blzrul Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 By the way, although the SCOTUS has clarified what they believe to be "public interest" uses that are valid for emminent domain, the ruling is very broad. Local governments can and should enact their own regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 By the way, although the SCOTUS has clarified what they believe to be "public interest" uses that are valid for emminent domain, the ruling is very broad. Local governments can and should enact their own regulations. 366623[/snapback] Nice avatar - candid shot from a Sen. Byrd fundraiser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 By the way, although the SCOTUS has clarified what they believe to be "public interest" uses that are valid for emminent domain, the ruling is very broad. Local governments can and should enact their own regulations. 366623[/snapback] That is the problem, it is too broad. We are leaving it up to corrupt local politicians to determine what is in the public's interest. "Hmmm...this shopping mall would be in the 'public's interest.' Just ignore the fact that the developer getting the contract just contributed a substantial amount of money to my 'campaign fund.'" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 By the way, although the SCOTUS has clarified what they believe to be "public interest" uses that are valid for emminent domain, the ruling is very broad. Local governments can and should enact their own regulations. 366623[/snapback] What is there now to stop the developers from bribing the local government to get what they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 What is there now to stop the developers from bribing the local government to get what they want? 366717[/snapback] Nothing. This was a shattering decision that cuts at the heart of the "Governnment By the People" concept. I won't use words her to express how angry I am at those five fools....this is a fundamerntal change that disturbs me to no end. I've begun composing my letters to legislators - by hand - they get so many emails they are only used for re-election data input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 you really want me to be honest? If they gave me what I could sell my house for on the open market? I say sure...hey, I put tons of work into it and love it...but it's still just a house...it's 4 walls. Maybe I'm nuts but that is how I feel. 365461[/snapback] You put a ton of work into it and you only have four walls. Damn, that's one big ass "room" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 As a few have added here who and what determines best interest. Is it simply more tax revenues or improving a blighted area. When you set up a custodial account for a minor the account belongs to the child and the parents are the custodians. The parent can only us the money for the "benefit of the child." Well what does that mean?? "We used the money to take a two week trip to Paris for us and our son. See, he's going to be a French chef someday and.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I pretty sure you don't know New London...they really do need to do something...it's a dying city...if this helps them complete the plan to reviatilize the city it's great. Why would it make it more difficult to remain a homeowner? You sell at market value you buy at market value...it's a wash...right? 365445[/snapback] Yes and no. I carry a $300K mortgage on my house right now with a fixed rate of 3.75% and property taxes of $3K/year. Fair market value on my house right now is approximately $650K, which means under this ruling and in order for me to stay in this general area in the same type of house, I'd have take on a $300K loan (assuming I roll over my equity) at 5.65% with no points, virtually two percent more in interest over the 30-year-life of the loan, and my property taxes would jump to $6K/year. Not to mention moving costs and all the other things that are required in order for me to move. It seems like a wash from a distance, but I would hate like holy hell to have to suddenly sell my house, find another one and move my family. It was a big enough pain in the ass the last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 That is the problem, it is too broad. We are leaving it up to corrupt local politicians to determine what is in the public's interest. "Hmmm...this shopping mall would be in the 'public's interest.' Just ignore the fact that the developer getting the contract just contributed a substantial amount of money to my 'campaign fund.'" 366628[/snapback] Agreed, which is the point I was trying to make in my first post. If we had represntatives we could actually trust we'd feel comfortable that emminent domain would be exercised rarely and probably as a last resort. That the current climate damns the little guy to hell in favor of the rich, and the government not only tolerates but promotes it, is well outside the issue of Constitutional Law. It's OUR problem to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 What is there now to stop the developers from bribing the local government to get what they want? 366717[/snapback] The voters, my friend. We outnumber them. This isn't the first time that evildoers were given the keys to the henhouse by the government. If the government is bad it's our fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I won't use words her to express how angry I am at those five fools....this is a fundamerntal change that disturbs me to no end. Remember this feeling you have when the democrats try to prevent bush from putting someone "Too conservative" on the supreme court. It is the conservative judges who voted against this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 So much for that pesky 5th Amendment and those 'property rights' thingies. This is a fundamental shift in the power of govt to deny individual rights and do whatever they want for the almighty tax dollar. There was a piece about this on 60 Minutes awhile back; the city was categorizing houses in the area where the development was proposed that didn't have X-amount of square feet and a two or three car garage as unlivable/condemnable. Steve Croft asked the mayor if she had a two-car garage. The classic response: That's different. The deal with commercial/retail taxes is a vicious circle. More people move into the town, more kids in their schools, more roads, etc. Which leads to more stores going up, which leads to more people moving there.... Look at Manchester, CT. It's soon going to be the largest concentration of retail stores in America. Sadly, that's where the economy is going: selling other countries' goods and losing the capacity for production. Everyone here talks about a new Revolution. I'll have to check my Palm Pilot, but I think I'm free next Saturday.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 >>>>>So much for that pesky 5th Amendment and those 'property rights' thingies. <<<<< Property rights????? Hey, I remember mentioning something about that. (Sorry if this didn't meet your specs, JA ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 The slippery slope is in full free fall. You wished for it, you got it. Government against the people, doing to the people. Welcome to "Jolly Ol'", circa 1770. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lamb Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 The slippery slope is in full free fall. You wished for it, you got it. Government against the people, doing to the people. Welcome to "Jolly Ol'", circa 1770. 367506[/snapback] The "10 Commandments Ruling" comes on Monday http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Oct12.html I think it's time to go buy me a "scatter" gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lamb Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 So the wishes of a handful of people takes priority over an entire region ? Plus the rest of the county has to pay higher taxes just to placate a few people ? A dying region is in need of this boost. Sometimes, situations arise that need tweeking for a good reason. 365992[/snapback] Mark - What if it was your house ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 It's OUR problem to fix. 367277[/snapback] Exactly. We have the power to make a difference. We just need people to get up off their azzes to actually do something about it. Hopefully, an issue like this is enough to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Exactly. We have the power to make a difference. We just need people to get up off their azzes to actually do something about it. Hopefully, an issue like this is enough to do that. If September 11th wasnt enough...I doubt this will be it. The problem is we are normalizing this stuff...then it gets a little wose and we normalize that. Its a vicious cycle...at some point we have to stand up for ourselves...but i fear it will be too late when we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 If September 11th wasnt enough...I doubt this will be it. The problem is we are normalizing this stuff...then it gets a little wose and we normalize that. Its a vicious cycle...at some point we have to stand up for ourselves...but i fear it will be too late when we do. 368058[/snapback] Fortunately, there are people out there who are willing to stand up and fight right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 This from my favorite hardline liberal over at patsfans.com; Also, something does not smell right here. The way the decision came down, with the four dissenters being who they are, tells me there is mujch more to this ruling than what appears on the outside. There is, absolutely, no way that the four dissenters would vote AGAINST big business...none at all. Something is not right here, something smells, and this ruling needs tobe read in more detail. Quote: Originally posted by scout I agree NEM. When I saw the headline I went right to each judges rulings and was shocked. Then in today's paper an editorial by George will blasting the liberalism of those justices who favored the local government. Since when do liberals side with government over individuals? Thomas and Scalia are always looking out for the little guy, right? I don't get it, but I'm sure somebody in this forum will explain it for us. Absolutely, I smell a set up by the neo cons. Rove has to have his hand in this one, too. I believe there is more to this ruling than what we are seeing on the surface. I can see NO GOOD at all in why the four neo con justices voted against it. Makes no logical sense. I believe there is something covert about this entire ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts