missy wrote:I've seen compensation be fair, then I've seen it be notoriously unfair.
In one case here, the village declared the area a "blight" area. So, instead of true market value, the people were offered about 1/4 of what their homes were worth.
The city of Arlington (Texas) voted to build billionaire Jerry Jones a new stadium for his Cowboys, "stealing" them from the city of Irving a few miles away (and before the stadium that the Cowboys pried out of Irving has even been paid for, BTW).
There have been several reports that almost the moment the stadium vote passed the city started characterizing the entire area around the existing baseball field and amusement parks as "high crime" (supposedly police officers were even instructed to patrol the area heavily and fill out lots of reports detailing "interviews" with suspected gang members and whatnot) - because the city was clearly going to take land in that general area for the new stadium though the specific boundaries hadn't been established.
By the time the city finally released the plans for the actual area they are going to sieze speculators had quite accurately predicted the approximate boundaries based on the pattern of police patrols and reports.
John
-------
The Internet is wonderful. Surely there have always been thousands of people deeply concerned about my sex life and the quality of my septic tank but before the Internet I never heard from any of them.
Welcome to the Peoples Republic of the United States of America.
I see that VA is introducing legislation on eminent domain restrictions.
The supreme court has changed the amendment's "public use" to "public purpose of boosting economic growth" which essentially lets the state own the property for the purposes of central planning (Read any of Lenin's stuff, anyone? Sound familiar?). It boils down to allowing taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
I have written my senators and congressman requesting impeachment of 6 of the current justices and I have also written my state representatives for legislation to nail down eminent domain strictly for public use.
Little by little, our freedoms are being eroded.
I never thought I would see such a sad day in our history.
Perhaps it's time for sesession again. This ain't the USA I want to see.
jsluder wrote:O'Connor's opinion shows a lot of foresight and sense:
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
...
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Yep... this is what happens in a corporate democracy -- the money wins.
It is as if capitalism had a baby, and the baby was Communism.
fancypiper wrote:Welcome to the Peoples Republic of the United States of America.
I see that VA is introducing legislation on eminent domain restrictions.
The supreme court has changed the amendment's "public use" to "public purpose of boosting economic growth" which essentially lets the state own the property for the purposes of central planning (Read any of Lenin's stuff, anyone? Sound familiar?). It boils down to allowing taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
I have written my senators and congressman requesting impeachment of 6 of the current justices and I have also written my state representatives for legislation to nail down eminent domain strictly for public use.
Little by little, our freedoms are being eroded.
I never thought I would see such a sad day in our history.
Perhaps it's time for sesession again. This ain't the USA I want to see.
We agree that this is a bad decision by the Court, but I think any good communist would agree with you. The City of New London is taking the property so that it can go to private ownership. I think when the government takes property or otherwise works to assist private companies it's fascism, the sworn enemy of communism. This isn't commies, it's nazis.
The right of government to take property for public is well established in the US.
after the supreme court ruling local cities are moving forward aggressively...and if you're thinking people will get fairly compensated read the last statement by one of the officials:
Phoenix set to seize 5 acres for downtown ASU campus
Ginger D. Richardson
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 25, 2005 12:00 AM
Phoenix plans to seize nearly 5 acres to build the new Arizona State University Downtown Phoenix Campus.
After months of failed negotiations, the city's attorneys filed the condemnation notices this week in Maricopa County Superior Court against eight downtown property owners. The land the city wants ranges from vacant parking lots to a three-story office building. More filings are expected. The city anticipates that it will need to use eminent domain to acquire a little more than 25 percent of the campus.
The city also filed an order asking for immediate possession of that property and all the other parcels. It wasn't clear Friday how soon Phoenix could take control of them, but City Attorney Gary Verburg said he hopes Phoenix will have possession of at least Park Place by the end of summer.
"We can take possession as soon as the judge says we can take possession," he said. "We can fight about value later."
fancypiper wrote:Welcome to the Peoples Republic of the United States of America.
I see that VA is introducing legislation on eminent domain restrictions.
The supreme court has changed the amendment's "public use" to "public purpose of boosting economic growth" which essentially lets the state own the property for the purposes of central planning (Read any of Lenin's stuff, anyone? Sound familiar?). It boils down to allowing taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
I have written my senators and congressman requesting impeachment of 6 of the current justices and I have also written my state representatives for legislation to nail down eminent domain strictly for public use.
Little by little, our freedoms are being eroded.
I never thought I would see such a sad day in our history.
Perhaps it's time for sesession again. This ain't the USA I want to see.
We agree that this is a bad decision by the Court, but I think any good communist would agree with you. The City of New London is taking the property so that it can go to private ownership. I think when the government takes property or otherwise works to assist private companies it's fascism, the sworn enemy of communism. This isn't commies, it's nazis.
....
Not quite the Nazis either ("National Socialist Workers' Party"), but let's not discuss the details. (FancyPipers reasoned discourse follows along the American folk tradition of "it's bad therefore it must be Communist.")
Rather I think it should be "welcome to the United States of America" --- converting public lands to private use for private gain has a long tradition in the US, starting of course with the Homestead Act of 1861.
I still can't help finding it amusing how upset everybody gets when the US Supreme Court (you know, those villians in DC out to destroy the states) for once asks people to look to their states to protect their rights, and not to the Federal Government.
Bloomfield wrote:I still can't help finding it amusing how upset everybody gets when the US Supreme Court (you know, those villians in DC out to destroy the states) for once asks people to look to their states to protect their rights, and not to the Federal Government.
Perhaps it's because people are afraid that the state governments will side with the local governments on this issue? It will be interesting to see how state and local politicians respond to what appears to be an overwhelmingly negative public opinion of this SCOTUS ruling.
Giles: "We few, we happy few."
Spike: "We band of buggered."
Bloomfield wrote:I still can't help finding it amusing how upset everybody gets when the US Supreme Court (you know, those villians in DC out to destroy the states) for once asks people to look to their states to protect their rights, and not to the Federal Government.
But when we needed them to uphold state rights they chose to preempt it with their errant Bush vs. Gore decision. Not only did they contradict every Supreme Court precedence regarding the 14th Amendment, but they over turned the Florida Supreme court’s decision to count the votes. That was a sad day for democracy in the same way that this recent decision is a sad day for private property rights.
Bloomfield wrote:I still can't help finding it amusing how upset everybody gets when the US Supreme Court (you know, those villians in DC out to destroy the states) for once asks people to look to their states to protect their rights, and not to the Federal Government.
But when we needed them to uphold state rights they chose to preempt it with their errant Bush vs. Gore decision. Not only did they contradict every Supreme Court precedence regarding the 14th Amendment, but they over turned the Florida Supreme court’s decision to count the votes. That was a sad day for democracy in the same way that this recent decision is a sad day for private property rights.
I agree on Bush v. Gore having been a sad day for democracy (and shame on them for deciding it per curiam, that is, without putting their names to it). I don't quite agree that the recent decision is a sad day for property rights: very little has changed, and if there was a sad day for property rights in this respect it was long ago. Certainly it hasn't been the case for a long time that eminent domain could only be used to build roads.
I am much more upset about the Grokster decision, which came down today.
Bloomfield wrote:I am much more upset about the Grokster decision, which came down today.
The decision that said
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
Seems like a difficult to prove concept. I do not see how this will be immediately enforceable. I also do not see it affecting Bittorrent because its maker is not promoting copyright infringement.
It is the conspiracy to commit or help commit a crime that is being made illegal. Another thought crime to be policed.
"Be not deceived by the sweet words of proverbial philosophy. Sugar of lead is a poison."
Bloomfield wrote:I still can't help finding it amusing how upset everybody gets when the US Supreme Court (you know, those villians in DC out to destroy the states) for once asks people to look to their states to protect their rights, and not to the Federal Government.
I am certain, or fairly much so, that in recent years, we have both seen the high court make rulings that we have found a bit devastating. As I see it, though, this is not a matter of states' rights vs. federal, as it is a matter of the Federal Government advocating abridgement of personal rights, at the state or local level.
Bloomfield wrote:I am much more upset about the Grokster decision, which came down today.
Interesting indeed. Truely a winner for recording artists, and a mixed bag for everyone else.
"Record companies — who have seen their CD shipments drop 21 percent over the past five years — have resorted to suing more than 11,000 individual computer users.
Steve Griffin of Franklin, who in 2003 resigned as chief executive officer of StreamCast, said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling, but believes it will do little to stem the tide of downloading, particularly since many P2P companies have moved offshore.
The average number of illegal downloads each month has risen to 6.2 million so far in 2005 from 2.9 million in 2003, according to the Big Champagne Web site." GO to full article.
Bloomfield wrote:I haven't read the ruling yet, but from what I understand from the press is that the court held today that "public use" in the takings clause includes cases in which the land will not be owned by the state (or a municipality), say as a road or a school, but also cases in which the land will be taken and then given to a private owner under some economic development plan. The only "public use" here is infrastructure, revitalization, and tax revenue. What it means is that your private property right in your house does not give you the constitutional right to stop a taking that is for a non-traditional "public use" instead of for a traditional one (like a road or a school). It does not mean that the state or municipalities have to take land when it's not a traditional public use. It doesn't mean that the state can't forbid taking for non-traditional public uses. It only means that the owner of the land doesn't have a federal constitutional right against it.
Hey Bloomfield, they're going to demolish your house and the ones around it and put in a new Wal-Mart. It will create a lot of jobs and more tax revenue than your neighborhood does.
Better start looking for a new house... and don't even think about finding one of equal value because you won't be getting fair compensation.
Last edited by jGilder on Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bloomfield wrote:I am much more upset about the Grokster decision, which came down today.
The decision that said
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
You kind of wonder about all the two slot VCRs, cassette players, VCR to DVD, multiple DVDs etc. Isn't that what all of them could be considered?
Bloomfield wrote:I am much more upset about the Grokster decision, which came down today.
The decision that said
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
You kind of wonder about all the two slot VCRs, cassette players, VCR to DVD, multiple DVDs etc. Isn't that what all of them could be considered?
But the SC ruled way back when (somebody vs Sony... MPAA?) that VCRs were legal because they had other legal uses. I think I've heard it called the "BetaMax Ruling", though I could have that confused with something else.
Giles: "We few, we happy few."
Spike: "We band of buggered."
