This thread kinda meanders into various tangents, so my own post probably will too. graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif
MarkN
I don't care what their BS excuses may be, how the hell can they live with themselves and sleep peacefully at night knowing that they've uprooted some families who've lived there for generations, all in the name of creating more tax revenues from private economic developments? Greedy bastards.Personally, I find their 'excuse' to be perfectly reasonable, understandable and justifiable. At least from an ostensible point of view based on the very limited info from the news article(s).
Greedy bastards ??
I think you've got your finger-pointing reversed. av_wink.gif
Look at the bigger picture. For example, isn't it greedy if 100 people on the North end of Elm Street refuse to accept reasonable and immediate compensation for their land, even if it were to mean a much needed boost to the local economy, which includes the welfare of tens of thousands of their fellow residents ??
I could understand all of the anger and screen spittle in this thread if the homeowners were being robbed of their land and not being reasonably compensated. I could also understand it if the taken land wasn't intended to be used for public good. But that is simply not the case here.
So their families lived there for multiple generations. I can understand and sympathize with the emotional/sentimental attachments. But should such sentiments be more important than practicality? Should such emotions be more important than the welfare of so many of their fellow citizens within their own community ??
I think not.
So, their properties are being taken in the name of additional tax revenue generated from other non-governmental companies/persons. Perfectly reasonable and justifiable. Why ??
Simply put, it's giving "the people" exactly what "the people" want.
"The People" nowadays demand that their ol' Uncle Sam do everything but wipe their butts for them after their daily constitutionals.
But, hey, I'm flexible. I can go either way on this taxing issue.
"The people" want the government to fix all old roads, build new roads, fully support the escalating costs of schools, hospitals, government offices, health care, justice/criminal system, all while being ever diligent in their reviews, inspections and enforcements of peace officers, environmental concerns, utility companies, shelling out money to keep the airline and other industries from total ruin, child welfare, unemployment, social security, fair business practices, etc., etc.
The list of various things that "the people" demand that their governments pay for is truly mind-boggling.
Now, if "the people" want all of this done for them by "their government", then fine. I'm willing to pay more taxes out of my income. And I'm also willing to fully support eminent domain decisions like the one from the article.
But, like I'd said, I'm flexible. If on the other hand "the people" ever decide to stop asking our government to take care of us like new mommies taking care of their young children, who are too weak and coddled to take care of themselves, then I'm fine with that too. If that were ever to happen, then I'll start complaining about paying too many taxes and about any eminent domain decisions based primarily on generating additional tax revenue for communities.
The point being... Americans are constantly demanding that our government take on more responsibility to take care of our every need, and in some cases, mere desires. As long as our society's mindset is like that, then we can't rightfully fault our government for taking drastic steps to generate more and more tax revenue.
We don't get something for nothing in this world. You want schools to be better equipped? You want teachers and cops to be paid more than a pittance for their jobs? You want Child Services to take better care of our orphaned children? You want to keep the cost of gasoline down, while simultaneously not expecting our automotive standards to rise above petroleum-sucking SUVs ??
It all comes at a price....... more taxes needed.
Sad, but true.
Chip
This is so against the Constitution and against what the founding fathers had in mind.Well, you know what ??
Our founding fathers were living in a scant thirteen colonies and farmlands out on the East coast some 230 years ago, not in a time where major cities now house over 5 million people each, and the country as a whole is home to just under 300 million citizens.
Our founding fathers lived in a time where "the people" built, maintained and repaired roads. Where everyday citizens took care of themselves and their neighbors, and didn't rely on the new government to pay them social security, fight an unending litany of wars abroad in an effort to reduce global terrorism and despots, etc., etc.
Today our fellow citizens call on our government to do a great deal more for us than our founding fathers would ever have imagined. So, yes, I think it's absolutely reasonable and understandable that our modern government is forced to do things which our founding fathers would never have considered doing in their own time.
By the way, it is NOT against the Constitution. Never has been. Fact is, Americans citizens have never had absolute rights and ownership of their lands.
According to our laws, in all 50 states, a homeowner who has the greatest bundle of rights (generally conveyed via a General Warranty Deed), owns their land from the surface, all the way down to the Earth's core and up into space to infinity. That is the law.
However, that doesn't mean that you can prevent airplanes from flying through your airspace. It doesn't mean that you can prevent utility companies from crossing your land to access their lines. It doesn't mean that you can buy all of the land around someone else's property and essentially landlock them in so that they can't get to or from their property. In most cases you can't let dangerous animals roam freely on your land.
Restrictions for use and ownership, and the rights of the government to make use of a homeowner's land is nothing new.
Heck, I have no doubt that our founding fathers even forcibly took over and occupied various private estates (from the so called "loyalists") during their battles for independence from England.
Virus002
Ok, highways were one thing for a state/ federal government to remove homes. but for something like a mall.. is total BS.Typically, highways and roads are an expense, in that they cost the government money and don't generate any money. Tollways excluded. Whereas a large commercial property, such as a needed mall, typically does generate tax revenue. Those new highways and old highway repairs cost money that has to come from somewhere, doesn't it ??
Pilgrim
I saw that on tv last night . Pretty disgusting .People freedoms are being eroded chunk by chunk .Yes, but as was mentioned before, Americans never had the freedom of absolute ownership of their land in this country anyways. So, no new loss of freedoms here.
The-Rack
I don't care if it's for a F'ing hospital to save babies born w/ AIDS... F' you... if it's YOUR house, it's YOUR F'ing house.In America, the needs for the many are generally considered more important than the needs for the few or the individual.
If running a bunch of bulldozers over the remains of your house will provide a significantly justifiable, reasonable, understandable benefit for your fellow citizens...... and as long as you, personally, are immediately and fully compensated for your loss, then....... start those diesel-engined babies up and start plowing forward.
They try and pull that BS w/ me, I will absolutely be sitting in my house w/ 2 loaded shotguns. You wanna work out a deal... offer me double-money, we can talk. "Take" (aka STEAL) my house? See you in hell.Nice overreaction, but futile and unreasonably self-serving. None of the people subjected to eminent domain action has their property 'taken' or 'stolen'. By order of law they are fully compensated the FMV (fair market value). Arguing over what exactly is the FMV of your property is done in the courts, where you can provide your own representation and have your case heard.
Also, the government doesn't just one day knock on a person's door, hand them a check and tell them to get out. Not hardly. Fact is, the government is required by law to first attempt to negotiate a reasonable deal for obtaining the land from the owner. It's only if the owner refuses reasonable FMV of their property can the government then force the owner to sell. And even then, the owner still is geting the FMV of their property (minus any liens and taxes due).
Alaric
From another board:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> A) Supreme Court says that the guvmint can take away any land you own and pay you however much it thinks it's worth.
B) The guvmint may take it away either for its own use, or somebody else's use. If I promise enough to the Village Hall, it can take over your house and give it to me for my use.
C) Nowhere does it say that the power to seize and redistribute is limited to land. Eminent Domain can be applied to any of your private property.
Therefore, the right to own private property no longer exists.
Ladies and Gentlemen, mark my words. Unless this travesty is dealt with and quickly, in two hundred years June 23, 2005 will mark the beginning of the end of American civilization.
Jokes aside, this is the single worst blow to both liberty and human dignity since the Dredd Scott case.</font>[/QUOTE]Lmao ... couldn't you at least have found a quote that wasn't from a complete ****** ?? graemlins/av_rofl.gif
I always love the rantings of doomsayers.
A) Wrong. It has to pay at least the fair market value of the property.
B) Wrong. The law clearly states that eminent domain may only occur when it's for "the public good".
C) Hey, they got one right! 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Hehe
This should be the time where the population takes whatever weapons it has left and tells the president, the congress and the supreme court to go fork themselves and to get the hell out of office or die.And then what ??
All current politicians lay dead at your feet, what do you do now to organize a governing body that's representative of the same people who overthrew the old one ??
Time to step away from your panic button and realize a simple truth here. The politicians that we have weren't hatched and raised on the Island of Evil, in seclusion, only to be deposited as adults directly into their political positions within the American government.
Our politicians were, for the most part, born and raised as Americans, within American society, surrounded by other Americans, and elected into office by their American constituents.
Once you realize that little factoid, you'll realize that our politicians are nothing more than reflections of the people that they govern. In America; wealth, power, influence and image are more important than truth, honor, substance and reason.
I seriously hope that none of you were fooled into thinking that America is a pure democracy. America was founded upon, and has always been, a plutocracy with loose democratic parameters. In other words, America is run BY those who have wealth, and FOR those who either have or desire wealth.
Of course in this cowardly country, people will instead give up their freedoms one by one as they have been doing for decades.You quite clearly are mistaking cowardice for laziness. Americans aren't cowards. Our country's history proves that beyond the shadow of any doubt. But Americans are lazy. Although, the overabundance of sloth and apathy didn't actually come about until (arguably) the 1980s.
Wyatt
Make certain you understand who you're mad at here.Good advice.
But, it's not a liberal/conservative SCOTUS issue. It's a "the citizens want their government to take care of their every whim" issue.
Alaric
There is a government. That is all I need to concern myself with. I want my rights and liberties and I want them this instant. I couldn’t care less how they work it out inside the government.Bingo !!
ding... ding... ding
And we have a winning example. It's because people like you couldn't care less about the inner workings of their own government that corruption, and often times outrageous decisions, run rampant.
Seems to me that if Americans took more interest in what's going on in their own government that said government would dramatically better serve the citizen's best interests.
But we can't have it both ways. We can't turn a blind eye to our government and then ***** when something goes wrong.
First of all private property is sacred. Or it should be. Nobody should have the power to strip the man of his possessions. You want a road? Fine, either pay the man off or (if he can’t be paid off) go to hell and build it somewhere else.ding... ding... ding
Another winning example with "the man" in your quote. Often times these days it's all about me, me, me. What's in it for me. What do I gain. Screw 'the people'. Screw my fellow citizens. Screw what's best for my own community. I'm only interested in me.
It's unfortunate that American's, like "the man" from above, are constantly becoming more and more self-centered than any generation before in this country's history.
I pray there is an armed revolt soon, so that I can lend myself to it.A knee-jerk reaction. How ironic that it was a knee-jerk reaction, which got the Patriot Act instituted (among many other instituted acts), which kills certain freedoms and liberties, which is partially the cause of your own knee-jerk reaction.
GNNR
Yeah, this law sucks. I think it's not a good interpretation of the constitution and the law. Hopefully it gets revisited.Like I'd said before, I'm flexible on this. If people stop expecting Uncle Sam to take care of their every need, and start taking care of themselves and their neighbors, then I'll join you in condemning this eminent domain action and any action based on the need for more tax revenue.
enfestid
This is really an absolutely shocking development. It undermines some of the very principles that the United States was founded on -- and that is not an overstatement at all, I promise you.Absolute ownership of land was never a founding principle. The completed draft of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United states never stated "Life, Liberty and Property"...... for a reason.
However, even if it were spelled out in big letters in the Constitution, nobody is going to tell me that starting in 1776 and onward the government has never taken over private land whenever it truly believed that it's use was for the public good.
**********
Eminent domain is an unfortunate necessity in this country, including for reasons no more than to simply generate more tax revenue.
Take a look around some time.
Entire school systems are going broke and shutting down.
Police precincts are going broke and shutting down.
Firehouses are going broke and closing down.
Military veterans scarcely make enough to pay basic bills.
Local communities, townships, counties and even entire states are going horribly broke.
As of June 11th, our national debt was 7.8 trillion. And it sure as hell isn't expected to go down any time in the foreseeable future. In fact, it's expected to increase exponentially.
The demands of "the people" are causing our government and our own communities to go far beyond broke and into massive debt.
Paying the full fair market value to the owners of a few homes in one little area, to use for commercial property, which will create desperately needed new jobs and increased revenue, is something that every single one of us should fully support. Don't worry, we can feel badly for the disgruntled homeowners at the same time.