This just in...you now have no property rights
|
|
Jack Digeridoo
machinimaniac
Join date: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 1,170
|
06-30-2005 10:46
This ruling doesn't directly affect me but we have an expression up here. When America sneezes we catch the flu. It has me scared, worried, sad. These "Tragically Hip" lyrics somewhat express my thoughts on this eve of Canada Day. Gus: The Polar Bear from Central Park Lyrics Artist(Band):Tragically Hip From: someone
What's troubling Gus you sound demented
is it because someone talked and she told me
he no longer thinks anything that moves and
everything he sees is something to kill and eat?
What's troubling Gus is it nothing goes quiet?
the whip-poor-will at dusk...
What's troubling Gus overhearing conversations
that it's because you're too either them or me
when it's either them or it's us anything that moves and
everything you see is something to kill and eat
What's troubling Gus? Is it nothing goes quiet?
Is that what's troubling ya Gus the mere mention of the name
used to be enough to make every bird stop singing?
Is that what's troubling ya Gus? No is afraid enough?
What's troubling Gus is it nothing goes quiet?
Is that what's troubling ya Gus? The mere mention of the name
used to be enough to make every bird stop singing
the whip-poor-will at dusk tells you no one is afraid
no one is afraid enough
is it afraid
or is it afraid enough?
it's troubling Gus
_____________________
If you'll excuse me, it's, it's time to make the world safe for democracy.
|
|
Eboni Khan
Misanthrope
Join date: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,133
|
06-30-2005 10:53
From: Juro Kothari She's more of a moderate. And, I'm sure even some conservatives are unhappy with this decision. Actually every conseravtive I know, and in fact every person I know liberal and conservative thinks that this is a horrible decsion. And those great neo-con leaders Rush and Hannity have been very vocal that this decision is trash. Cloak your dislike for conservatives a little better.  |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
06-30-2005 11:13
From: Eboni Khan Actually every conseravtive I know, and in fact every person I know liberal and conservative thinks that this is a horrible decsion. And those great neo-con leaders Rush and Hannity have been very vocal that this decision is trash. Cloak your dislike for conservatives a little better. I agree completely. Just so I can be lazy I'll admit I don't know the answer to this question off the top of my head and will ask it assuming one of you will know. WHich of the Suprime Court Justices were appointed by Republicans and which were appointed by Dems? It would be interesting to see how the vote came down along those lines.
_____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 -
|
|
Arcadia Codesmith
Not a guest
Join date: 8 Dec 2004
Posts: 766
|
06-30-2005 11:39
From: Billy Grace I agree completely.
Just so I can be lazy I'll admit I don't know the answer to this question off the top of my head and will ask it assuming one of you will know. WHich of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans and which were appointed by Dems? It would be interesting to see how the vote came down along those lines. Of the current justices, only Bryer and Ginsberg were nominated by a Democrat (Clinton). The issue was decided by Republican nominees. |
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
06-30-2005 11:43
Gah i looked this up , Arcadia is absolutely right. Only Two justices were appointed by a democrat on the current court.
William Rehnquist, Chief Justice 1972 Richard Nixon
John P. Stevens 1975 Gerald Ford
Sandra Day O'Connor 1981 Ronald Reagan
Antonin Scalia 1986 Ronald Reagan
Anthony M. Kennedy 1988 Ronald Reagan
David H. Souter 1990 George Bush
Clarence Thomas 1991 George Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1993 William Clinton
Stephen G. Breyer 1994 William Clinton
|
|
Mulch Ennui
15 Minutes are Over
Join date: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2,607
|
06-30-2005 11:55
Check Out my off topic post called "Eminent Domian: My Favorite News Article Ever " it deals with the following story http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.htmland how the little guy (you and I) can help fight back it won't solve all the problems, but it will bash some sense into some heads of those who think they can do to us as they please and remain safe in their own homes Viva La Resistance!
_____________________
I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. http://forums.secondcitizen.com/
|
|
Nephilaine Protagonist
PixelSlinger
Join date: 22 Jul 2003
Posts: 1,693
|
06-30-2005 12:58
This whole thing is alarming to say the least.
The anagrams FUBAR and SNAFU come to mind.
|
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
06-30-2005 13:34
From: Mulch Ennui Check Out my off topic post called "Eminent Domian: My Favorite News Article Ever " it deals with the following story http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html and how the little guy (you and I) can help fight back it won't solve all the problems, but it will bash some sense into some heads of those who think they can do to us as they please and remain safe in their own homes Viva La Resistance! That so completely rocks!!!!
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Arcadia Codesmith
Not a guest
Join date: 8 Dec 2004
Posts: 766
|
06-30-2005 13:58
From: Chip Midnight That so completely rocks!!!! Even if they don't get any further with that plan, I hope it serves to clarify what exactly is at stake in this debate. People in power are often blind to working-class concerns, save as a cynical political exercise, until those concerns hit them where they live. |
|
Rose Karuna
Lizard Doctor
Join date: 5 Jun 2004
Posts: 3,772
|
Finally Congress is actually doing something worth while
07-01-2005 13:02
House vote limits eminent domain
Funds would be denied for some projects
By Mike Allen
and Charles Babington The Washington Post
Posted July 1 2005
WASHINGTON ยท The House voted Thursday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.
Last week's 5-4 decision has drawn a swift and visceral backlash from an unusual coalition of conservatives concerned about property rights and liberals worried about the effect on poor people, whose property is often vulnerable to condemnation because it does not generate a lot of revenue.
The House measure, which passed 23-189, would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall. Historically, eminent domain has been used mainly for public purposes such as highways or airports.
The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, would apply to funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said they will push for a more inclusive measure that would apply to all federal funds.
A fact sheet said that under the bill the locality or state would "lose any federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the property would be taken for."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced a similar measure and drew a Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, as well as Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who is No. 3 in his party's leadership.
The House bill is sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. Its Democratic co-sponsors include Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Maxine Waters of California and Peter DeFazio of Oregon
_____________________
I Do Whatever My Rice Krispies Tell Me To 
|
|
Dianne Mechanique
Back from the Dead
Join date: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,648
|
07-04-2005 16:18
From: Ishtar Pasteur These are very sad times to be an American but where is the rage among the citizenry? Where are the flag wavers who so laud the freedoms symbolized by a flag and written by quill pens in our constitution? Why are we not rallying in the streets against this sort of attrocity? Why because we are gluttonous lazy bastards who say it won't happen to me so who cares. So long as we keep eating the feces being spoon fed to us by this exceedingly power hungry government we will continue on our path towards surfdom. We will own nothing and be forced to rent our piece of land from govco with the hopes we will not be uprooted by some big business thug who wants another multi use over inflated highrise. This is just too sad. I dont understand this thread. AFAIK, this has been standard practice at the municipal, state/provincial. and federal levels of most governments I ever heard of since the begining of time. If the city can expropriate your land, why not the state or the federal government? What is the big deal? Unless this has been poorly explained or I just don't understand what you are getting at, this is not an "outrage," or an "atrocity," it's just standard practice around the world. . |
|
Arcadia Codesmith
Not a guest
Join date: 8 Dec 2004
Posts: 766
|
07-05-2005 05:47
From: Dianne Mechanique I dont understand this thread.
Unless this has been poorly explained or I just don't understand what you are getting at, this is not an "outrage," or an "atrocity," it's just standard practice around the world.
Most, if not all, governments reserve to themselves the right to appropriate land for public works - airports, highways, nuclear waste dumps, etc. While this isn't necessarily right or fair, it can be argued that it is necessary, and it's definitely business as usual. What the Supreme Court considered was the appropriation of land for so-called "private-public partnerships". In these cases, the land is sold, given or leased to private interests for commercial development (from which the city hopes to derive more revenue from taxes). Conservatives hate this decision because it is the ultimate intrusion of government into private property rights, something they staunchly oppose. Liberals hate it because these projects disproportionately impact poor and working-class people, robbing the poor and giving to the rich, something we staunchly oppose. So, as the news article states, we're now an "unusual coalition". The Supremes basically said it was up to us to do something about this. So we are. |
|
Xtopherxaos Ixtab
D- in English
Join date: 7 Oct 2004
Posts: 884
|
07-05-2005 05:59
From: Dianne Mechanique I dont understand this thread.
