Local governments may seize people's homes and businesses...
-
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 -
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
Nice bait, but I won't bite :)
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) -
Nice bait, but I won't bite :)
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):)
Firefox? CodeProject? GreaseMonkey? A better Life?
-
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 Helpersyou know what... i was thinking the same thing on my drive home today. then i got to a spot on the 4-lane highway where i had to pull into the center lane to make a left. and i thought - hmmm... without a functioning government, what would i be doing right now? A: i'd be looking for a gun and a boatload of ammo, so i could defend myself against people who, suddenly free from the constraint of any law, might try to run me off the road for the sheer sport of it, loot my house for whatever barterable goods they could find, car-jack me and my wife, etc.. there's a lot to be said for a government and a stable society. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
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 HelpersAnd if there is a civil war you would see 250 mil homeowner hunting down 1 mil developers and wealthy people. I have been scanning the blogs and forums on this issue - never have I seen such uniform agreement on the stupidity of this decision. There was a survey on the Christian Science Monitor - 97% disagreed with the US supreme court on this. It will be interesting how Time magazine which is owned by Pfizer - which is one of the groups that pushed the city of New London to force these people out - spins this in their next issue (if they mention it at all)
-
you know what... i was thinking the same thing on my drive home today. then i got to a spot on the 4-lane highway where i had to pull into the center lane to make a left. and i thought - hmmm... without a functioning government, what would i be doing right now? A: i'd be looking for a gun and a boatload of ammo, so i could defend myself against people who, suddenly free from the constraint of any law, might try to run me off the road for the sheer sport of it, loot my house for whatever barterable goods they could find, car-jack me and my wife, etc.. there's a lot to be said for a government and a stable society. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: without a functioning government Yeah, I know. This got me really riled though. I live in Rhode Island and I've biked around the area of New London that they're talking about. I guess I would question the word "functioning". It doesn't seem to be functioning very well lately. Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String Helpers -
And if there is a civil war you would see 250 mil homeowner hunting down 1 mil developers and wealthy people. I have been scanning the blogs and forums on this issue - never have I seen such uniform agreement on the stupidity of this decision. There was a survey on the Christian Science Monitor - 97% disagreed with the US supreme court on this. It will be interesting how Time magazine which is owned by Pfizer - which is one of the groups that pushed the city of New London to force these people out - spins this in their next issue (if they mention it at all)
JWood wrote: 97% disagreed with the US supreme court on this. But will any of them actually do anything about it? Will I, for that matter? :~ (And no, not anything violent. Marc the political activist. Hmmm). Marc My website
Latest Articles: Object Comparer String Helpers -
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
Why do you have a problem with this decision? It is no different in nature than any other the same group has made for the last 50 or so years. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
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?
Shog9 wrote: and your asses, and put them to his work That certainly explains Congress and the IRS. "...putting all your eggs in one basket along with your bowling ball and gym clothes only gets you scrambled eggs and an extra laundry day... " - Jeffry J. Brickley
-
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.John Theal wrote: You're under seige from within We have been for thirty+ years that I know of, and steadily losing the battle. "...putting all your eggs in one basket along with your bowling ball and gym clothes only gets you scrambled eggs and an extra laundry day... " - Jeffry J. Brickley
-
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 HelpersMarc Clifton wrote: The solution is to exercise our right to bear arms and start a civil war. Somehow I just don't think the spectre of a bunch of computer geeks trying to figure out the intricacy of modern infantry tactcis, without artillary, armor, or air support, would greatly intimidate the government. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
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
I am amazed that there are those who feel this represents anything to do with capitalism or conservaatism. This is pure liberalism. Allowing government the carte blanch power to take peoples property is precisely where the left has been trying to take us. All of you lefties should love this decision. What is the difference between allowing the government to take your land and allowing it to take your wealth in other forms? You lefties are pure hypocrits. Property is property no matter what form it happens to be in. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."