Supreme Court Rules Cities Can Seize Your Home For Walmart

[Toad]

So when does it get fixed?

Quail never come back to paved over areas and seems like all we do is keep paving and moving on?

[Chairboy]

Toad, are you advocating that the government take their property away from them?  Sounds like you're leaning in that direction.

[Toad]

I admit I'm wavering.

Some towns just get old and die. Some stay vibrant for ever. Some start to die and are given a chance to live again.

This one is going to die because some folks that own lots that wouldn't sell for $2000 before the military announcement are now worth $20K in their owner's eyes. That this flies in the face of any and all logic is lost on them. These are lots in shanty town (That has nothing to do with the people renting them. The houses are really just falling down shanties and the actual owners don't care and won't fix them up.)

It works out to over $100K per acre in these blighted areas if Developers pay their price.

The tardlets REALLY think Developers will buy into a rundown downtown for $100K an acre when you can drive 6 miles and buy 320 acres of flat farmland for about $2k an acre.

Oh yeah... smart move.

So I get to thinking about "they paved paradise, put up a parking lot" and I lean towards codemning the entire downtown, pay them maybe 2x the old assessments and bulldoze the whole thing down and start over.

I know it isn't right but their stupidity makes me want to slap them and wake them up. $100K an acre? Sure thing.  They must think it's San Diego or something instead of Kansas flatland.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Country is stock full of idiots. But doing those who aren't stupid a disservice by eminemt domain, no thanks.

These idiots, well the ones in your case, will remain there or elsewhere. Doesn't really matter.

Sprawl is sprawl, you improve that area for consumers and you get more consumers.

Washington, DC is the model for that.

I lived there, and have lived in both burbs east and now west of DC. (East was more country and is quickly becoming suburbs, west is more burbs but was country less than 5 years ago)

I could go into it, but it really doesn't matter. They could pave that area over and build on it. Eventually living in that condo that got built on shanties will cost four times that of a full blown house on half an acre of land 10 miles outside the city limits.

Sprawl is knocking on everyone's door that lives in or close to a "dream town".

Choice should be the peoples, give up their home for more or less money... or get run over by the government.

I'm in favor of them having a choice.
-SW

[Toad]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Sprawl is sprawl, you improve that area for consumers and you get more consumers....

.....Sprawl is knocking on everyone's door that lives in or close to a "dream town".


-SW

The only way they get "more consumers" out there is if the Military orders them to live there.

There ain't no way a mid-Kansas town is ever going to be confused with a dream town.

This is the "brass ring" and probably their last shot. C'est la vie, though.

[oboe]

Even though I was sickened by the descriptions of some of these stories, I'm staying in the middle of the road on this one.   Eminent Domain has proper uses at times.    Toad gives a pretty good example - the greed of a bunch of tinpot absentee landlords is going to prevent a city core from being revitalized, and instead cause urban sprawl, which can be a damaging trend on several levels.

Seems like this is a good situation to use direct, participative democracy - put it on a referendum and let the townspeople decide.   They know the character of the neighborhood and whether or not the city's (and their own) interests are best served by leaving the area intact.   The idea of a mayor bought off by a wealthy developer and operating with the blessing of a SC decision does seem like government run amok, but putting the decision in local citizens hands seems appropriate.

Isn't that how residents who successfully fought emminent domain threats won?

[WarRaidr]

This topic is a double-edged sword, In my Profession i deal with many Eminant Domain projects (i'm a lisenced land surveyor in Texas) and for every deserving project that really needs Eminant Domain to complete it I.E. road widenings, runway expansions, etc. there are those "Special Interest" groups that have the money and power to get some government entity to give them the power of Eminant Domain. A perfect example was when Bruton Smith decided to build the Texas Motor Speedway, he was able to get the State of Texas to establish a Sports Authority for his project with the power of Eminant Domain just so he could aquire additional land adjoining his property for additional parking to me thats not what Eminant Domain is for, Eminant Domain is for the good of the public not so somebody with money and power can get his own way. On the other hand most people think that if their property is going to be taken by Eminant Domain that they should get some outrageuos fee for their land and thats not the case. In a recent project i was involved in for a the extension of State Highway 190 one of the property owners wanted $40,000 an acre for land that was in the 100-year flood-plain which was really worth about $2,000 an acre needless to say that the County filed Eminant Domain on that property owner, who will get maybe $4,000 an acre at most for his land.

[lazs2]

I believe that the only way a government can seize land should be for public works projects and then... it should be at a percent higher than fair market value.... like about 50%

blight?  too bad.  condem the structures if they are not to code.   Re zone if need be.  Let the peoole who live there deal with wall mart or whoever on their own.

so far as karnak and "us vs them" is concerned... if you vote for democrats who put liberal judges on the SC then you are indeed "against" me... I am your enemy.   You are the reason that my rights are being taken away.   To get what you want you are stepping all over my rights and confiscating the sweat of my brow to do it.   So yeah... it is "us vs them"   allways has been.  

It is amusing to note that karnak and I are stereotypes of the stereotypes I mentions so far as lifestyles urban/suburban.

I also note that every time it is mentioned that rights are being taken away by the left... some lefty gets up and says how unfair it is to scream "us vs them"

It's a war.

lazs

[oboe]

What about if you voted for Democrats who are against the Patriot Act?   How does that affect your rights and liberties, Laz?

Thing of it seems to be, as Gunslinger observed, it doesn't seem to always run along traditional liberal/conservative lines - he was all ready to admit he had to side with the liberals on this decision (as he had in the past, though infrequently), and then was surprised to learn it was liberal judges who are selling out the common man in this particular case.

That's why there's talk of "us" vs "them", but it doesn't refer to libs vs conservatives, its the "people" vs "government".   Both movements at various times seem intent on throttling the little guy.

"When Government fears the People, there is Liberty.   When the People fear the Government, there is Tyranny."

[Suave]

Vote LP

[lazs2]

I would much rather fight the patriot act than have liberal whack job socialist SC members and new social programs.

As you can see... the patriot act never really went anywhere and is dieing the death it deserves.

If I vote democrat then I am attacked from about 20 different angles by people so powerful that I am powerless.

Point... the people of Kalifornia vote to make english the only language used on state forms and such.   this takes like a year and a half to come to vote on and is overwhelmingly passed...

A couple of extreme liberal ninth circuit judges who were appointed by..... by you and your touchy feely socialist democrats...  they simply negate the entire will of the voters and declare the amendment null and void..

Now.... do you honestly think a republican appointed judge would have done that?

lazs

[Chairboy]

Don't like it?  Check out the Libertarian party.  Maybe our two party system won't allow an LP president, but it might be in your best interest to have local government that puts your rights over 'doing what's best for you' as if you were a child.  With respect, both the Republican and Democrats seem guilty of that mindset.

[lazs2]

I am about 90% libertarian.   Would probly vote for one for pres if he was viable and my doing so wouldn't ensure a democrat getting in.

lazs

[oboe]

I don't trust 'extreme' judges, period.   Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal they are going to render a decision that harms me somehow.

If you keep calling me a socialist, I'm going to be forced to point out again that socialism is the hand that feeds you, Mr. Public Servant.   Not only that, but by your own admission you've proven over the last 10 years that Socialism is more efficient by defeating every privatization proposal that has come along regarding your plant.    So you're not just a Socialist, but an effective and competent one.

Doesn't bother me; I'm for whatever works and works good, and works cheap.   If that means public ownership of the means of production in some cases, then fine.    Doesn't mean I'm against private industry.    Suffice to say I'm against 'excesses' - whether they be excessive government restrictions of our rights or excessive government borrowing and spending, excessive tax breaks or excessive social spending, excessive government secrecy, or excessive foreign policy.     We seem to have it all nowadays.

[lazs2]

point it out all you want... I am only a "public servant" so long as I can prove that I am the best alternative.

I don't believe that is what you want tho.   I believe that you want tax supported monopolies like public schools where there is no competition for the tax dollars.

what is "excessive tax breaks"????  There is no such thing.   Any tax is too much.  No tax break is too excessive.   If there is something like defense that we need we should all pay equally.

Anything else should be a user tax.  Want roads?  pay at the pump and when you regester a vehicle.

Want schools?  pay for the area you live in and then each parent  gets an equal portion to spend on any certified school they choose.

What else you want?

lazs