Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
I don't have to imagine my FRiend...the reality is already here. Like sheep being led to the socialist slaughterhouse. All I know is...I'm not going down without a fight. Eff'em.
Then this decision would apparently doom your present position, as you said. My condolences.
I would make sure to follow the money trail of your property......best case, get as much money as you can. Maybe ask for time to file alternate development plans, or some other maneuver that will force the city to demonstrate preferential treatment of one party over another, which can then be a subject of a lawsuit......I have no idea if any of these would be viable options.
Not recently, no, but what is your point? The Fifth Amendment says "private property" not "personal property".. How much more explicit can it get?
You're going to be disappointed. W's never been great on this issue. After all, when he was with the Rangers, he saw nothing wrong with the state seizing private land for a new baseball stadium.
why don't we band together and get a FReeper in there?
This ruling is in line with past actions of governments which means it is nothing new and therefore no reason to panic.
Any project which uses federal funds (don't they all?) must follow the rules of the Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act which requires that market prices be paid for any property.
Well, if you ever had to spend the night in my barn, I would never tell. :)
The Supreme? Court screws the Costitution and common man again.
Wow! So we only have bedroom rights now? No property rights?
Construction:
Long-Term Contribution Trends
|
Election Cycle |
Total Contributions |
Contributions from Individuals |
Contributions from PACs |
Soft Money Contributions |
Donations to Democrats |
Donations to Republicans |
% to Dems |
% to Repubs |
|
2006* |
$3,522,933 |
$2,798,794 |
$724,139 |
N/A |
$902,811 |
$2,612,622 |
26% |
74% |
|
2004* |
$70,835,277 |
$57,884,248 |
$12,951,029 |
N/A |
$19,547,253 |
$51,015,045 |
28% |
72% |
|
2002 |
$45,652,203 |
$27,434,366 |
$9,645,860 |
$8,571,977 |
$13,942,526 |
$31,632,301 |
31% |
69% |
|
2000 |
$55,984,039 |
$36,214,401 |
$9,546,212 |
$10,223,426 |
$17,775,884 |
$37,823,669 |
32% |
68% |
|
1998 |
$32,887,400 |
$18,733,904 |
$8,796,274 |
$5,357,222 |
$10,673,020 |
$22,117,824 |
32% |
67% |
|
1996 |
$34,525,975 |
$20,034,846 |
$7,459,612 |
$7,031,517 |
$11,090,213 |
$23,312,823 |
32% |
68% |
|
1994 |
$21,719,549 |
$12,682,133 |
$6,008,951 |
$3,028,465 |
$8,601,455 |
$13,107,864 |
40% |
60% |
|
1992 |
$24,117,075 |
$15,824,604 |
$5,262,987 |
$3,029,484 |
$9,722,640 |
$14,369,097 |
40% |
60% |
|
1990 |
$12,550,717 |
$7,201,591 |
$5,349,126 |
N/A |
$4,975,862 |
$7,597,125 |
40% |
61% |
|
Total |
$301,795,168 |
$198,808,887 |
$65,744,190 |
$37,242,091 |
$97,231,664 |
$203,588,370 |
32% |
67% |
*These figures do not include donations of "Levin" funds to state and local party committees. Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002. Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
NOTE: Soft money contributions to the national parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections.
http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=C
Why did you add that? The author of the original assertion did not add that.
Somebody else in all likelihood owns the land under your house. You in all likelihood have surface use rights. If you have other rights, you are uncommonly rare.
At the risk of being flamed isn't this a States Rights issue? Why should the Fed tell states about their Econ. Dvlp. procedures?
" The local government won't see any revenue from the tolls for eleven years, and even then it will only be a small per cent-age"
still, it seems like a more traditional use of eminent domain.
(Most) Elected officials (ON BOTH SIDES) are disinterested in "serving" the public and upholding the Constitution...they'll keep on destroying it...not to save it...but to increase their gains in money and power (we call those people crooks and tyranical bastards). That memo was passed out years ago...perhaps you missed it.
1 if by land. 2 if by sea.
I feel like I'm sitting outside of Boston Common. I coulda swore I just heard a gun shot.
awesome!
This decision specifically refers to the eminent domain taking of a well established 117 home community being plowed under to build a hotel/restaurant/office building/& 80 NEW HOMES.
The appraised values of the homes confiscated are above the national median home price. They were older homes on a killer location.
Bastait talks about "legal plunder" by government. Go HERE for a good copy of The Law.
I know yer not over-reacting ,... I'm chewing 16p nails I'm so mad ,... so,lemme get this straight?!!?? If I find a nice spot,buy it,and some developer thinks its nice also,he can get someone with "juice" in that jurisdiction to TAKE[reimburse,hahaha] my property??
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.