Skip to comments.
Family to lose home by eminent domain for Costco store
Boortz online ^
| September 12, 2003
| Neal Boortz
Posted on 09/12/2003 8:56:23 AM PDT by tdadams
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-238 next last
To: tdadams
We've been carving fresh legal furrows in Connecticut with something like this for several years. Pfizer Drug and City of New London tried to condemn a whole neighborhood (several blocks called "Fort Trumbull") for a new lab complex on the same grounds. The fight was taken up by the pro-private property group Institute for Justice. See www.ij.org
101
posted on
09/12/2003 10:23:29 AM PDT
by
Snickersnee
(Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket???)
To: tdadams
Similiar thing happened a few years back in Hurst, Texas. An entire neighborhood was seized under Immenent Domain to allow for the expansion of a shopping mall. Some of the homeowners decided to fight it out in the courts. I beleive the court battle still hasn't been settled, but meanwhile, their homes were bulldozed and the expansion on the mall has been completed.
I think it's extremely disturbing that a court would even spend more than 30 seconds on this before deciding in favor of the homeowner.
"You want to seize these homes and sell the property for commercial development?"
"That's correct, your Honor."
"You do realize that would violate the homeowners 4th amendment rights to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?"
"You Honor, the extra tax revenue would benefit the city greatly."
"I've made my decision. I'm ruling in favor of the homeowner. I also find in favor of the homeowner on their countersuit, and order the city to pay 10 times the estimated property value as a penalty for violating the homeowner's constitutional rights."
Bang! Bang! (the gavel)
102
posted on
09/12/2003 10:23:36 AM PDT
by
JavaTheHutt
( Gun Control - The difference between Lexington Green and Tiennimen Square.)
To: tdadams
Where do we draw the line anymore? Not enough people are drawing this line at all.
103
posted on
09/12/2003 10:25:01 AM PDT
by
Liberal Classic
(Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.)
To: fella
Aint it great what a campaign contribution or two can buy? And their so cheap.I used to work as an accountant for a property development firm, and it always amazed me to see what a one or two thousand dollar campaign contribution will get you. Especially in Louisiana.
104
posted on
09/12/2003 10:26:14 AM PDT
by
cpprfld
(Who said accountants are boring?)
To: montag813
Time to wake up from your Randian parasitic fantasy world -- most Americans will NOT trade their houses for a few extra bucks (I've got neighbors all around me who saw a recent credit bubble transaction down the street artificially pump up assessed home values by more than $100K! and their ONLY reaction was to decry the fact that now the town was going to increase their assessed TAX bills!). Many will often turn down higher paying jobs and state subsidies (unemployment comp. etc.) they would otherwise be "entitled" to out of principle -- LIBERTY, AND A DESIRE TO LIVE AS THEY WANT NOT WHAT THE HUMANISTS OF THE MARKET AND GOVERNMENT DICTATE!!!!
To: JavaTheHutt
I beleive the court battle still hasn't been settled, but meanwhile, their homes were bulldozed and the expansion on the mall has been completed. If the homes were bulldozed, it was settled. It was settled teh second they accepted the offer from the government.
To: CaptIsaacDavis
Time to wake up from your Randian parasitic fantasy world Um, not to nitpick or anything, but the entire point of Atlas Shrugged was essentially to oppose this sort of thing.
107
posted on
09/12/2003 10:29:39 AM PDT
by
freeeee
To: montag813
You scream "her property" like this is the old West, or like that movie "Far and Away".No, it is "her property" like this is the United States of America.
108
posted on
09/12/2003 10:30:07 AM PDT
by
mhking
(Laugh while you can, monkey boy...)
To: af_vet_rr
there is actually one other trend that has facilitated this. They have capped the ability of lawyers to collect fees for prevailing in such outrage cases. (in addition to crippling bond demands just to file the suit) The laws mean nothing if you can't use them for your defense. (place aside the problems of ambulance chasers) When the poor Aunt has no effective means of recourse, all the laws and constitutions in the world are the equivalent of toilet paper.
To: still lurking
I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy. Greedy? What about I don't want to sell?
To: montag813
It's not her property at all if she is not allowed to refuse the sale.
111
posted on
09/12/2003 10:32:33 AM PDT
by
Liberal Classic
(Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.)
To: ScrtAccess
When they come for the communists and the trade unionists, I plan to help.
To: Liberal Classic
It's not her property at all if she is not allowed to refuse the sale. Or if she has to pay property taxes to keep it.
Or if the government can decide what peacefull activities she can engage in on her property.
Or what plants she can grow and use on her property.
Or if she has to ask government permission to build, alter or tear down a house on her property.
I'd be curious as to how many people against eminent domain believe that the government has the legitimate power to do any of the above.
To: HurkinMcGurkin
I don't know the legal in's and out's for zoning and how a community can change zoning. I do know however, farm land in Bucks County was continuously rezoned to force out farmers and purchased by developers. Agricultural land in some communities was being taxed at the same rate as residential, and I know for a fact that the farmers had no say in the matter--even those who were proactive in local government.
To: HurkinMcGurkin
If the homes were bulldozed, it was settled. It was settled teh second they accepted the offer from the government Perhaps you didn't read my post clearly, or maybe some of the words I used were confusing to you. The homeowners didn't accept the offer, they hired attorneys and went to court. Meanwhile, while they're waiting on the court to hear the case, the city forced them out and bulldozed their homes. I did read in the local paper less than a year ago, that the a couple of the lawsuits were still bouncing around in the court system. The mall expansion was completed a couple of years ago.
115
posted on
09/12/2003 10:42:55 AM PDT
by
JavaTheHutt
( Gun Control - The difference between Lexington Green and Tiennimen Square.)
To: pgyanke
Unfortunately, that's not the way it's used anymore. My parents were forced out of their home of 35 years in another state for, of all things,....a COSTCO. The city cut all residents of the street to the bone on compensation, too. They got about 70% of what a private appraisal said the land/home were worth.
To: commish
Imagine what will happen when the government decides that the apartment complexes that accept section 8 vouchers are either too few or not in nice enough neighborhoods. Whats stopping them from forcing the sale of newer apartment buidings near well priced single family homes to companies that WILL play the governments game. The possibilities for abuse are almost endless. *********
Already happened here in Alabama. The City of Montgomery decided that the Section 8 Housing projects were located in such poor areas that it was depressing to the inhabitants. So they bought a huge parcel of land SOutheast of the city and proceded to pop up the ever loved Section 8 cookie cutter duplexes _-- right next to a brand new high end subdivision.
Houses that were originally built in that subdivision for $150,000-200,000 are now being sold for $70,000-80,000, and almost half the houses stand empty with For Sale signs in the yards.
Yep, the same thing occurred in eastern New Orleans. What was once one of the nicer suburban areas received the outflow from the public housing projects as more and more units were rendered uninhabitable.
Some of the apartments were developed on the sly, with contractor's signs indicating that the structures were going to be condominiums (as was the big trend, 20-odd years ago). The signs were left up long enough to mislead the local residents, then removed as construction neared completion. Some area residents found out, too late, that the construction projects had "run into financial problems" and "had to be reconfigured as low-income apartments".
As in Montgomery, homeowners in the area soon found their houses were worth far less than the mortgage balance.
117
posted on
09/12/2003 10:44:52 AM PDT
by
Charles Martel
("Death awaits you all - with nasty, big, pointy teeth!")
To: HurkinMcGurkin
I'm not against eminent domain, but I am against the use of eminent domain to condemn property and turn around and give it to a department store. Don't you see the difference? If this land were to be used for an army base, I don't think I would have objection to it.
118
posted on
09/12/2003 10:45:30 AM PDT
by
Liberal Classic
(Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.)
To: myrabach
The zoning of properties can typically be "upgraded" to a more intensive designation. This is because it would generally increase the value of the property. That's why its allowed, because the owner is not damaged, and in fact, the land is enhanced.
The downgrading of the zoning of a property is typically not allowed because it devalues the proeprty. In many case where government's wanted to downgrade zoning for environmental reasons, the owners have been compensated based upon the difference in value of their property before and after the zoning change.
Again, laws change from State to State and County to County. That's whay I say "generally".
To: montag813
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-238 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