Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
You gave yourself away here Vichy, it is the gloating of Eurotrash statism gone wild.
I've never heard of Sealand before. Unfortunately not only do they forbid tourism, they apparently don't allow immigration, except for select cases. Prince Roy kicks ass!
"The owner of a commodity should have the right to say, no, I do not wish to sell to you for the price you're offering. That's freedom."
I agree.
That's French law, not American law.
"You're advocating the government forcing an owner to sell to someone against his wishes. That's fascism."
No, that is American law now.
I am merely observing the opportunities and adjusting investment plans accordingly.
The old lady with her pigeon coop blocks a project in Neuilly.
The old lady and her pigeon coop cannot block it in New York.
If I want to bring a development fund to build a large center of commerce, it is easier to do this in America than in France because of the difference in power of that old lady.
I did not do this to you. I am no fascist.
If I were your King, the lady's land would never be taken unless the fort to stop the Huns could only be built on that very spot.
I am not.
Your High Priests of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, have made this law. I observe the effects and the opportunities. You call ME a fascist for merely stating what US law is?
Not guilty, sir!
I am guilty only of seeing things as they are, not as you or I wish them to be.
And then, perhaps, I am guilty of exploiting them for the economic gain of myself and my social partners.
Of course, it remains to be seen just how far US town practices will change to really sweep away the old lady and her chicken coop. My experience has been that planning commissions want developers, and are willing to extend all sorts of tax reductions and exemptions from laws in order to attract development. They are often willing to permit the issuance of private activity municipal bonds, relying on the credit of the municipality in order to fund a private enterprise.
This new Supreme Court decision can bulldoze the old lady and her pigeons out of the way in America, if that is how it is used.
I am confident that it will be used precisely for that purpose.
Looks like you'll need to find a coyote to sneak you in. lol
Apples and pears -- I was talking Supreme Court nominations, where Shrub has already won me my money by walking past Thomas and Scalia to choose between Gonzalez (who's the favorite among the cognoscenti, apparently) and a short list of appeals-court judges.
So Bush has already signaled that conservatives and originalists can forget about it -- he's going to the Rotary Club for his SCOTUS nominees.
Vicomte13: I agree. That's French law, not American law.
Kevao: You agree? Aren't you the same Vicomte13 who wrote:
Land is, after all, just another commodity. Those with the greatest means who can negotiate the best deals should, in a free market, be able to oust those who make less economically efficient uses of it.
The freedom to sell or to refuse to sell is NOT the same thing as being "ousted" by someone with more economic means. So either you're not being serious, or you really don't know what your opinion is.
"I think The Comte is just pulling our leg in his latest string, to roil the waters for his entertainment."
Not really.
Truly, I think that the decision is abominable.
But then, I believe very firmly in the fundamental human right of private life, of family privacy, and of the inviolability of the family home.
There is no fundamental right of privacy under American law.
There is under French law.
And for this reason, I prefer the French law and have said so.
I have, on this thread, pointed out what I perceive to be the cause of the problem: the structure of the US government itself, with de facto supreme power reposing in the Supreme Court, regardless of what old documents or abstract theories to the contrary may say.
I think this is deplorable, but most Americans do not share my value system, and what I think is largely irrelevant.
I then switched from being a legal observer to being a real estate person. This is how I make my living. Certainly from the perspective of a developer, this US decision makes the strategic assemblage of larger terrain for exploitation much easier in America than it is in France. The old lady and her pigeon coop is not an imaginary figure! People like that can indeed derail projects in France that would allow for better economic exploitation of a community's resources. It is irritating to be arrested in one's tracks by a single stubborn grandmother.
But it is also comforting, in the end, that a single stubborn grandmother can sit on her little plot and force negotiations. Could she be ULTIMATELY bought out by the commune in France too? Perhaps, but the game is not worth the candle. It is expensive, arduous, lengthy, and often fails. Worse, you can get strikes and people damaging things by night when they take her side.
In America, things are much simpler in this regard.
This is economically better, certainly.
It is also not very good to people.
It's the law in America, and given that law, then there is no reason not to use it as aggressively as possible to maximize profits. That is the purpose of business, apres tout.
Statist?
Oh certainly.
The state must protect, educate, provide the basic protection against disease and starvation. What else can?
Americans don't really disagree.
Beyond that, I don't think the state is very helpful in over-regulating private business. It makes profitability hard...if one respects all of the regulations and laws and correctly reports everything, at any rate.
A virtue of having privacy as a fundamental human right is that it makes it hard for the agents of the state to penetrate the private sphere in order to obtain information.
But that is a whole different topic.
Well, it's not true that there are no differences: there are important differences, and you have only to inspect the agenda of Hildebeast's claque to see that.
However, your last point, which old radical David Horowitz has been pushing for years, has a lot of validity. There is a big game of cross-ownership, of political zaibatsu and zaiteku going on -- to borrow a couple of terms for it from the Japanese.
Just as in Japan it is misleading to think of the great companies as representing divergent interests rather than facets of the same Interest, in America it is misleading to think that one political party is the "party of business", when business interests have compromised both parties assiduously for 20, 30, 40 years now by spreading their money and hedging their bets.
Given the drift toward corporate ownership of America, yesterday's Court laugher was inevitable. The Court doesn't just read election returns -- they know who owns what!
That describe any country you're familiar with?
First of all you didn't specify SCOTUS. And second of all the offer is still on the table. A gentlemens bet will be fine.
I think it has already been explained to you, and you stubbornly simply insist on simply being French about it:
SCOTUS is constrained by (1) prevailing mores within the Guild; if it just went wild, the institution would lose prestige where it counted, and that would not be a good long term power retention strategy for SCOTUS, (2) the power of the president to nominate and the senate to confirm justices carefully chosen to reflect more popular views when court decisions become controversial (FDR did that, and got a SCOTUS more to his liking, which reminds me that the power to pass laws to "pack the court" is also lurking out there), (3) the power to pass laws restricting SCOTUS's jurisdiction, (4) the power of Congress to impeach, convict and remove, and (5) the ability of parties to not petition SCOTUS for certiorari (that often happens when a losing party at the lower court level, chooses not to petition, because they think they will lose at the SCOTUS level, and create a "bad" precedent.
Just because some of the above constraints rarely manifest themselves in action, does not mean that they do not exist as constraints (the Robes know that they are there).
Having said all of the above, within its sphere, SCOTUS does have the whip hand, and these days, chooses to use it, and the ensuing societal welts are visible for all to see.
As long as he doesn't abandon me in a cargo container off of the North Shore of England. Lol, Prince Roy shoots at boats and ships that cross into sovereign territory.
I could be wrong, as I am no real estate expert, but I believe it will. If someone wants to sell their property, which happens to be in an area that could conceivably fall into an eminent domain case, would you pay a lot for it? I wouldnt.
I am of two minds.
On the one hand, there is the very straightforward business view, which the Supreme Court made US law yesterday.
On the other hand, there is the directly conflicting view that views the right to family privacy and the home as a fundamental human right. This is not currently US law, but it is currently French law.
If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would opt to favor the rights of the home.
Since I do not get to make that decision, but I am a real estate investor looking to maximize profit, I objectively view what the US Supreme Court did as making it easier to do land business in America, as compared to France where the protections of the home are more.
I am being serious, and part of being serious is acknowledging what I personally believe, but also what simply is, even if I don't prefer the morality of it.
The US Supreme Court decision is bad for the security of private citizens in their homes and good for real estate developers. Since it is now the law of the land in the US, until it is changed, obviously everyone who is in that industry will exploit it. Myself included.
"The US Supreme Court decision is bad for the security of private citizens in their homes and good for real estate developers. Since it is now the law of the land in the US, until it is changed, obviously everyone who is in that industry will exploit it. Myself included."
Then you're no better than some Communist regime taking homes from people for development purposes.
This law won't last long. There will be a constitutional amendment and it'll pass like flying colors.
The thing that really sucks is that the two that are going to leave (O'Connor and Rehnquist) voted AGAINST it! I want Scalia and Thomas to clean house.
I'm ashamed that David Souter is from my homestate. Damned sellout. Look what's going on here, where he's from.
Like I said already, I'm ashamed that Souter's from my homestate. I shook hands with him, too.
Bzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. See Griswold Penumbras et al.
Right on. You'll see houses seized in border states and turned into dormitories for "undocumented workers" for his big business buddies.
We've all been cheated by Bush. I voted for the guy twice and I feel like a class-A sucker for doing it.
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.