Re: SC

Page 1 of 2  

Don wrote:

The vote was 5 to 4.
So far my research shows only that Justice John Paul Stevens was adamantly in favor of giving cities the right to kick poor people off their land, and more level headed and considerate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was opposed. It'd be interesting to know which of the other justices were in favor and which were opposed to this travesty.
The good thing is that now state governments are writing into their state laws more specific rules as to what can and what can't be seized by the government. I know that the Texas state government is, anyway. I'd be very suprised if other states weren't as well.
Personally, I think seizing property ought to be directly related to job creation. IOW, eminent domain may only be used for non-public works development if it can promise to create 'X' number of jobs per home seized (10 would be a low number). Perhaps the developers should even be required to give the owners of seized properties first dibs at applying to those jobs. Of course this is something for states to decide.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

There's no doubt in my mind, if there were even the slightest possibility that any of the 5 would *ever* be affected by their ruling, the vote would have gone *way* the other way.
Notan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They can't.

I get to keep my property. You can't have it. No matter what "good" you think it may do. No matter what cheap rationalizations you may come up with. There really is nothing to decide. Some nimrod will always feel that their pet project trumps my liberty. They are always wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gruhn wrote:

Exactly my point. Nearly all if not all of them would be unable to promise jobs - it would render it virtually impossible for non-public interest projects to take advantage of eminent domain.

So write your city councilman, mayor, state legislators, and governor about it. The SCOTUS has said it's up to them, after all. And you can bet your ass that the big developers are lobbying HARD for them to go the wrong way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

This is America. You didn't have to vote for the shitbag, and if you did vote for a shitbag that subsequently forced you to sell your home, then nobody's forcing you to vote for them in coming elections. (In fact, the beauty of America is that if you tell your story to enough people, and tell it eloquently enough, you may even be the driving force in that official's defeat in the next election).
There's no way to predict what an elected shitbag (er, government official) will do in the future, but you can go by past history in deciding whether to vote for them. To help you out, here's one person who you should never, ever, vote for in any election anywhere:
Richard M. Brown - City Manager of New London Connecticut: http://www.ci.new-london.ct.us / Kotus v. New London is the case that made it to the SCOTUS, was upheld, and led to this thread. Dick Brown is the man who was fighting for (and who won) the right to force owners of moderately priced houses to sell in order to make way for expensive houses. (Honestly, if the guy wanted to be mayor of a rich town, why didn't he just travel a few miles south to Westport or Greenwich, and run for office there, but I digress). If it weren't for Mr. Brown's greed and disdain for the middle class residents of his town, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Adam Weiss wrote:

Hehe. Here's one more person who you should absolutely never vote for.
Virginia Woodward: The 37th district seat she ran for in the Kentucky State Senate is now empty. Why? Because when Woodward lost the election by fewer than 1000 votes, she filed suit. Her lawsuit, successful, has prevented the winner from taking office, allowed her to briefly take office, and has kept the seat empty for over 6 months. This shitbag's stance is obvious - if she can't represent the people of the 37th district, she'd rather they have no representation at all....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Adam Weiss wrote:

I don't remember voting for Supreme Court Justices.
And, for the sake of this conversation, those who nominated and voted for them, too (see my previous post), will never be affected by their latest faux pas.
Notan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Notan wrote:

The man who took the case all the way to the SCOTUS, New London CT City Manager Dick Brown, was an elected official.
I'm only saying that, in light of his callous attitude towards middle class homeowners in his city, you vote against him if ever he runs for office in your area.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Adam Weiss wrote:

The only problem is, and I'm certainly not defending the shitbag that you speak of, by the time they're elected, it's (for the most part) too late. In one term, most can do more damage than is humanly possible.
I say we fire them all, today, and start all over again, Monday morning.
Notan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Notan wrote:

And I say you're right. Remember how the people of California voted to recall their former governor after he showed himself to be ineffective, even as shitbags go?
Woah, wait a minute. Did I actually say that the people of California did something right!!!
:-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Adam Weiss wrote:

Oh, sorry. I'm now taking a pledge to call out politicians who screw up by name when I talk about their cases.
The recalled California Governor's name was Gray Davis. His claim to fame - ROLLING BLACKOUTS!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

I'm not suggesting that we involve politicians, at all.
Vote for me!!! <g>
Notan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

<<snipped>>
You vote AGAINST one candidate by voting FOR his OPPONENT.
Which is exactly what everyone living in his district should do the next time Richard M. Brown runs for public office. If I lived there, the only way I would vote for Dick Brown is if his opponent was a current member of the KKK. Actually, no, scratch that. I'd just not vote if that were the case....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When the votes are counted, the winner says "Look at all the people who voted for me. They must want me to behave like I said I would." The never say "Damn, I know I suck and they all hate me, but thank god they hate the other guy more." They say "a mandate from the people." You can ONLY vote _for_.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

My point is this: if an elected official decides to force me to sell my property, I will do all I can to bring that official's political career down in flames. I would encourage you to do the same.
I even offered you some names of officials whose careers should be terminated and why.
If you'd rather debate the definition of the word "against", that's your choice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your property is stolen from you. Property that represents your life spent in affording said and represents your life lost in replacement and if you are retirement minded represents your life finished early and squallid and YOU want to... force the perpetrator into a lucretive consulting job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gruhn wrote:

Not stolen. Forced to sell. Stealing means they came in and forced me off the land without compensation. Forced to sell means they've given me what they deem fair price for my property, and then told me I -must- take the offer. Neither is an attractive or good thing, but the latter at least leaves me with some cash to send fliers to their other constituents, organize groups against them, or (at an extreme) fund my own candidacy against them.

I want to make them wriggle in debates when asked by their opponents point blank "why don't you value private property and the rights of Americans to home ownership?" I would want it to become not just an issue but -the- issue when they come up for re-election. And I would want them to face a crushing, resounding, defeat in the election - knowing full well why.
I would -not- want to shoot them in the face, as Don suggests and you appear to agree with. All that does is get one shot themselves, and moreover, it draws attention from the official's dangerousness and s.h.it's hatred of average Americans.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good luck finding an opponent who does that. I'm betting your more likely opponent is "now that you've stolen his house, why didn't you use the procedes for a different project that some other faction deem 'worthy'."
None of them want you free, they just want to use you differently.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How about this new thread... Working as Architects, Designers & Developers are we being a little hypocritical because many times we have projects that utilize the land that was acquired thru Eminent Domain? I have worked on several residential projects that went in and developed older, run down areas and developed them into thriving projects.
While on a personal level, I regret having to force people out of their homes, I also am in the business of development - this is how I feed my family. Is this any different from developing farmland into hundreds of home sites?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:
<<snipped>>

But what if when you don't accept, rather than saying "ah-vah, I'm telling" and going and getting the man, they offer you 2x$X for the property? Or 3xX? If they really want the land; if it makes economic sense to buy it at that price, they will. And if you refuse to sell for the higher amount and they can't justify going higher, that's that. Too bad for them.
THAT is America. Not Justice Stevens' socialistic view that you should be forced to sell for a low amount if some quasi-private developer with lapdogs on the city council thinks they want your land.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.