Author Topic: WTG Ohio SC (Read 579 times)

Mickey1992 · « **on:** July 26, 2006, 11:36:36 AM »

Maybe there IS a court in this land with half a brain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/development_fight

Ohio court blocks eminent domain project

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that a Cincinnati suburb cannot take private property by eminent domain for a $125 million project of offices, shops and restaurants.

....

The court found that economic development isn't a sufficient reason under the state constitution to justify taking homes.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2006, 11:39:09 AM »

If the price is right, anyone will sell. I bet most of these eminent domain situations are offering the owners far too low of a price.

Wtg Ohio SC!

CavemanJ · « **Reply #2 on:** July 26, 2006, 11:41:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
If the price is right, anyone will sell. I bet most of these eminent domain situations are offering the owners far too low of a price.

Wtg Ohio SC!

That's what the politicos think the point of eminent domain is... g'ment makes a low offer, owner says nope, not enough, g'ment says ok, eminent domain and you get didly. Then they line thier pockets from the contractors who want to build the development.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 26, 2006, 10:05:56 PM »

Umm, no. That's not it at all. In fact, that doesn't even fall 100 yards within what actually happens.

With Eminent Domain, the government has to pay you just compensation. This means that for the government to take something from you, they have to pay only what it is worth.

But worth is a very subjective value. For example, property values. Property values swing based on the market at the time, ontop of value differences from one appraiser to the next.

One appraiser could lowball a number, while another could overshoot. The only way to really find out what it is worth is to actually put it on the market and see what it goes for. And even that changes from buyer to buyer.

So the government grabs lowball appraisers and gives you the lowball amount. You could fight in court how much the house is worth, but then you have to consider court and lawyer fees, which might then over take what you would be losing.

Add ontop of that, the idea that sentimental value means nothing. You could have had a family farm for many generations and given birth to 10 presidents in your guest room alone, if the government wants your land, they'll give you what they deem proper.

But the worst thing of all... If the government wants your land, they'll have it.

lazs2 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:19:25 AM »

You can know the ACLU by what they don't do as well as by what they do..

While they can't take every case....

There are two glaring and extremely important human rights violations that are unconstitutional and universal...

The first is the abuse of people and their second amendment rights. this effects everyone but at least 90 million people directly.

the next, is property rights and imminent domain... this also affects everyone but directly any current property owners.

The ACLU is completely silent at all these abuses... in the case of the second... they even go so far as to say that they agree that individuals have no rights.

In the case of imminent domain... they are mum... It is hard to believe that given their communist begginings that their silence means anything but agreement that society has a right to take away the individuals property.

lazs

rpm · « **Reply #5 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:44:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
You can know the ACLU by what they don't do as well as by what they do..

While they can't take every case....

There are two glaring and extremely important human rights violations that are unconstitutional and universal...

The first is the abuse of people and their second amendment rights. this effects everyone but at least 90 million people directly.

the next, is property rights and imminent domain... this also affects everyone but directly any current property owners.

The ACLU is completely silent at all these abuses... in the case of the second... they even go so far as to say that they agree that individuals have no rights.

In the case of imminent domain... they are mum... It is hard to believe that given their communist begginings that their silence means anything but agreement that society has a right to take away the individuals property.

lazs

As usual, you are wrong.
ACLU of New Jersey Defends Property Owner Against Government Seizure of Land

Michigan’s failed experiment with Eminent Domain comes to an end.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:48:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184

Add ontop of that, the idea that sentimental value means nothing. You could have had a family farm for many generations and given birth to 10 presidents in your guest room alone, if the government wants your land, they'll give you what they deem proper.

But the worst thing of all... If the government wants your land, they'll have it.

