Skip to comments.
Some Homeowners Vow To Stay Despite Ruling Against Them - But few options seem available
TheDay ^
Posted on 06/24/2005 8:35:12 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-217 next last
To: TheForceOfOne
"A whole bunch of Ruby Ridge's"
Or maybe just a few. And due to the Oprah-ization of America, the "Weavers" will be trumpeted in the MSM as nutjobs, and after their bodies and their children's bodies are paraded about, the remaining "Weavers" will toe the line and give up their ancestral homes without a fight. Beaten, and consigned to live as subjects.
Or maybe I'm just being a pessimist today...
121
posted on
06/24/2005 10:08:51 AM PDT
by
Hard Way
(Razor nothin'. I'm firing up Occam's Chain Saw)
To: Hard Way
Sounds like what happened to the Indians. Now they want to play Cowboys and Homeowners.
122
posted on
06/24/2005 10:17:50 AM PDT
by
TheForceOfOne
(My tagline is currently being blocked by Congressional filibuster for being to harsh.)
To: Hard Way; All
123
posted on
06/24/2005 10:18:06 AM PDT
by
Happy2BMe
("Viva La Migra" - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
To: Protagoras
Shark infested waters, and we are the feeder fish.
124
posted on
06/24/2005 10:19:42 AM PDT
by
TheForceOfOne
(My tagline is currently being blocked by Congressional filibuster for being to harsh.)
To: massgopguy
The ones on the government side: Politicians...
125
posted on
06/24/2005 10:24:58 AM PDT
by
Edgerunner
(Proud to be an infidel) (Scientology must be stopped from murdering disabled people)
To: Happy2BMe
Look around - WHO is in power!? That does seem to be the question of late.
To: Happy2BMe
City officials and planners have a necessary duty to control growth in a manner to maximize the liveability of the community. No one wants to live in an area where there are houses intermixed with industrial sites like wrecking yards, dumps, bars, stores, schools, and shopping malls. There has to be a logical beneficial plan and growth process.
To that end, there may at times be a need to seize some property by means of "eminent domain." The seizure must be show a demonstrated need which benefits the people of the city. It MUST be fair, it MUST be fairly compensated, and it MUST be used sparingly.
Many of us understand the evil of this ruling. It basically allows the taking of one person's private property and turns it over to another private person or business for their economic benefit under the guise of the "public good." This cannot be allowed to exist in America. Now I don't know what would be considered "fair" compensation in this situation, but the people should not be forced to sell against their wishes regardless of the compensation.
127
posted on
06/24/2005 10:38:31 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
(Coming soon from Newsweek: "Fallujah - we had to destroy it in order to save it.")
To: BulletBobCo
HINT: The majority of U.S.S.C. Justices for the past 50 years have been appointed by a Republican President.
The current majority in both the United States House and the United States Senate are Republican.
128
posted on
06/24/2005 10:38:48 AM PDT
by
Happy2BMe
("Viva La Migra" - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
To: Happy2BMe
It's time for these homeowners to take the money and run. I saw the telecast of the 7 holdouts and the place looks like a ghetto.
129
posted on
06/24/2005 10:40:07 AM PDT
by
baltoga
To: Enterprise
This ruling far surpasses imminent domain.
Imminent Domain is a necessary vehicle to allow controlled growth and is used only sparingly and only when there is no other recourse.
This is not imminent domain.
130
posted on
06/24/2005 10:40:59 AM PDT
by
Happy2BMe
("Viva La Migra" - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
To: Calpernia
What can we do? Refuse to go to work. For months. You would need most of America to do it, too. People are not dissatisfied enough yet. Wait ten years.
The next time it will be fought without bullets. It will be fought economically. We can cut off the blood supply to the tumor that is the government of our country.
To: Happy2BMe
I agree. This rruling is a travesty.
132
posted on
06/24/2005 10:41:45 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
(Coming soon from Newsweek: "Fallujah - we had to destroy it in order to save it.")
To: Happy2BMe
Some Homeowners Vow To Stay Despite Ruling Against Them - But few options seem availableI have one.
133
posted on
06/24/2005 10:43:22 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(The Republican Party is the France of politics.)
To: Happy2BMe
This is not imminent domain.This is government seizure.
We beat the Soviet Union.
Then we became them.
134
posted on
06/24/2005 10:44:50 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(We beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
To: TheForceOfOne
Now they want to play Cowboys and Homeowners.That is tagline material.
135
posted on
06/24/2005 10:47:01 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
To: Hard Way
Or maybe just a few. And due to the Oprah-ization of America, the "Weavers" will be trumpeted in the MSM as nutjobs, and after their bodies and their children's bodies are paraded about, the remaining "Weavers" will toe the line and give up their ancestral homes without a fight. Beaten, and consigned to live as subjects. Or maybe I'm just being a pessimist today...Personally, I think you are too optimistic.
136
posted on
06/24/2005 10:47:48 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
To: winner3000
Our President and Congressional leaders should speak up very forcefully against this ruling. All I hear Bush Jr. blabbering about today is our overwhelming need to spend our money and lives to increase freedom and property rights in other countries. Like every Moo sh$%hole on earth, for example.
137
posted on
06/24/2005 10:49:22 AM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: Enterprise
I agree. This ruling is a travesty. Yes, it is a travesty. But it doesn't affect me. I live in Utah.
I hope citizens in other states follow our example and pass legislation or constitutional provisions that prevent a continuation of the Connecticut travesty in their own states.
To: JCEccles
Tom McClintock in Kaleefornia is going to try to have the voters add an Amendment to the State Constitution to put a stop to some of this nonsense.
139
posted on
06/24/2005 10:55:34 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
(Coming soon from Newsweek: "Fallujah - we had to destroy it in order to save it.")
To: Age of Reason
Even if they don't take by eminent domain....try missing a few tax payments & see how much of your property you actually own.
140
posted on
06/24/2005 10:55:57 AM PDT
by
Feiny
(I put the purrr in freeper, baby)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-217 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson