving residents like myself are outnumbered by commies.
RE: “Because freedom loving residents like myself are outnumbered by commies.”
You’ve got that completely right.
Lived there for decades.
Saw CT go to hell due to idiot democrats colluding with
State, town, teacher unions to loot its taxpayers.
Did everything possible to call pols, show up and vote in opposition - to non avail.
That state is politically retarded, just as Bill Buckley said
We’ve gotten over sadness of CT’s decline which made many of us flee for our lives/livelihood.
Hard not to spitefully smile as CT excels in being a fine economic Chernobyl.
Self loathing idiot liberals have chased businesses and productive citizens out of the state.
FUCT
Venting off ;n)
They both have to stand before a judge and present thier offers and counter offers and the city has to present how they determined just compensation, which means fair market value. They also have the option for the city to buy them a comparable home.
Thats how it works here in Washington state anyway. And if this city recieves any federal funs for this project then that’s how the feds require it to be done as well.
Passing a resolution to enact eminent domain is required prior to any taking. It basically says there is a public need and cities do this at the start of all takings so that it is on the books as an option if negotiations reach an impasse.
Totally agree and understand. Just have ties that bind. But someday.....
That would be “just” - the word used in their takings argument.
I have always had a problem with that interpretation of states’ versus federal powers and incorporation (Barron notwithstanding).
The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, and no more granted by state constitutions than by the federal one.
In a bit of a converse of the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the first explicitly prohibits Congress from making certain laws, leaving room to interpret that such power is not prohibited to the states.
The rest of the amendments refer to “the people:”
Under what conception of government in 1789 would a person have assumed a general police and judicial power of the federal government to be involved in the execution of warrants, searches and seizures, suits at common law, and the like?
These are (were) primarily local acts. Article three provided limited original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and future inferior courts - which would necessarily limit their access to the sorts of actions proscribed in the first place.
The states had recently left the Mother Country over a constant violation of all of these individual rights. If you look closely at the Bill of Rights, nearly every clause protects against a corresponding complaint in the Declaration of Independence - which states the Source of those rights. It is probably safe to say that people were not worried about their individual rights being denied by State constitutions or authorities at that time. They wanted to make sure that the federal government recognized them as well, not enumerate that state governments had special powers over individual freedoms granted through omission.
I would argue that the 14th Amendment was not necessary for “incorporation” (and that Bingham is therefore correct, after a fashion) due to the privileges and immunities clause of Article Four: “Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” and the supremacy clause in Article Six: “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
But I am just reading the document itself, not all the case law.
Ironically, I worked in the Pfizer building after Electric Boat bought their $300 million dollar building for $30 million. Even though I loved EB, I changed jobs last month.
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.