Local governments may seize people's homes and businesses...
-
jasontg wrote: Local governments have been able to do this for ever Yup. We create a government to make us slaves. Not necessarily a bad thing - better a master of our choosing and all... but you're still a slave and you'd better not forget it.
Firefox? CodeProject? GreaseMonkey? A better Life?
I think its a part of the human condition to seek freedom if you are a slave, but seek slavery once you are free.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Local governments have been able to do this for ever, but this seems to loosen the restraints a bit... http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[^] "As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue." "New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted." Having just bought a house in an area that is quickly being developed....:~ -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
Well I suppose there is some hope in that this is local governments - so if a local government treats you badly you have the option of moving - (I suppose if your house is bulldozed you really have no choice.) The solution is to let it be known which localities are the ones that ruthless idiots are in charge of and not build or move to - or run for election yourself as a alderman to turf them out on one these platforms.
-
Local governments have been able to do this for ever, but this seems to loosen the restraints a bit... http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[^] "As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue." "New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted." Having just bought a house in an area that is quickly being developed....:~ -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
This is one of the stupidest decisions ever. Ripe for abuse. Perhaps congress can do something about it. :~
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
jasontg wrote: Local governments have been able to do this for ever Yup. We create a government to make us slaves. Not necessarily a bad thing - better a master of our choosing and all... but you're still a slave and you'd better not forget it.
Firefox? CodeProject? GreaseMonkey? A better Life?
Shog9 wrote: We create a government to make us slaves. Not necessarily a bad thing - better a master of our choosing and all... We seem to have a fundamentally different concept of the purpose of government. I have always believed that government is intended to be the SERVANT of the people, not the master. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
This is one of the stupidest decisions ever. Ripe for abuse. Perhaps congress can do something about it. :~
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: Perhaps congress can do something about it That's like expecting a pack of wolves to help you recover your stolen chickens... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
That is INCREDIBLY OH SO STUPID. So you seize all the homes for economic development and people get scared and they all leave and then all you have is businesses with nobody to patronize them. Smart. Real smart. X| Wake up America. You're under seige from within. :suss: The genius of the true fool is that he can mess up a foolproof plan.
As punishment for my contempt for authority, Fate has made me an authority myself.Three branches of government. And all three utterly f*cked-Up. Jefferson was right. A revolution every 200 years or so seems to be necessary. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
To make damn sure any elected official that approves such confiscation never again in his life holds public office. The courts may betray us (this pack of Liberal judges sure has), but we still have the ballot box.:mad: Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: The courts may betray us (this pack of Liberal judges sure has), but we still have the ballot box. as much as it pains me to say it - your 'liberal' is right (actually 7 of the current 9 were appointed by Republicans). i am fully in agreement with the dissenters (the conservative judges). i am fully in agreement with the dissenters (the most conservative judges) on this one. taking land in any situation is offensive; taking it to give to a private developer is a motherfucking disgrace. the majority sayeth:
"Those who govern the city [of New London] were not confronted with the need to remove blight..., but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference....Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."
as this blogger puts it[^]:
What does this mean for you? It means that at any point in time, a private developer can go to the city and say that they can make better use of your land than you can. What is next? Tearing down small ranch style homes in order to build multi-million dollar mansions? The Supreme Court has now decreed that the burden of proof is on the individual to somehow prove that they deserve their land, instead of it being on the taker to prove that they absolutely need it. This is an incredibly dangerous shift. This is the most fucked up combination of socialism and capitalism that I've ever seen, and it makes me sick.
makes me sick too. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Perhaps congress can do something about it That's like expecting a pack of wolves to help you recover your stolen chickens... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
Rob Graham wrote: The courts may betray us (this pack of Liberal judges sure has), but we still have the ballot box. as much as it pains me to say it - your 'liberal' is right (actually 7 of the current 9 were appointed by Republicans). i am fully in agreement with the dissenters (the conservative judges). i am fully in agreement with the dissenters (the most conservative judges) on this one. taking land in any situation is offensive; taking it to give to a private developer is a motherfucking disgrace. the majority sayeth:
"Those who govern the city [of New London] were not confronted with the need to remove blight..., but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference....Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."
as this blogger puts it[^]:
What does this mean for you? It means that at any point in time, a private developer can go to the city and say that they can make better use of your land than you can. What is next? Tearing down small ranch style homes in order to build multi-million dollar mansions? The Supreme Court has now decreed that the burden of proof is on the individual to somehow prove that they deserve their land, instead of it being on the taker to prove that they absolutely need it. This is an incredibly dangerous shift. This is the most fucked up combination of socialism and capitalism that I've ever seen, and it makes me sick.
makes me sick too. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: as much as it pains me to say it - your 'liberal' is right. I would have been equaly angry had the vote split the other way (which some might have expected from the 'big business buddy' conservatives). Stupidity has no political philosophy, and the 5 that voted for this were just egregiously stupid in their mis-interpretation of the "Taking" clause. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
Rob Graham wrote: The courts may betray us (this pack of Liberal judges sure has), but we still have the ballot box. as much as it pains me to say it - your 'liberal' is right (actually 7 of the current 9 were appointed by Republicans). i am fully in agreement with the dissenters (the conservative judges). i am fully in agreement with the dissenters (the most conservative judges) on this one. taking land in any situation is offensive; taking it to give to a private developer is a motherfucking disgrace. the majority sayeth:
"Those who govern the city [of New London] were not confronted with the need to remove blight..., but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference....Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."
as this blogger puts it[^]:
What does this mean for you? It means that at any point in time, a private developer can go to the city and say that they can make better use of your land than you can. What is next? Tearing down small ranch style homes in order to build multi-million dollar mansions? The Supreme Court has now decreed that the burden of proof is on the individual to somehow prove that they deserve their land, instead of it being on the taker to prove that they absolutely need it. This is an incredibly dangerous shift. This is the most fucked up combination of socialism and capitalism that I've ever seen, and it makes me sick.
makes me sick too. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
I want to build a house on Chris's beautiful forty acres of land but he won't sell it to me. If the county board will declare eminent domain on his land so I can buy it for "fair" market value, I promise I'll build a small park and erect a statue of the chairman where his house once stood.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Rob Graham wrote: The courts may betray us (this pack of Liberal judges sure has), but we still have the ballot box. as much as it pains me to say it - your 'liberal' is right (actually 7 of the current 9 were appointed by Republicans). i am fully in agreement with the dissenters (the conservative judges). i am fully in agreement with the dissenters (the most conservative judges) on this one. taking land in any situation is offensive; taking it to give to a private developer is a motherfucking disgrace. the majority sayeth:
"Those who govern the city [of New London] were not confronted with the need to remove blight..., but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference....Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."
as this blogger puts it[^]:
What does this mean for you? It means that at any point in time, a private developer can go to the city and say that they can make better use of your land than you can. What is next? Tearing down small ranch style homes in order to build multi-million dollar mansions? The Supreme Court has now decreed that the burden of proof is on the individual to somehow prove that they deserve their land, instead of it being on the taker to prove that they absolutely need it. This is an incredibly dangerous shift. This is the most fucked up combination of socialism and capitalism that I've ever seen, and it makes me sick.
makes me sick too. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
I'm writing my Congressman and Senators to tell them to "forget about flag burning" - pass an ammendment that says simply "Under no circumstances may any public authority seize property from one private party for the purpose of transfering it to another private party". keep it simple and unambigous, clearly the supremes can't read well. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
I'm writing my Congressman and Senators to tell them to "forget about flag burning" - pass an ammendment that says simply "Under no circumstances may any public authority seize property from one private party for the purpose of transfering it to another private party". keep it simple and unambigous, clearly the supremes can't read well. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
now that's a fine idea. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Shog9 wrote: We create a government to make us slaves. Not necessarily a bad thing - better a master of our choosing and all... We seem to have a fundamentally different concept of the purpose of government. I have always believed that government is intended to be the SERVANT of the people, not the master. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: I have always believed that government is intended to be the SERVANT of the people, not the master. Would you hire a servant, give him the keys to your house and car, blank cheques to pay his own salary, in fact, near-ultimate power of law over all aspects of your life? Probably not. Would you give all these things to a master in exchange for protection? You probably do.
Firefox? CodeProject? GreaseMonkey? A better Life?
-
I think its a part of the human condition to seek freedom if you are a slave, but seek slavery once you are free.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogYup, i agree.
And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 1st Samuel, 8:11-20
Firefox? CodeProject? GreaseMonkey? A better Life?
-
Shog9 wrote: better a master of our choosing A master of most of our choosing. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
Most of the ones who bothered to choose... :)
My god, you're a genius! - Jörgen Sigvardsson, The Lounge
-
Public confiscations may sometimes be justified, as "for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools", and as long as there's a fair repayment. But when confiscations are used to push private projects, with no direct advantage for the inhabitants, that sounds really unfair. And strangely, future victims live in a working-class neighborhood...I wonder if the same thing would happen if the houses belong to the richest inhabitants. Nah, I don't wonder at all.
Fold with us!
There are two things that one must get used to or one will find life unendurable: the damages of time and injustices of men - Nicolas de Chamfort (1741 - 1794)K(arl) wrote: And strangely, future victims live in a working-class neighborhood...I wonder if the same thing would happen if the houses belong to the richest inhabitants. Obviously, the people being displaced are selfish - they are unwilling to pay for the right to keep their land, and also unwilling to move out of the way for someone who will. The local Gov't is doing its best to protect the larger population from such selfishness...
My god, you're a genius! - Jörgen Sigvardsson, The Lounge
-
Yup, i agree.
And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 1st Samuel, 8:11-20
Firefox? CodeProject? GreaseMonkey? A better Life?
-
I'm writing my Congressman and Senators to tell them to "forget about flag burning" - pass an ammendment that says simply "Under no circumstances may any public authority seize property from one private party for the purpose of transfering it to another private party". keep it simple and unambigous, clearly the supremes can't read well. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
Local governments have been able to do this for ever, but this seems to loosen the restraints a bit... http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[^] "As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue." "New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted." Having just bought a house in an area that is quickly being developed....:~ -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
jasontg wrote: Having just bought a house Yes really stinks. The worst is near my in-laws. They have condemed a families farm so they can combine the towns soccer fields at one location. The land has been in the family since the mid 1800's when their nth Grandpa homesteaded the place. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
-
Well I suppose there is some hope in that this is local governments - so if a local government treats you badly you have the option of moving - (I suppose if your house is bulldozed you really have no choice.) The solution is to let it be known which localities are the ones that ruthless idiots are in charge of and not build or move to - or run for election yourself as a alderman to turf them out on one these platforms.
JWood wrote: The solution is to let it be known which localities are the ones that ruthless idiots are in charge of and not build or move to The solution is to exercise our right to bear arms and start a civil war. It is, after all, why the Constitution gave us that right--so that when government becomes a dicatorship, the citizens can rise up against it. And it's high time we did so, IMO. Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String Helpers