THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

Nealz Nuze ^ | Friday, March 12, 2004 | Neal Boortz

[beaureguard]

I ask you today to consider a time in America when there will be no such thing as the private ownership of real estate; where the American dream of home ownership will belong to a past era. Instead of title to a parcel of real property, you'll get a license to occupy that property for a determined period of time. That license will be issued by the government, and subject to renewal on a periodic basis. Renewal will be considered based on several factors, including how you are using that land, and whether or not the license fees you pay for that usage is adequate.

Some areas of this country are closer to this reality than others. Take Connecticut, for instance. The Connecticut Supreme Court recently ruled that private ownership of land was subject to the needs of local jurisdictions for more tax revenue or a wider jobs base. If your friendly local politicians in Connecticut thinks that someone else could redevelop your property in such a way that it would support higher property taxes, or provide more jobs for the community, then the politicians can simply step in, seize the property, pay the current "owner" some stipend, and hand the property over to a new owner. That includes private residences.

As this attack on private property evolves in America you'll hear politicians start to talk about "public ownership of all real estate." That's the argument they use today for denying to broadcasters their private property rights in and to broadcast frequencies. Scarcity in the broadcast spectrum is used as an excuse. Scarcity? Technology is expanding available broadcast frequencies at a rapid rate. Not so for real estate. They really aren't making any more of that stuff. If you want to use scarcity as an excuse for government control, what better place than real estate?

Attacks on the private ownership of real estate are spreading. Enjoy your home while you can. Somewhere out there is a sharp developer who has his eye on your property .. and a case to make before your local politicians that he can do a better job of owning your property than you can.

[RonHolzwarth]

reply to: "public ownership of all real estate" -
wasn't that one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto?

Yes, and that was also the way that the Native Americans considered land to be. The Natives here simply could not comprehend the idea that land could be "owned", so the European invaders simply took it from them.

By force.

[gdc61]

That task can be done by the listeners and the sponsors...

and thats what happened. Stern and Jackson and bubba and hollywood and its Queers have pushed their twisted perverse sexual words and actions on the public far too long. the effects on people exposed to this filth is obvious. now new rules are in place and the media faces are grumbling. this attempt by boortz to tie new FCC rules to property rights is just a load of crap. in viewing some of the other posts on this thread,i do agree that some rights of property owners are being infringed,heck,stomped on. but its got nothing to do new FCC rules.

[templar]

We now have lost private property rights, we have half our earnings confiscated, we have mail inspections and confiscations, we are no longer a free country.

Be sure to keep voting for Republicans and Democrats.

[Blue Collar Christian]

And the tribes here had a mainly communist leadership. What's your point?

[Protagoras]

Armed resistence will result at some point. I hope I don't live to see it.

The frog is cooked.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Exactly right.

CG

[gdc61]

frog legs...isn't that a French dish? ;)

[Protagoras]

being part of the lake association has been a pretty good deal for us.

If someone put a gun to your head and stole your money, and then gave it to me, it would be a pretty good deal for me.

[Protagoras]

The sad thing is that we have a contingent of freepers that support this loss of freedom.

Most actually. They argue about the levels but do not disagree with the philosophy.

Anyone who disagrees is labeled a whacko. Also called "libertarians", which has become an insult in their minds.

[Protagoras]

frog legs...isn't that a French dish? ;)

They already ate theirs. This recipe is strictly Uncle Sam's.

WE are the enemy. Who is most dangerous in the "all enemies, foreign and domestic" soup? The answer is clear.

[RonHolzwarth]

re "And the tribes here had a mainly communist leadership. What's your point?"

For a serious answer, I would have to say: Different cultures have different values.

For a more facetious one, we could take the next logical step from your argument - that we should seize ALL property from ALL communist countries then, starting with China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.

Since they are communist, you believe that because we have such moral superiority, we should seize all that they own?

[CSM]

Just yesterday I posted that Republicans are now really Moderate Liberals. Liberals are extreme leftists! Your right Libertarianism is the new slam on those of us that still believe in the constitution, liberty and freedom.

Sad.

[lewislynn]

why is a marina an eyesore? Isn't it just boats? Sailboats would be allright, but not speedboats

See you're already part of the problem.

[Blue Collar Christian]

"Since they are communist, you believe that we have such moral superiority, we should seize all that they own?"

Not at all. Generally, communism promotes the public ownership of land, capitalism is the opposite. Your comment seems to be an attempt to excuse communism by stating that the Europeans stole the land from the communist natives of America. Just seems to me to be a lost point, or something else out of LEFT field.

[William Terrell]

In the earlier part of of the 1900's, if a owner didn't pay property taxes, his property was put in escrow until he did. That meant that he coudn't sell his property, but he could retain possession of it and pass it on to his heirs. This scheme of things is refered to in many appelate court cases during the period, and before.

Something changed in the middle of that century. Something that made a person's property merely a rental. I would like to know what.

[Steve_Seattle]

elitism

I believe that socialism/communism are simply modernized forms of aristocracy. The socialist elite believe in private property and wealth for themselves alone; for everyone else, they imagine a beehive society. They tend to oppose single-family housing (they HATE the suburbs) because single-family homes cultivate a sense of independence and autonomy. They prefer that the masses be landless and live in apartments, where they can be controlled into accepting the dictates and ministrations of government, which provides their only security blanket in a world which is otherwise cold and hostile to their interests. It is all about control. George Soros is the perfect prototype of the kind of Leftist I'm talking about.

[RonHolzwarth]

Huh?

Looks to me like you just swapped sides. Earlier, you said: "And the tribes here had a mainly communist leadership. What's your point?", as a justification for the European takeover.

Now you just said: "Generally, communism promotes the public ownership of land."

That's a pretty broad brush! I think you are confusing different cultural values, and consider the American system of land ownership to be of Divine inspiration.

The early Christian communities were essentially communist, or socialistic groups, known as "communes". So guess where the Karl Marx came up with the word "Communist". In fact, in Israel today, there are a great many communities that are known as "kibbutzes". Guess what they are,,,

Only later, when Soviet style Communists replaced the original ideal of people working together, did Communist ideology become tainted.

My original point was simple, looks like you missed it completely.

I said: "Different cultures, different values."

[RonHolzwarth]

re: "Something changed in the middle of that century. Something that made a person's property merely a rental. I would like to know what."

I would like to know also,,,,

But I bet the lawyers had something to do with it!

[MineralMan]

"being part of the lake association has been a pretty good deal for us. There are only about 15 homes right on the shore of the lake today and that seems to be the way it will stay.

a few years back a developer bought most of the land on the far side of the lake with the intent of building a subdivision with a marina, beach, and park etc. the lake association with the help of the DEQ managed to prevent the developer from building right down to the shore of the lake and kept the marina and other eyesores from being built."

---

So, what you're saying is that your organization prevented the property owner on the other side of the lake from using his property as he saw fit? Is that correct? And you're proud of this?

[Mears]

Reverse mortgages aren't that new, they,\'ve been around at least 10 years,they are just advertising them more.

They are great,as far as I'm concerned. If your income is low and the equity in your home is high,why not stay put and borrow some money.