I`ve seen the farms crowded out and taken way too many times.
The sprawl catchs up to the farm land. It is taken to be put to much better use such as strip malls, etc. that sell Chinese trinkets, Japanese electronics..on and on. Meanwhile the farm land is shrinking at a very fast rate. Makes for good international relations such as having to ship food products from banana republics and other reliable sources than you can depend on not to use this against us in the future.

lazs2 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 27, 2006, 10:53:43 AM »

LOL rpm... your example is of the ACLU defending a property owner from imminent domain where the city wanted to allow a church to build...

A church is not a private organization so far as business goes... they are a tax free non profit organization meant to not make money but to service the community.

Your example proves that the ACLU only cares about property rights when they think that a church may benifiet... it shows my point perfectly... they not only attack religion but look the other way when property is taken away for "society" to profit monetarily... in other words... they want socialist control over property.

While I would agree that a church had no rights to imminnet domain.... I would do so because of seperation of church and state issues not imminent domain issues.

Who (what issues) do they attack and who do they defend and what things do they ignore? Taken as a whole the picture of the ACLU becomes clear

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #8 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:06:40 AM »

RPM definately missed on the first link, but it looks like the ACLU helped with this michigan case too.

And... rpm... why you missed so badly on the first one:

Quote

Tan and the ACLU of New Jersey contend that the government is illegally using taxpayer dollars to fund a particular religious institution by re-zoning the area and taking his land in order to aid St. Peter's Prep. Under both the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the "No-Preference" Clause of the New Jersey Constitution, a governmental entity such as the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency cannot act with the primary intent to aid a particular religious entity. Likewise, its actions cannot have the primary effect of aiding one religion over another or preferring religion over non-religion.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:11:28 AM »

Well I'm glad a court has ruled favorably on this. This is a hot issue that seems to get ignored.

rpm · « **Reply #10 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:24:50 AM »

I missed? Looks like the ACLU was on the side of the property owner in both cases. That's a bad thing?

Lazs paints it as "an attack on religion" when in reality it was "defense of the legal property owner." The Michigan case proves it is not an isolated incident. Put yer tin foil hats away.

lazs2 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:29:41 AM »

rpm... I didn't "paint" it as anything that it wasn't.. the aclu used itself sited these reasons

"Under both the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the "No-Preference" Clause of the New Jersey Constitution, a governmental entity such as the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency cannot act with the primary intent to aid a particular religious entity. "

In the second link... the aclu may have agreed but I do not see anywhere that they instigated any legal action.

lazs

Cronus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:32:45 AM »

Those guys are stupid, what are they just going to take their homes and make them homeless?
No, they want to build something that will benefit their community and society and they need more area to build it. Whats the problem with that? Besides, they will get paid for their home, maybe they will pay them more than what the house was worth, and they can go out and buy a better one.

Something like this is happening where I live in New London, CT. I don't understand the big deal about it, if the owners are just arrogant or there is another reason towards it.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:44:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cronus
Something like this is happening where I live in New London, CT. I don't understand the big deal about it, if the owners are just arrogant or there is another reason towards it.

How long have you owned your current home?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #14 on:** July 27, 2006, 11:50:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cronus
Those guys are stupid, what are they just going to take their homes and make them homeless?
No, they want to build something that will benefit their community and society and they need more area to build it. Whats the problem with that? Besides, they will get paid for their home, maybe they will pay them more than what the house was worth, and they can go out and buy a better one.

Something like this is happening where I live in New London, CT. I don't understand the big deal about it, if the owners are just arrogant or there is another reason towards it.

and if I owned a home that I raised my family in or planned to retire and spend the rest of my life in who are they to bulldoze it and turn it into a wal-mart?

This is a pandorras box for property owners. If you let one city seize property for "private development" than all of them can do it and that is more power that I'm not willing to give to a local govt. Next they can start taking family farms and then rezone them for residential development and give it to KB homes to build expensive homes on all for the sake of "development". KB makes money, the city makes money from increased tax revenues but the family that was "forced to sell" got a crap rate for their property because of it's orriginal zoning. Then you add all the possible corruption into the mix and it's scary to think about.