Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on December 09, 2003, 02:22:04 PM
-
The government can seize your land to build a road, whether you like it or not. The government has to provide you adequate adequate compensation for your loss. You can challenge their figures in court and the state will pick up the tab for your lawyer, but no matter what you do the state is getting your land one way or another. The only question is how much the government will pay for your property.
Is this the American way?
Or do you defend your ownership rights with physical force (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=5&u=/ap/20031209/ap_on_re_us/family_standoff)?
-
You can never use deadly force to defend property. You can threaten to use it, but not actually use it.
Eminent domain is subject to the law's ebb and flow. At times the gov't can take anything they want. Then too many people complain and the court's leash gov't and it becomes restrictive. Then, after awhile, the gov't begins to expand its powers until it gets slapped down again.
In Phoenix just recently, two cities (Phoenix and Scottsdale IIRC) both got slapped down hard while trying to take property for development.
-
Eminent domain is one of the less abused government powers. They have to pay you for your property, and you can fight back in court. You can't always win, but at least you have rights.
Taxation, on the other hand, is a total screw job. PAY US OR WE WILL SEND YOU TO JAIL.
ra
-
They were exercising their constitutional right.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
They were exercising their constitutional right.
The constitution does not give them the right to defy a government order, but it does provide them with the means to do so. Therein lies the power it gives to the people.
MiniD
-
Constitution?? The constitution does not give the government the right to take its citizen's land.......
k
AoM
-
Too bad the family survived.
-
The courts will always be more powerful than a man with a gun. And should remain that way.
-
The State bought my aunt's house for a freeway development in 1971. She got a good deal on the house and made a fortune by accident on So. Cal. real estate.
The Freeway was the 105... it opened in 1993. And no, they weren't working on it for 20 years.
-
untill they are no longer on the side of liberty. then the man/men with the gun/s should be more powerfull. the founding fathers were quite clear on that.
-
Mini D: The constitution does not give them the right to defy a government order,
The Constitution does not do anything. It certainly did not prevent government from illegally invading ceasing their property. That id of course if the federal governmentw as involved.
I do not know what the Constitution of S.C. says about that.
miko
-
How did the founding fathers say that you could know if you were being oppressed or pissed off?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Mini D: The constitution does not give them the right to defy a government order,
The Constitution does not do anything. It certainly did not prevent government from illegally invading ceasing their property. That id of course if the federal governmentw as involved.
I do not know what the Constitution of S.C. says about that.
miko
Why do you qoute me out of context to say something entirely different?
As for the constitution not doing anything... I think you're wrong on so many levels that it's simply amazing. But, like I said, it doesn't give them the right to do what they did... but it provides the means by which to do it. Freedom is a double edged sword.
MiniD
-
Columbus suburb tried to take a residential street corner by eminent domain in order to turn it into commercial development. The suburb lost in court because they ruled that eminent domain should not be used to force a residential home to become an office block. In other words, just because the office block would provide more taxes than a house, you can not use eminent domain for this purpose.
Now, if the town proved they needed a street, that might be another matter.
-
Ok if used for what they are supposed to be used for like roads, fire stations, police stations ETC.
Not OK when a ****ty city like Fremont California uses it to force buisnes owners to give up there land, the land they own so a new better shopping center can be put in.
Thats just ****ing wrong, and it happends.
Just go into Scenario game and hobby and ask Chuck the owner.
To add insult to injurie, now its not going to be a shoping center, but houses...
****ING BULL****.
-
Eminent Domain - right or wrong?
Almost always wrong. I abhor the abusive manner in which it is applied.
In Bloomington MN, the city condemned a viable and profitable car dealership, and bulldozed it, so Best Buy could put up a new headquarters on the spot. Numerous business were forced out actually. The car dealership won in court after they had been replaced and were awarded 8 million on top of the price paid for the land.
Probably still not close to what they lost in the long run, but at least it was something.
dago
-
this has happened to two people I know....... both times they got paid WAY more than their house was worth, and were very happy when they got the check. I'm sure this isn't always the case tho.
-
I always figured emminent domain was only exercised for public works projects -- roads and dams and stuff. That's horrible that it can be twisted to make anyone give up their land so that a more profitable business can move in.
Emminent domain is usually a state thing, right? Surprised there aren't restrictions on its use built into state constitutions.
-
Chuck fought it, the best he got out of the deal is his land lost, but a garateed spot in the new complex...
now that it is houses, there will be two stores, his will be one, but is is going to be 1/4 of the size. This shop has been in fremont well over 30 years.
-
On the flip side, there are a lot of attorneys making easy money contesting eminent domain claims, acting for the citizen. In fact, eminent domain cases caused the estimated cost of new roads to increase to the point that voters started to get miffed with the delays and cost overruns. The causes? Eminent domain cases tied up in courts by citizens' attorneys generating easy money by filing motions to delay judgments, then billing the DOT for their time spent arguing against the DOT. :p With the cases tied up in court, the DOT couldn't move forward with construction. Commuters were getting pissed with sitting in traffic with "Road Construction" signs all over the place.
Naturally, somebody started a movement to cap the fees paid out on eminent domain cases in an attempt to reduce the cost of doing government business - "its a waste of taxpayers money!" - but it was trounced in the political circles. Reason: most politicians are lawyers; lawyers who made money fighting eminent domain on behalf of citizens - "I fought for citizens rights when the government tried to take their land! Vote for me!"
-
Sad sad sad sad. I can not believe the Supreme Court decided in this way. Coming soon to your front lawn (or what used to be your front lawn....)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
-
Originally posted by kappa
Constitution?? The constitution does not give the government the right to take its citizen's land.......
k
AoM
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There you go.
-
This ruling will kill real estate investment. And basically means that you are only renting your property...they have found a way around just compensation already, since tax assessers usually assess property way under market value.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
This ruling will kill real estate investment. And basically means that you are only renting your property...they have found a way around just compensation already, since tax assessers usually assess property way under market value.
Capitalism at its finest :rolleyes:
-
We that live in the US are no longer Americans...since the definition of an American citizen is someone who is FREE..who could be SECURE in their PROPERTY knowing it can't be seized..the last few years have seen a total reversal of the Constitution..they can't just come out and do it so they find shady loopholes...This is not the country I signed up to fight for.
Examples:
Amendment 1: Free speech and religon as long as you don't offend anybody
Amendment 2: Bear arms but we are going to regulate to the point that it's a pain to buy one
Amendment 4: See the Patriot Act
Amendment 5: LEGAL ABUSE OF IMINENT DOMAIN
Amendment 6: Only the rich can afford to not get convicted
There you go half the bill of rights taken from us all.
-
emminent domain=manifest destiny
-
Eminent Domain is definately wrong.
Btw, the courts will NEVER ever ever ever be more powerful than the bullet.