Author Topic: Supreme Court Rules Cities Can Seize Your Home For Walmart (Read 3623 times)

Staga · « **Reply #120 on:** June 27, 2005, 11:13:05 AM »

Anyways I think you still have a word to say who are sitting in the city council and who's running the whole show?
Wouldn't that make yourself to blame if the persons you've selected are the ones who are also acting against your will?
Of course it's easy to blame someone else; I spent two weeks in Russia and it's same deal in there: "We would do otherwise but our leaders..."

SaburoS · « **Reply #121 on:** June 27, 2005, 12:11:51 PM »

LOL, someone calling this a liberal decision? Please, the SC is concervative based and this decision is definitely a "concervative" one. It is to benefit the well off, those that can afford shopping malls, office complexes, etc.
Prediction:
We'll not see private property of the well off being forced to give up theirs for the development of homeless shelters, public schools, medical clinics, etc (those that "help" the poor).
"Liberal" decision? Hahahahahaha !

ASTAC · « **Reply #122 on:** June 27, 2005, 12:20:19 PM »

This is all leading to this:

The People's Republic of America

rshubert · « **Reply #123 on:** June 27, 2005, 12:23:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
So if the government "eminent domains" an old tumbledown 800 square foot shack, the owner should receive "like for like"? Another tumbledown 800 foot shack 15 blocks away?

Or is your idea of "like for like" to swap an uninsulated, code-less 800 sq ft shack for modern, code built brand-new 800 square foot home?

Whatever it takes to replace the property in the same area. The problem with the $25k shack is that it is hard to replace for $25k.

My basic point is that it should not be easy nor convenient for the government to violate your property rights. It should hurt, and cost the government money. Sorry, but that's the way to make sure they don't lightly violate your rights.

Put it this way: BigCorp comes in and takes your land. BigCorp doesn't compensate you fairly--and remember the principle of status quo ante. This is called "Theft". Why should the government be able to do the same, and call it "Eminent Domain"? Especially when the purpose of the taking is to turn the property over to BigCorp to build a shopping mall.

The ends do NOT justify the means. Just because the city will be "better" after the taking, doesn't make it right. Compensation is due the property owner. That compensation must be fair, and adequate to return the injured property owner to status quo ante.

regards,

shubie

Westy · « **Reply #124 on:** June 27, 2005, 12:26:23 PM »

"If they keep doing this stuff they had better take our guns away!"

They can have my Red Ryder when they pry my cold, hard fingers from her!

Honestly. What a bum rap they're getting in Arlington. Cripes

And I'm not so sure that people turn a blind eye to this but rather they may feel "But what can I, the little guy, do?" against a government which IMO is wrought with Pols bought and paid for.

I'm sure many could be wary of a vindictive town hall, city legislator or state government - or worse of all the Feds. Being outspoken can suddenly have oneself thrust into very undesirable situations.

Thrawn · « **Reply #125 on:** June 27, 2005, 12:45:27 PM »

I'm not sure fair market value is what should be given in cases where corps. want to buy private property.

Check it out, you have a house worth $150,000. A land development corporation, or what have you wants to buy you property, now how much is worth? $300,000? Supply...demand.

Except they won't have to buy it at that price. City annexes it and gives you $150,000. The irony is that you pay the city taxes, you are are subsidizing them taking your land from you, how ****ed is that?

lazs2 · « **Reply #126 on:** June 27, 2005, 02:39:29 PM »

thrawn is correct... fair market is what the market will bear. If a developer wants the land then it is worth more than before he did...

lazs

Skuzzy · « **Reply #127 on:** June 27, 2005, 02:59:21 PM »

We keep talking about fair-market value, there is also the relocation costs as well as the things you cannot put a price on.

What if you have to pull your kids out of school and move them to another school district?
What about that tree in the back yard where you first hung a tire from so your kids could play?
What about all that custom work you did to your home so you could enjoy it more?
What about the memories?

None of that carries a price tag. It cannot be bought nor sold. Many people, including myself, actually look at a house as a home. I know it is getting rarer, but I have lived in my home for 13 years and will be retiring there. We have long term plans to customize it for our needs and desires.
None of these things will add to the intrinsic value, but it will add to the quality of our lives together.

This is where things fall apart. The government has essentially sent us a signal saying we should not get attached to the house. We should be prepared to bail when they want us to for no reason other than they think a newer commercial building would be better for the city.

Our house is not an investment. It is our home. The hypocrites in Washington who claim family is falling apart just lobbed another grenade at it. The truly saddest part is nothing can nor will be done about it.
I am angered and saddened.

ASTAC · « **Reply #128 on:** June 27, 2005, 03:04:29 PM »

I just wish there was a way to get our governmant back...and don't say "exercise your right to vote" I think history proves that once they are there our leaders' priorities change from the common good to their own good.

Thrawn · « **Reply #129 on:** June 27, 2005, 04:49:16 PM »

Skuzzy, there is a silver line in the popping of the housing bubble. People certainly won't see housing as a investment for awhile.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #130 on:** June 27, 2005, 05:27:49 PM »

But you cannot look at it as a home either Thrawn. It's just a building for keeping you out of the weather.

Make sure you do not get to know your neighbors. No point in that. Oh, I do know my neighbors. We throw block parties from time to time, have dinner at each others homes ..oops...house.

This is a travesty of the greatest degree. Part of the American dream just died.

Dowding · « **Reply #131 on:** June 27, 2005, 05:50:17 PM »

What's the big fuss? The US government is only promoting capitalism and consumerism - isn't the mass purchase of Chinese imports the only thing that will save the US economy? Walmart is the future!

And if you can't see that, then you must be communists or something and completely against free enterprise.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #132 on:** June 27, 2005, 05:57:46 PM »

You do not know much about our country if you believe that Dowding.

Thrawn · « **Reply #133 on:** June 27, 2005, 06:24:30 PM »

Skuzzy I didn't say I didn't look at housing as just a roof over my head, when my wife and buy a house we will be looking for the place we will die in. Big piece of land, good neighbours and all. My biggest concern is finding a place far enough from the city so it doesn't creep up on us when we are in our 60s.

Flit · « **Reply #134 on:** June 27, 2005, 07:42:17 PM »

The point is, the Forefathers never intended for the goverment to be capable of taking private land and turning it over for a profit , whether it be for a another private party, or the goverment itself.
I mean, come on, is'nt this what Mugube is doing in South Africa ? (While the way it's being done here is'nt close to what's happening over there, the principle is the same)
My letter's going in the mail tomorrow, and gonna send my congressman a email tonight.