Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/21232prs20051018.html)
Michigan’s failed experiment with Eminent Domain comes to an end. (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/sandefur200408230840.asp)
-
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. :huh
-
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
-
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:
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.
-
Well I'm glad a court has ruled favorably on this. This is a hot issue that seems to get ignored.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Cronus...
Way, way, waaayyyy off base there, bud...
Do you own a home? I'm guessing not, based on your position statement.
How you figure the society in general is 'bettered' by another strip mall or office building? Hospital or school, maybe....but more commercial properties?
Nope...that's just for tax revenue..not the greater good of all mankind.
Eminent Domain is meant to prevent one or two hard cases from blocking the overall improvement of a community, but you need to consider what is actually an overall improvement...strip malls aint it. For example, a small town needs a new regional medical center to improve healthcare and emergency services for folks who are maybe miles away from medical care, but Old Man Cooter refuses to sell his chicken farm cause he likes the view. This would be a case where the greater good is pretty apparent, and the resistance to sell is perhaps of questionable rationale.
The problem is (it seems to me) that municipalities have discovered a way to start using this principle to line the municipal coffers with tax money, while also granting political favors to big-money developers for future paybacks.
Lastly...nobody EVER gets more than they would on the open market. It's the government, for Cods sake...you get raped, and no two ways about it. And, as has been pointed out...you effectively have little to no appeal. Take it or leave it, and have a nice day.
It should take an extraordinary and hugely expensive process to force a family off their land for almost any reason. Lately, rather than getting harder to do, it's become ridiculously easy.
Just wait til they come for YOUR house, and I'll bet you feel differently.
On a different note in general...careful not to confuse sprawl with eminent domain actions. Sprawl is a direct result of increasing land values in growth zones...quickly enough, a famer's land becomes so valuable to developers, that he can no longer see the fiscal sense in working like a dog from dawn to dusk, when he can make more in one sale than he might in the remainder of his life farming his plot. As soon as that happens, we promptly bury productive, arable farmland under asphalt and concrete foundations.
I can't imagine a better use of rich, fertile land than another mall parking lot... :rolleyes:
-
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.
House and home have two totaly different meanings as far as I`m concerned.
If you have had a home and allready have or you are in the process of raising your children there and spending a lifetime at that home. It is just that....a home.
If you have ever lost a home, you would understand. Worth cannot possibly be put into dollars and cents.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I missed? Looks like the ACLU was on the side of the property owner in both cases. That's a bad thing?
They didn't give specifics in the second case. The first case is more coincidence than defending property rights. The ACLU was anti-religious-favoritism there, not anti-eminent domain. Reading things all the way through is a wonderful thing.
-
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.
If you read the ammendments, you would see that it says "Private Property." Nearly everyone automatically thinks land when they see this, but rest assured, it does not mention land at all. Private Property is just that, anything you own.
The definition of "Private Property" is something which you can do whatever you wish with, without anyone else forcing you to do something else with it.
So when you think about it, and about what the government can do, there's no such thing as Private Property in the United States.
-
LOL Ask the American Indian about Manifest Destiny.
We determine it is within our rights to own your land.....ship you to the middle of the desert and take away your livelyhood.
Govts. can come up with some quick rule changes in their favor whenever they see fit. The US Govt. has done it well since it's inception in the late 18th Century.
-
It a backwards version of this....I see a lot of neighborhoods cropping up on the appraoch/departure end of runways that have been there since Orville invented the things.
These idiots are trying to insist on noise abatement or closing of these airports.
Property/homeowner rights are just a mess these days
-
I am very happy to hear that finally citizens rights to retain their homes and farms is finally be considered as important or more so than a rich developers desire to make money planting endless strip malls accross the country.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
They didn't give specifics in the second case. The first case is more coincidence than defending property rights. The ACLU was anti-religious-favoritism there, not anti-eminent domain. Reading things all the way through is a wonderful thing.
Coincidence? Really? The ACLU went out hunting for churches to sue? It was a method, likely the most airtight, to the solution.
In the second case the ACLU was a friend of the court and filed a brief as such in support of the property owner.
I'm under no illusion that I will change your "t3h ACLU r t3h suck" opinion. I just think it's a tinfoil hat opinion.
We can agree on one point, reading all the way thru is a wonderful thing. You might want to read up on the ACLU's position on emminent domain.
-
Actually, the ACLU isn't suing a church. They're suing the government for favoring a church. And... Yes, the actively look for cases EXACTLY like that.