Still Lurking smiles upon the city council and applauds its firmness in liquidating kulak obstructionism.
Posted on 09/12/2003 8:56:23 AM PDT by tdadams
YOU FOLKS HAD BETTER BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS
I'm going to revisit the eminent domain issue again for a few minutes here so that I can share with you an incredible display of arrogance from an elected official.
As you know, I've been talking about a situation in Alabaster, Alabama where the city council of this community of 24,000 is trying to seize the property of about ten homeowners so that a shopping center featuring a Wal-Mart can be built there. The politicians say that it is perfectly OK to condemn and seize this property for a privately owned shopping center because, after all, the shopping center will generate more tax money than these private homes do.
We are seeing the evolution of a new standard for government seizure of private property. Its very simple. If some politician decides that your property would generate more tax revenue for government if it was owned by someone else, the politician can seize that property from you and turn it over to the government-preferred owner.
For our example of obscene government arrogance we turn our attention to Duncanville, Texas. Duncanville calls itself "A warm community of friends," and "A wonderful place to raise a family." Well, Duncanville may be a wonderful place to raise your family, just so long as some politician doesn't decide that the city could get more tax revenue if your home were to become a Costco.
Deborah Hodge has been living in her Duncanville home for 13 years. The Hodge property has a four bedroom house, a bar, pasture and swimming pool. It has been a family gathering place for over a decade. Just like the city motto says, "A wonderful place to raise your family."
A few months ago the city told Deborah to sell her property. They didn't ask her if she wanted to sell. They told her that she would sell. She would either sell, or they would just take it. The city, you see, wants a Costco store to be built on her land. The Costco would, after all, generate a lot more tax revenue than her little house and barn. So ... Duncanville is using its right of eminent domain to seize the property.
Now ... listen to this. These are the words of Duncanville city manager Kent Cagle. This is what Kent Cagle thinks about private property rights in America. Cagle told the Dallas Morning News "They don't have the option to say no to us. We have made it clear we want that property. The only thing that will be settled in court is how much we have to pay for it."
There is no freedom without property rights. What is it going to take to get Americans upset about this latest craze in local government revenue raising. You just identify the properties that could produce more taxes, seize those properties, and turn them over to developers.
What the hell is the "government interest"? You think that means it's in your interest? Talk about "fascist"! Sheesh. Governments always use eminent domain proclaiming how commerce will be improved and their projects will serve the public interest. But governments are notorious for working against the public interest with highway projects. New York is a prime example, where tens of thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed to make room for Robert Moses' Cross Bronx Expressway, which is a parking lot 24/7 and destroyed one of the most vibrant, commerically viable areas of New York, all with "eminent domain". Is this not "fascist"? I see the government as another business entity competing with commerical enterprises, with nearly always bad effect. Why can't a community or city decide to use the law for commerical reasons if they feel it will economically benefit them more than a highway or light rail system? Your Fifth Amendment article routed through the 14th (to the States) would allow "due process" to include monetary compensation.
Your argument is fascist meaning dictatorial as it pertains to justifying the means to an end.
You name-calling is infantile. Eminent domain is all about a means to an end. And is no less fascistic than commerical uses, IF LEGAL (and I am not saying that in this particular case that it is). I am not arguing the merits of this case, but regarding government vs. commercial rights using eminent domain.
The monetary argument is not yours to decide. You are dictating your personal view to Mrs. Hodge.
Who the hell is "dictating"? Take a freakin lax. I said "I would"...my personal opinion. If she wants to blow a 200% balloon on her appraised housing price, that's her own issue.
Especially when they see $$$$ signs dancing in their heads.
The bottomline is that cavalier government employees get their jurisdictions into unnecessary trouble and legal expense over matters that can be solved in one closed door meeting.
Wasting time,money, and goodwill.
In your experience, do these government employees lack proper training and understanding, or have they let their perception of power go to their heads?
Still Lurking smiles upon the city council and applauds its firmness in liquidating kulak obstructionism.
No kidding. Did you forget the part in my earlier post where I said it was still being fought in the courts? Did you not understand the big words in the article where it described the former homeowners continuing battle, even after the bulldozers had demolished their homes? You state that there isn't anything in the article about what the courts had decided. Let me refresh your memory. The article states, "After eight months of legal maneuverings, their appeal is pending."
Your lack of reading comprehension ability is a dead give away that you're another victim of public education. I understand now why you're having such a difficult time grasping the concept here.
The article you linked was from 1998, five years ago. It isn't still being fought in court. I did a google search and could find not one article about this since 1998 or 1999. Odd, isn't it? Maybe you should read the dates on things you post before you keep acting like its recent. I actually wasted a good bit of time reading the entire article and seeking out other ones.
What I originally said, that you keep ignoring, is that what you are posting and linking do not say anything about the legal issues surrounding the Hurst Economic Development Corp. and the laws that allow the local government to use eminent domain. Nor do they mention anything about the court ordered offers. You just keep saying people were kicked out of their homes without compensation when there is no evidence that anything like that occurred.
Your lack of reading comprehension ability is a dead give away that you're another victim of public education. I understand now why you're having such a difficult time grasping the concept here.
Funny stuff. Is the 9:00 act completely different from the 7:00 show?
One does not need to read the entire text of Mein Kampf to recognize it as the product of a warped and evil mind.
Eminent domain cannot, by definition, be "legally applied" to seize property from one person and give it to another. Only "public use" (e.g. essential government infrastructure such as fortifications and post roads) is eligible.
Nothing in Cagle's attempt to wriggle out of the obloquy that has deservedly falled upon his head addresses the issue, which is that he is attempting to abuse the concept of "eminent domain" (which, as a matter of Constitutional law, is limited to "public use") for private gain.
Just give up and accept that when people call you "fascist", it is simply a statement of fact, like calling Michael Jordan "tall" or Jerome Nadler "fat".
-PJ
ROTFL!
However we may not have Wadler to pick on much longer, I heard he had that stomach procedure that Al Roker got.
The bizarro world of "conservatism" on FreeRepublic reveals itself again.
Nothing surprises me after the support for the "No Child Left Behind" stuff (i.e. another federal mandate that is unfunded and gets involved in state and local affairs).
I think a Rhesus Monkey could come up with a more intelligent response.
Yep. Comes down to money. The commercial entities have it, the local government wants it. Those who would stand between the two will soon have their land taken.
I wonder how many here would truly stand up for themselves, if it was their land, perhaps land that their ancestors settled. I hear this "I would sell out in a heartbeat for 200%" line and I think "what if it was land that had been in your family for generations, and they wanted to build a Wal-Mart or a strip mall over it".
My family has land that we would never ever sell. It was paid for by our ancestors in blood, sweat, and tears (cliche? perhaps, but true).
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.