District moves to seize Palmdale hospital location

Antelope Valley Press on ^ | Saturday, June 25, 2005. | ALISHA SEMCHUCK

[TheSpottedOwl]

Weder referred to eminent domain as "a discussion alternative. It's not something we're doing at this point. It's an option. No decision has been made."

Weder said once the health-care district hears Palmdale's response, then they'll "take it from there and see what (their) next steps will be."

Cold blooded. This will really screw things up. Thanks Supreme Soviet!

[NautiNurse]

T'was something I read in the past 24 hours. Will continue to
search for the source. Meanwhile, mea culpa for not having
the source reference handy.

[Torie]

I was obnoxious, the way it was phrased, and wish to revise and extend my remarks. Let us just say, that there seems to be a lot of available rather uninhabited and un-irrigated land in and around Palmdale.

[Sirryniponlabit]

I live just north of Palmdale and have been following this for months. It is much, much worse than any of you think. The Antelope Valley Healthcare District (AKA the Markist Government Entity) already owns land in Palmdale on which they, for the past 10 or 15 years have been promising to build a hospital. Enter UHS, a private health care organization. They buy land, obtain permits and actually break ground on their hospital. The Marxist Government Entity doesn't want or need the property, they just don't want competition from a private comercial hospital so they file an eminent domain action to seize the property so UHS can't build their hospital.

[Torie]

Well, there is some other high desert dirt around isn't there? It is not like the place is Manhattan.

[muawiyah]

Seems to me that under this SCOTUS "takings" ruling the county could "take" the land and sell it to the private entity to build their hospital anyway.

In truth, this looks to be a situation where two different government agencies exercising the power of eminent domain may well be in competition with each other.

Does anyone have any idea who runs the government in California these days?

Have the cops been notified?

[calcowgirl]

The mafia and the dnc!

Is there a difference?

[Sirryniponlabit]

Actually, if you get the county involved you don't need SCOTUS to supply authorization for a "taking" The county of Los Angeles is quite competent at that already. By the way, not much dirt out here, just sand and Joshua trees - and snakes of all kinds.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

NO. You were right the first time.

[HiTech RedNeck]

OK, I wonder what the Communist Mayors Council that came out praising the SCOTUS action to the skies, will have to say when larger (state) agencies begin stuffing their own medicine down their throat? Or better yet when the Fedguv does it?

[NautiNurse]

Here is a reference. Don't know yet whether it has been tested by SCOTUS. This law was mentioned on the other thread too.

Religious Institutions Have a New Weapon in Land Use Disputes

[kpp_kpp]

No government shall "impose or implement" a "land use regulation" that places a "substantial burden on religious exercise" of a person or assembly of people unless the government demonstrates that imposing that burden furthers "a compelling governmental interest" and is the "least restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest."

that definition plus the new ruling adds up to increased tax revenue being a "compelling givernmental interest"

...but yes, it would be interesting to see if that law has any effect regarding a constitutional ruling on private property and eminent domain

[pointsal]

At every level- state, county, city - there must be citizen-based pressure to renounce the use of these broad powers.

Won't happen every politician is drunk with power.