AFAIK, this has been standard practice at the municipal, state/provincial. and federal levels of most governments I ever heard of since the begining of time.
If the city can expropriate your land, why not the state or the federal government?
What is the big deal?
Unless this has been poorly explained or I just don't understand what you are getting at, this is not an "outrage," or an "atrocity," it's just standard practice around the world.
. I understand, it's not the idea of the concept, it's the way it's now having its usage defined. Prior to this ruling, it was explicit that the government could only take private property from a private individual for a justifiable PUBLIC use (highways, utilities, etc.). This ruling deemed that the PROMISE of higher taxes from a new owner is justified in taking your less tax making property away...not actual funds, just the PROMISE of additional funds. They could take from you, the deal could fall through...then the city could say "oh well" and retain your family's 100 year old homestead. Also of note, the biggest beneficiaries of this ruling is the Big Box Stores out there who have had their attempts to further infest the country balked in some communities that do not want them. Now they can grease a few local polys palms...pick out some poor farmer who barely squeaks by...and SWIPE! And they will give the 80 year old "fair market value" which they calculate -meaning The Local Municipality - who happens to be paying (wish we could all detirmine how much we wanna pay for something). Yay! The old man can now go house hunting with his um....buyout...which is exactly what he wanted to do 40 years ago when he bought the place and hoped to pass away in and give to his family...Hopefully he has friends and relative around, "Fair Market Value" doesn't include relocation or moving expenses....but hey! Now the County can get 2 more mils on that 50 acres..could be like $5000 bucks or so a year...That's even more than 30 pieces of silver! GAWD BLESS 'MERICA! |
|
Dianne Mechanique
Back from the Dead
Join date: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,648
|
07-05-2005 09:15
From: Arcadia Codesmith Most, if not all, governments reserve to themselves the right to appropriate land for public works - airports, highways, nuclear waste dumps, etc. While this isn't necessarily right or fair, it can be argued that it is necessary, and it's definitely business as usual.
What the Supreme Court considered was the appropriation of land for so-called "private-public partnerships". In these cases, the land is sold, given or leased to private interests for commercial development (from which the city hopes to derive more revenue from taxes).
Conservatives hate this decision because it is the ultimate intrusion of government into private property rights, something they staunchly oppose. Liberals hate it because these projects disproportionately impact poor and working-class people, robbing the poor and giving to the rich, something we staunchly oppose.
So, as the news article states, we're now an "unusual coalition". The Supremes basically said it was up to us to do something about this. So we are. Ah, Thank you. Now I understand what the fuss is about. Of the top of my head it sounds like the government(s) in question are putting themselves in a direct conflict of interest if they are getting into bed with the corporations at the expense of the populace, but I will wisely stay silent since I dont know much about American law  |
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
07-05-2005 09:37
Think the corporations are not only getting into bed with the politicians, they are buying them fancy condos and "keeping them" so they can be availble for their affections.
Meenwhile the politicans have left the voters with the baby and a bunch of unpaid bills, without so much as a phone call.
|
|
Arcadia Codesmith
Not a guest
Join date: 8 Dec 2004
Posts: 766
|
07-05-2005 12:58
From: Dianne Mechanique Of the top of my head it sounds like the government(s) in question are putting themselves in a direct conflict of interest if they are getting into bed with the corporations at the expense of the populace, but I will wisely stay silent since I dont know much about American law Neither do many Americans... but that never stopped us from rendering an opinion anyway Yes, the municipal governments that stand to profit are the ones making decisions regarding eminent domain. In our system of checks and balances, it is up to the legislature and judiciary to put the brakes on the excesses of the executive branch. How well that system works depends a lot on the willingness of the branches to stand up and say "no" to one another when necessary. |
|
Dianne Mechanique
Back from the Dead
Join date: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,648
|
07-05-2005 18:12
From: Colette Meiji Think the corporations are not only getting into bed with the politicians, they are buying them fancy condos and "keeping them" so they can be availble for their affections.
Meenwhile the politicans have left the voters with the baby and a bunch of unpaid bills, without so much as a phone call. hahaha. great post Colette! what a picture you paint |