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.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[Dan Evans]

I think the problem of obscene broadcasts could be solved by giving radio and TV broadcasters the right to encrypt and charge a fee for their service. No one who pays for Playboy magazine complains of seeing naked women.

[Dan Evans]

the lake association with the help of the DEQ managed to prevent the developer from building right down to the shore of the lake

In the ideal world you wouldn't have to pay half your income in taxes and you would have enough money to buy the property where you didn't want people to build.

[Carry_Okie]

consider home owners associations. Developers are not building individual homes in urban areas. Developers view the associations as another revenue stream.

As long as people pay more for houses encumbered with homeowners' associations (and they do), developers will organize their projects accordingly. When people pay more for houses that are not so encumbered, they won't.

You may not like homeowners' associations, but there are many customers who do (I am not among them). Sounds voluntary to me, and it has nothing to do with property rights.

If you buy such a house, you get what you pay for. If you don't want to buy one of those, offer enough money to the owner of an older home to get them to sell, or go through the two year hassle of building your own, as I did.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Exactly. Wasn't there a story just a few months ago where an old lady who was about $1200 behind in her property taxes and the county sold "her" property (valued at over $100,000 to a real estate agent) for about $7500?

[Dan Evans]

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?

Maybe there was a covenant. That's another way of dealing with the same kind of problem. When you put your life savings into a new home, you don't want someone to build a chicken ranch next door. A covenant is a perpetual contract between a property owner and other neighboring property owners to abide by the terms of the covenant. The unique thing about it is that the terms of the contract require that you cannot sell your land unless the new owner signs the covenant.

It can be a two-edged sword. A covenant gives you a certain amount of assurance the neighborhood will not go to the dogs but it can also be intrusive if feel the urge to put a swimming pool in your back yard.

[headsonpikes]

Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog!...

Love the tagline. LOL!

[Hot Tabasco]

No thanks i prefer the wildlife.

Heard the same argument from an area near me which was the fastest growing area in Michigan. The early "settlers" were upset at the growing sprawl which was resulting in the development of all the areas around them and they petitioned the local council to halt the building permits. LOL!!!

Classic case of I've got mine now screw you! Wonder if any one of those whiners ever gave one thought to the original "Real" landowners out this way who sold their properties for one of any number of reasons. Skyrocketing property taxes immediately comes to mind.............

All I want is what you have plus a place to park my sailboat and run my jet ski. That's what lakes are for are they not?

[Blue Collar Christian]

I agree about the different cultures, different values. And I cannot put ANY of them down. I certainly did not use the communist type society that the indigenous Americans had as justification for European takeover. There is no justification for what happened, and there is no way to correct or revise it.

Communism, tainted or not, generally promotes common ownership, or NO ownership of land.

I just wonder why you brought this up in the first place, as it seems irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

[gdc61]

good point.

[Blue Collar Christian]

My point exactly. I feel the FReeper here is coming from an elitist, and very leftist, angle. It's bitchin for him to have a house on the lake, along with his long time buddies, but those noisey boat people(he was already complaining about jet skis, which is one of my sports)are not welcome on the lake that is not at all owned by his precious homeowner's association. Then another poster comes in with the "sailboats are OK, but not speedboats" garbage.

This attitude is the purely selfish, elitist, I got mine, screw everyone else nonsense that outlaws what I like best; motorcycles, jetskis, hunting and shooting.

These posters are on the wrong forum.

[RonHolzwarth]

You asked:
I just wonder why you brought this up in the first place, as it seems irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

Hmmm,,, how did this all start?

I will really have to think about this one,,,

I think in Genesis, Chapter 1:
[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

And then, a whole lot of things happened,

then we got to post #5, where MrB stated to beaureguard:

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

---

>My comment now:

The above comment is somewhat relevant to the issue being discussed, however, just because it is only a part of an agenda of an ideology with which you do not agree, does not mean it is incorrect, or morally wrong.

The issue in the thread was not REALLY public ownership, but in the limits to what an individual can do with the land to which he holds title.
*****

#61
Posted by RonHolzwarth to MrB:

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.

---

>My comment now:

By this I was first referring to the idea that maybe our idea that a person could actually "own" land just might be rethought, that there perhaps just may be be some limits to what an individual can do with the property he "owns".

It is simply a different way of looking at things, I threw that in to make people think.

Perhaps there are limits, and perhaps the concerns of generations yet unborn should be considered.

An individual will die, is it his right to destroy what he thinks he "owns"?

See Genesis, Chapter 2:
[15] The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

and Job, Chapter 34:

[11] For according to the work of a man he will requite him, and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
[12] Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.
[13] Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?

and, Isaiah, Chapter 45:

[12] I made the earth, and created man upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.

[18] For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

There are those who believe that by this, the LORD meant that we are to care for the Earth, and not destroy it.
*****

#64
Posted by Blue Collar Christian to RonHolzwarth:

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

---

>My comment now:

Karl Marx had not yet been born, nor would he be born, for hundreds of years, when Europeans first crossed the Atlantic ocean, and discovered that there were already people living here.

So how could they have a "mainly Communist leadership"?

There were so many different tribes, with so many different types of leadership, that to lump them all together in any way, other than to say that they were not European, is impossible.

And, a very large number of tribes no longer exist. So, today we know nothing of them, or anything of what their values were.
*****

#71
Posted by RonHolzwarth to Blue Collar Christian

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?
*****

#74
Posted by Blue Collar Christian to RonHolzwarth

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.

---

>My comment now:

There's those Communist natives of America again. Remember, Marx was not going to be born for hundreds of years yet,,,

And I didn't mean to excuse Communism. In practice, it didn't work, except in small communities that actually cared for one another.

See John, Chapter 13,
[34] A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
*****

#77
Posted by RonHolzwarth to Blue Collar Christian

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."
*****

#90
Posted by Blue Collar Christian to RonHolzwarth

I agree about the different cultures, different values.

---

>My comment now: Unless they are Communist.

And I cannot put ANY of them down.

---

>My comment now: Again, unless they are Communist.

I certainly did not use the Communist type society that the indigenous Americans had as justification for European takeover.

---

>There's those Communists again!

There is no justification for what happened, and there is no way to correct or revise it.

---

>My comment now: Have to agree with you there.

Communism, tainted or not, generally promotes common ownership, or NO ownership of land.

---

>My comment now: That is irrelevant, Communism was not really the issue being discussed. You simply brought it up several times.

I just wonder why you brought this up in the first place, as it seems irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
*****

---

OK. I'll try to answer that one.

It seems quite relevant to me, as the issue being discussed in this thread is not the government literally taking away land, but in placing limits upon what an individual can do to the face of the Earth that the Lord created for us (and our decendents) to live in, and of course, collect taxes. That's a bummer, huh?

But I might remind you of Matthew, Chapter 22:

[17] Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
[18] But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?
[19] Show me the money for the tax." And they brought him a coin.
[20] And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"
[21] They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

So that is the final word about taxes, I hope.

And as for the question of, who does the Earth belong to anyway?

See Psalms, Chapter 24:

[1] The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein;
[2] for he has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.

Then look at Timothy, Chapter 6:
[7] for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world;

So, considering the above, do you really believe a person who holds title for his lifetime only, OWNS part of the Earth, and can do whatever he wants with it?

Or, are we only stewards of the Earth that the Lord has created for us and our descendants?

That is the real issue.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Very well put. I agree with you totally on the stewardship of land, and that really NOTHING here is ours to OWN for eternity, or even for a little while, but to take of.

I am not talking about Communism in the patented "Communist Party" sense, I am talking about "communes" in the same sense that you are. What really is the crux of the biscuit is that "if" humans had complete accountable integrity, communism in its pure sense would be the best way to live. Put the human factor in, and well, it's bound to fail in the worldwide scheme of things. The 1st century church was very much communistic in that even rich people gave up their riches to the common good and growth of the church and its people. This worked well, though Paul had to work on the folks.

That's Christianity, not worldlianity. People of the world are selfishly motivated, and communism does not cater to that. Worldly communism coupled with worldly people makes lazy slobs. John 18:36a >My kingdom is not of this world. 1John 4:4b >because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

Our citizenship may not be here, but we have to live here for now. I wonder; is the place He is making for me in Heaven something I will OWN? ;^)

[RonHolzwarth]

I looked and looked, it doesn't look like you will OWN a place there either!

You just get to stay forever and ever, looks like it's a rent free lease for eternity! Tax free, too!

But my search was not exhaustive, after a while I gave up looking. I am sure though, that what awaits us is something we cannot understand anyway.

I love doing online searches, this is my favorite online reachable, but there are others also:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/

This is one of my favorites, we are here now, there's enough troubles today.
Matthew, Chapter 6:
[34] "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.

This is why worldly Communism does not work:
Luke, Chapter 16:
[8] The master commended the dishonest steward for his shrewdness; for the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.

The LORD will be there forever!
Psalms, Chapter 146:
[10] The LORD will reign for ever, thy God, O Zion, to all generations. Praise the LORD!

And we will have a Teacher, to help us forever:
John, Chapter 14:
[16] And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,

[Spotsy]

Sergeant Dave - You have correctly identified the true intention of the environmental movement - that is to bring an end to private property as we know it.

The Clean Water and Air acts, and all those laws protecting endangered species, are a fraud that make lawyers rich and strip Americans of their property rights.

So, while the lefties are whining about Ashcroft trampling on civil liberties, property owners outside of the major urban centers are slowly and systematically being robbed of their property rights.

Wake up America!

[JOE43270]

Yes, when and if we get Hitlery I've got a stiffer #*^ than rhodes scholar I don't know what "is" means bill, she may sign it but she ain't goin to mine.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Hey thanx, bookmarkded.

Your comment reminds me of my favorite verse of "Amazing Grace"

When we've been there ten thousand years bright shining as the sun,
We've no less days to sing God's praise, than when we'd first begun.

[Kay Ludlow]

You may not like homeowners' associations, but there are many customers who do (I am not among them). Sounds voluntary to me, and it has nothing to do with property rights.

It's true that there are many existing homes that are not tied up with homeowners associations, so in that sense belonging to one is voluntary.

On the other hand, around here government requires the developer to set up a Homeowners Association as a condition for approving the development. They tell the developer what they want to see in the HA rules, like whether cars can be parked outside; if lawn sheds are permitted; if all exterior changes must abide by a color scheme; if you can park your camper on the lot, etc. Things that local government is not permitted (under current laws) to require, but that the professional planners think really enhances a community. The developer can refuse, but he's not likely to get his plan approved, and if he does manage that he'll get the most detailed, letter-of-the-law code inspections imaginable. So, unless you find a lot that some individual is selling from next to their house to save on taxes, if you want a new house (or even one built within the last 15 years) you will be living under a HA.

[Carry_Okie]

Like them or not, the restrictions of which you complain are documented to increase resale value. That pleases the developers, banks, tax collectors, relocation consultants, insurance companies, real estate agents, contractors and permit related professional leeches...

Believe me, I've been there. Ax the board of supervisors for the likely taking of Federal grant money to support the planning departments promulgation of such gambits, but you'll have to outbid the special interests that put them there.