More important than a silly race, bye bye private property rights Options

[Formula WS6]

Well I don't have any links for the info since I am on dial up right now and its slow enough as it is.

The supreme court has just ruled that city and county governments can take your land and turn it over to private land developers if the new development or business will increase tax revenue. The case that was before the Supreme court involved a group of families in New London, Conn. that have old victorian homes on the river and they are working class folk. A developer wants their land for plush condos and exclusive health clubs. Now the law says the city can take that land from these people. the city was already trying to do this but the people were fighting the ruling obviously. These people have now lost their homes because they were not rich and did not have fancy homes or contribute lots of tax revenue compared to what will be there.

land investments or property investments are now dead as well. if you have prime realstate even if its been in the family for 100 years and a company or big developer wants it but doesnt want to pay your price they can steal it from you legally now. chances are a big developer will be chummy with the local government and a big corporation you know will pull out the stops with their high priced lawyers to get the land as cheaply as possible. it happens everywhere all the time. walmart does it a lot. so now your land which was worth a chunk of change will be taken from you for next to nothing since the governments idea of fair market value will not be anywhere near what its trully worth, and thats if they even give you anything. if they condem it as blight they wont have to pay you. they will claim its unsafe for living.

so those of you that live in nice areas and pay lots in property taxes have some simpathy on us working folk. nothing wrong what so ever with having money and a nice house or property, its just that chances are this law will not affect you. you already pay a lot in taxes and revenue compared to someone who has a small plot and simple house with a view at most going for it. these are the people that will be hurt the most by this ruling.

the only way to fight against this ruling is to make sure your local officials do not agree with emminent domain. they are the only ones who can seize the land and force the land owners to sell or leave. if they don't side with the developers and corporation then your safe. if they do the law now says you lose and you have to leave. there is no fighting it anymore.

only two links i do have are for a couple of organizations that fight emminent domain. if anyone is interested here ya go.

www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.com i think. try .org if it doesnt work.

ok rant off. if this type of crap keeps up i think ill need to find a new country to live in. maybe the dollar will go far there and i can build my own race course. you are all welcome to come and race if you can get the car there.

[CMC#64]

I just read that myself on Yahoo.... it makes me sick to think the Supreme Court has upheld this issue... big money has won again. I'm thinking Scotland is looking real good right now....

[Trance]

Someone on CC found this little tidbit. Maybe some of you guys should give the city council members a call and let them know how wrong they are for allowing this fiasco to happen.

While you're at it, why don't you drop your senators a line.

[Formula WS6]

it was discussed later whether the states could pass their own laws saying emminent domain is illegal. i don't know if thats possible. i believe states rights should trump what the supreme court says in an instance like this. just like some counties are dry counties when it comes to liquor.

[Absolut Speed]

A few of you know I'm an asst city manager, and have undergrad and grad degrees in local gov't admin. Since I heard about the case, I really hoped the City would lose, despite the economic advantage it poses to cities. I think there's a horrible breach of trust at the local level, and that the ruling is a horrifying trampling of personal property rights. On top of that, it jeopardizes the future use of eminent domain when there is a clear and justified cause to use it.

I don't want to turn this too political, but I think it's important to note which justices supported the ruling: Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Kennedy (what the AP deemded in the article, "the court's liberal wing.") Then, remember it is the President who appoints justices with the senate's consent and remember that during presidential elections.

[sgarnett]

My opinion is that our culture reached its zenith during WW2 and has been in decline ever since.

A long time ago, I finally accepted that my system of values and beliefs had contradictions that could never be resolved, and so be it.

At a national level, we still largely believe that everything should ultimately be held up to a consistent yardstick (a very short set of rules known as the constitution), no matter how bonkers the individual applications of that yardstick may be.

Of course, the other extreme exists too, in the form of "activist" judges.

Somewhere in-between may lie sanity.

[colonboy14]

My opinion is that our culture reached its zenith during WW2 and has been in decline ever since.

You just made my day a little brighter. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[robz71lm7]

Are any of you familiar with Michael Badnarik? If not go search for him and dig up his online constitutional law videos. Issues like this make me more libertarian every day.

[Absolut Speed]

Are any of you familiar with Michael Badnarik? If not go search for him and dig up his online constitutional law videos. Issues like this make me more libertarian every day.

He got my only political donation in 2004. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Formula WS6]

uh yeah. im so fed up with republicans that im voting libertarian next time around to hopefully send a message to the republicans that i don't like what they are doing. im a mix between republican and libertarian. conservative all the way with very few agreements with socialists in the democratic party. too bad they are th eones leading the dems. the dems need more people like Zel Miller

anyway back to the eminent domain subject. states can outlaw it if they choose to. i suggest anyone who cares, which should be everyone, talk to their local reps and state officials and let them know thye need to prvent it with laws. verbal agreements saying they won't let it happen are not good enough. eight states either outlaw it or severly restrict eminent domain. i just wish my state was one of them. Luckily South Carolina already is one of the eight. My family has some property there that would be perfect for stealing by the local goverment or some crap developer.

I am really glad to see that the news is reporting it and people are really upset about this situation. I am also glad to hear how the news is reporting the decision. they are flat out saying that the ruling allows private property to be condemed and giving to another private party all int he name of increased tax revenue. thats excatly what it is and i am so glad to news is not trying to spin it so it does not sound so bad.

also if anyone just wants to listen to a talk radio host who is different than the norm such as Hannity and Limbaugh, try Boortz. he is out of Atl and he cracks me up with his comments and his jokes. hes very serious, very smart, and very libertarian. he will, however, call out anyone that does something dumb or wrong. no one is safe from him.

here is his site. www.boortz.com

This post has been edited by Formula WS6: Jun 24 2005, 11:59 PM

[GaryK]

ok rant off. if this type of crap keeps up i think ill need to find a new country to live in. maybe the dollar will go far there and i can build my own race course.

I'm thinking the same thing. If things keep going the way they are here, the day will come when there are 'better' places to live.

[CMC #37]

I have strong feelings about eminent domain as my father and I were directly affected by it in the 80s... we had a piece of property that was used for speed skiing events near Silverton, Colorado. It still is the fastest track in in the USA with over 50 degrees of slope and wind protection. The circumstance was that the event was getting successful and negotiations started for rental of our property for the next event. We knew there was much, much more money in the pot for the event and yet the promoters offered us the same $ as the previous year. We said no, the town of Silverton threatened eminment domain to have the event anyway so we ended up signing. Nice, huh? We ended up selling the property because of this, and the buyer has done nothing with it.

Hope I get to vote against eminent domain in my lifetime!

[TOO Z MAXX]

This ia a sad day in America because of this ruling. I really feel for the families of those homes. I hope their is so much outrage over this that the ruling will never take place and these people can stay in their homes. If I owned those homes I would refuse to leave and they would have to remove me with force. I would start a campaign and see how many would join me on my property. Who is the developer and how can these people sleep at night knowing what they have done?
This should be a wake up call to all Americans that our government is way out of control and very corrupt and must be changed.

[SSpeedracer]

I'm blown away that others on this board are "thinking" about moving to another country. I'm thinking the same thing, and have been for over a year.

New Zealand is looking good. I'm headed over there next January to check it out. Already have one friend making the move and taking his familly.

[Formula WS6]

socialized medicine really bothers me. aside from that the landscape looks great. i just don't know much more than that about new zealand

[sgarnett]

I have very mixed emotions about socialized medicine right now. My health insurance has a lifetime maximum that has never been adjusted for inflation in the 15 years I've been with my current employer. My wife will max it out in a few years. OTOH, I don't know how socialized medicine would have affected her treatment options.

[sgarnett]

BTW, I just heard on Jeopardy that New Zealand has ten sheep per capita.

[Formula WS6]

baaaaaaaaaa!

[Trance]

Oh this could get verrrrry interesting. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/nutkick.gif) Take that Souter!

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com

And while we're on the subject:

A sports stadium counts as a "necessary" public project right? I see this as a thinly veiled public works project that ultimately benefits the Cowboys. Sure they'll bring in tax money, sure they'll bring in (low paying)jobs, but this reeks just as much as the New London deal.

Why didn't they just move it a few miles south of that congested flustercluck AKA 360 & I-30? Oh that's right, they wanted it by baseball stadium to create a great economic opportunity.

Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck said he is relieved that the city and the Cowboys can proceed as planned. Since the stadium campaign began late last year, Cluck has said that the city may have to acquire homes through eminent domain to make room for the stadium, which will be owned by the city but operated by the Cowboys.

Yeah, that's a worthwhile public works project.

This post has been edited by Trance: Jun 28 2005, 09:27 PM

[Nick]

A sports stadium counts as a "necessary" public project right? I see this as a thinly veiled public works project that ultimately benefits the Cowboys. Sure they'll bring in tax money, sure they'll bring in (low paying)jobs, but this reeks just as much as the New London deal.

At least we'll get shopping and hotels to go with it when the new stadium is built... like the development promised for the AA center that never happened. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

They do a good job at making the proposals look nice and never deliver.
How much did Jerry spend on marketing to get a "yes" vote? That's how much less the people could have contributed to build a private stadium for the benifit of a few privilaged.
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif)