http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
All I can really say to this is.... what?! I don't understand why this would be allowed at all, let alone end up in the S.C. I don't find myself in agreement with Scalia and Rehnquist very often (they dissented), but today, I am.
Can anyone elaborate on this a bit?
I think the cities' reasons for seizing a house only has to be 'for the betterment of the community'. Like maybe a highway, or tear a few neighbor hoods down & put up some concert halls, business offices, hotels...it's stupid.
I say they can take my house when I'm dead (& out of bullets)
As for Scalia, I think he is my fav. I like his view of the Constitution of being a concrete thing, not something that changes everytime we get a new president.
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 24, 2005, 11:17 AM
I think the cities' reasons for seizing a house only has to be 'for the betterment of the community'. Like maybe a highway, or tear a few neighbor hoods down & put up some concert halls, business offices, hotels...it's stupid.
I say they can take my house when I'm dead (& out of bullets)
As for Scalia, I think he is my fav. I like his view of the Constitution of being a concrete thing, not something that changes everytime we get a new president.
I find it funny that you feel so strongly for the Constitution yet you have from time to time said things that are opposite what the constitution says (free speech thread comes to mind). In this case, you believe the government shouldn't be able to take your house; well the 5th amendment says they can with just compensation.
Edit: Also, this is debatable, but it seems to me that the Bush administration has been the worst offender of and many times has ignored the Constitution.
yeah, I'm not into this whole neo-republicanism...(that's what I call it at least), I figure I'm conservative generally.
As for freedom of speech, uhm, yeah, your rights don't trump someone else's
Interestingly enough, I wasn't sure what this was about when I first read it (nice acronym by the way -- Supreme Court of the United States).
However, lately, the Town of Gilbert (where I live and work) has been granting land use (more or less giving the land) to a company called Big League Dreams. This company runs and maintains the parks for which it is responsible; however, it's privately-funded. This is an email I sent to my mayor about it:
Mr. Mayor:
First, I realize that, as an employee, it is somewhat inappropriate to be contacting or in another way being involved with the political process in the Town. However, given that I am also a resident, I believe that if I am not permitted to voice my opinion, it is infringing upon my rights as a citizen and a taxpayer. Furthermore, despite my position within Parks and Recreation, and that Big League Dreams has a direct impact on the Parks and Recreation Department, I do not believe it has a direct impact on my job security; therefore, I believe there is no real conflict of interest. I have attempted to discuss this political-personnel issue with the Personnel Director, and have not received a reply.
Having said that, I believe that allowing Big League Dreams, or other companies with similar interests, to continue to pursue further arrangements within the Town is a problem, and an abusive dispensation of public lands.
First, public lands are just that: public. I realize that there is a certain fiscal benefit from tax revenues generated by allowing a private corporation to provide services to the community. However, the lands are no longer accessible to the general public. It is my understanding that, for parks developed by Big League Dreams, residents will be required to pay a fee for entry, and that residents will also be unable to bring their own food into the park. Our park policies have not limited these right uses of public land in any way, with the exception that alcohol could not be consumed on public lands – a policy which, I believe, was primarily intended to prevent the consumption of alcohol by minors due to non-monitoring.
Second, I believe that this "public-private partnership" that Big League Dreams provides is essentially a government-sponsored monopoly. Big League Dreams agrees to license their park such that a competing BLD park is not located within a given surrounding area. In exchange, aside from our own programs, we are agreeing to provide a non-competitive area for them? (By the way, if I am misinterpreting the minutes from the meeting on 24 May, I apologize). This is to be a 20-mile radius? That is ridiculous, "for the protection of the Town" or not. Quite frankly, it is a monopoly.
Finally, I believe that the use of public lands in this manner is an abuse – or could potentially be an abuse – of eminent domain. It was not particularly long ago that the location of the Freestone Recreation Center was acquired via the use of the right of eminent domain. If we can use any public land to enter into these "public-private partnerships" that BLD is proposing, then what is to say we couldn't use land acquired through eminent domain for these purposes? For that, we might as well just seize private land to provide a private service!
Mr. Mayor, as always, I appreciate your time. I hope to see you at the Library again some time soon.
Thank you,
Discussion on this has essentially fallen into two categories, as far as I've heard. One side (the one with which I agree) concurs with Crazed and Myndfyre (and Arta? Hard to say, and I don't want to put words in his mouth) that this is a perversion of the concept of eminent domain, and that abuse is inevitable. The other side (whose proponents I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting in person) sees this as a great boon for cities that can finally go acquiring land that they just couldn't get through any other means. It's worth noting that the SCOTUS members who supported the city referred to the "public purpose" of economic development, not "public use" (as the Constitution characterizes the privilege of eminent domain). Public use historically has meant works of immediate and practical use to the public, such as roads and schools. Public purpose is a less well defined concept, and the court's majority opinion seems to assert that any activity which benefits the government's coffers -- and thus provides more money to spend on government programs -- constitutes public purpose.
In a nearby town the city has taken over 7 homes to expand 1 school & 17 more to build a new school. From what was said on the news the people that had to give up their homes were generally not thrilled. It is quite a hassle to find a new house (one that is hopefully priced @ what the city paid you) & move into it. I'm not sure, but does the city/government/school district pay for the moving of the family?
Now, I don't totally agree with people having to give up their homes for roads/schools but is a HELL of a lot more sensible than a shopping mall or hotel or country club thing.
Something I noticed on this topic on f150online.com was that most people came to the conclusion that we own nothing & 'rent' everything. Taxes, car registration, are all forms of rent...so I suppose it is the government's property but I don't believe that is the way it originally began & it wasn't meant to be like that.
From what I read in the local newspaper A group of 13 people are going to be forced to move off of the land they live in, in order to make room for a private research facility and its' mini suburb surrounding it. One of the residents has lived in her house since 1918....
Quote from: Forged on June 25, 2005, 12:48 AM
From what I read in the local newspaper A group of 13 people are going to be forced to move off of the land they live in, in order to make room for a private research facility and its' mini suburb surrounding it. One of the residents has lived in her house since 1918....
see, stuff like that is JACKED!
If she is well enough to not be in a nursing home I'm sure she'd be well enough to hold a gun & I'm sure she knows how to use it...POWER TO THE OLD WOMAN! (so long as she ain't driving ;))
Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 24, 2005, 12:18 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
All I can really say to this is.... what?! I don't understand why this would be allowed at all, let alone end up in the S.C. I don't find myself in agreement with Scalia and Rehnquist very often (they dissented), but today, I am.
Can anyone elaborate on this a bit?
Preposterous
I think that the state's right to seize land for public use is necesary, although it may be horrible for those made victims of it. I think that the state seizing land for private use is outrageous.
somewtimes for highways it might be neccisary, but they don't really need to build the highway on top of your house....
Quote from: Forged on June 25, 2005, 04:17 PM
somewtimes for highways it might be neccisary, but they don't really need to build the highway on top of your house....
They may need to build it on top of someone's house though. Might as well be your ;)
They'll tear your house down, not build over it.
it was a figure of speech....
QuoteThey may need to build it on top of someone's house though. Might as well be your Wink
not really, roads can curve.
Quote from: Forged on June 26, 2005, 04:00 PMnot really, roads can curve.
But they're much more efficient when they are straight. Would you really want to try to drive 70mph on a highway that twists radically every few miles? :)
I don't neccessarily disagree with it. This sort of thing, seizing land for public development, is only done in extreme and may I point out extremely rare cases and nearly exclusively as a last resort.
Quote from: Hazard on June 26, 2005, 06:02 PM
I don't neccessarily disagree with it. This sort of thing, seizing land for public development, is only done in extreme and may I point out extremely rare cases and nearly exclusively as a last resort.
I have to say I'm surprised that you're taking that position Hazard.
The government exists to serve the people, as well as protect people's rights. If people are willing to sell their land to the government for public development, that's one thing. But the government shouldn't be able to
seize land for it. They should have set aside that land earlier.
Quote from: Kp on June 26, 2005, 04:58 PM
Quote from: Forged on June 26, 2005, 04:00 PMnot really, roads can curve.
But they're much more efficient when they are straight. Would you really want to try to drive 70mph on a highway that twists radically every few miles? :)
If the choice was between that and me losing my house then yeah.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029
I love it
LOL!
The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.
Quote from: Hazard on June 29, 2005, 08:18 PM
The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.
Then give up your own land, damnit, or else the government better compensate me for the time and trouble I would have to go through to move. My time is valuable. So is my stress.
Quote from: Hazard on June 29, 2005, 08:18 PM
The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.
Hotel != betterment of public!
I thought you would have more sense than that
I thought eminent domain was only useable if it was public development like a park or something, if you need to pay then it isn't public to everyone.
It was...not anymore
This is bullshit. The state should not be able to seize then sell land. I could see if it was for a PUBLIC venue (eg Schools, Hospitals, ect), but this is just another thing bringing the U.S. closer to a facist government.
When did I support real estate development under seizure of lands? I'm talking about hospitals and highway expansion, not a new Best Western here...
Quote from: Hazard on June 29, 2005, 08:18 PM
The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.
The Supreme court now sees important public development as building hotels. I thought that is what you were agreeing with
Quote from: Hazard on June 29, 2005, 08:18 PM
The needs of the country changes. The good of the public is overruling in this case. If the government wants to seize a few acres of land for important public development, I'm okay with somebody having a smaller backyard.
I agree with you if there is no better alternative.
I think this ruling really shows whos side our goverment is on....
Quote from: Forged on June 30, 2005, 12:49 AM
I think this ruling really shows whos side our goverment is on....
Totally agree.
Quote from: Forged on June 30, 2005, 12:49 AM
I think this ruling really shows whos side our goverment is on....
I think that the ruling shows the government is willing to do what is necessary to make sure that it has everyone's best interest in mind. We're not talking about knocking down a nursery school to build a strip mall here.
So that's not ok, but knocking down people's homes for the sake of an office complex is fine?
I don't object to the principle - it's the fact that the land is being used for private development that bothers me.
Quote from: Hazard on June 30, 2005, 07:48 AM
Quote from: Forged on June 30, 2005, 12:49 AM
I think this ruling really shows whos side our goverment is on....
I think that the ruling shows the government is willing to do what is necessary to make sure that it has everyone's best interest in mind. We're not talking about knocking down a nursery school to build a strip mall here.
Yes, yes we are. If this nursey is on prime real estate for an office complex the nursery goes out the window.
What bothers me is the state is involved in this at all. If the company wants to build there, it should have to buy the land from the people who own it, not the state that siezed it. Should be: The people would set a price, and if a company does not want to pay it, then they find a diffrent spot to build it.
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 30, 2005, 10:56 AM
Quote from: Hazard on June 30, 2005, 07:48 AM
Quote from: Forged on June 30, 2005, 12:49 AM
I think this ruling really shows whos side our goverment is on....
I think that the ruling shows the government is willing to do what is necessary to make sure that it has everyone's best interest in mind. We're not talking about knocking down a nursery school to build a strip mall here.
Yes, yes we are. If this nursey is on prime real estate for an office complex the nursery goes out the window.
Show me where that happend and show me where I supported it.
Some city back east wanted to tear down houses to give to private developers to build a hotel (or something similiar, I forget exactly). The city could just as easily tear down a nursery if it was in a prime hotel area
Quote from: Hazard on June 30, 2005, 01:16 PM
Show me where that happend and show me where I supported it.
The fact is that it
can happen.
A theme in several Dilbert comic strips is that "given enough time, we can learn to get used to anything." It might be something that actually benefits the public now, but the more power we give away to the government, the more they will use it.
I know what you're saying MyndFyre. I mean, why the fuck should I give up 10 square yards of my property to build a Burn Unit to the Children's Hospital?! Thats just re-Goddamn-diculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
There was a woman down here a few years ago and the government seized her land, but instead of buying a new home she requested to have her home moved to the new site (would cost about as much as buying
a new one anyway) so the government sent her house to the new site in peices.
It was really cool.
Quote from: Hazard on June 30, 2005, 08:24 PM
I know what you're saying MyndFyre. I mean, why the fuck should I give up 10 square yards of my property to build a Burn Unit to the Children's Hospital?! Thats just re-Goddamn-diculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
I'm don't want to disrupt my life and give up my time to move when the government officials had poor planning skills, but a Burn Unit in the Children's Hospital is a
public service. A hotel is
not.
When did I say a hotel was a public service? Again, PLEASE point out where I said that. The government can't see the future. It is far better for them to have to deal with the situation as it arises, perhaps by taking small pieces of land from several people, than it is to just have them start building things EVERYWHERE out of the anticipation of POSSIBLE development.
You're picking at straws, Hazard - this post implies that you support this decision by the supreme court...
Quote from: Hazard on June 30, 2005, 07:48 AM
I think that the ruling shows the government is willing to do what is necessary to make sure that it has everyone's best interest in mind. We're not talking about knocking down a nursery school to build a strip mall here.
...and the points people are making follow on quite logically from there. A hotel is a private development that could be beneficial to a community, and thus falls under the scope of the discussion.
Basically: do you think that the state forcing private citizens off their property in order to sell their land to other private citizens for private development is ok? I think that's a horrible abuse of the sovereign powers of the state.
I think this whole Eminent Domain is a stupid idea, they need to plan better if not too bad.
Quote from: Hazard on June 30, 2005, 07:48 AM
Basically: do you think that the state forcing private citizens off their property in order to sell their land to other private citizens for private development is ok? I think that's a horrible abuse of the sovereign powers of the state.
Seems really absurd to me. I could understand (as many have said before me) that if a hospital or something "human services" needed the land, that they could "request" the land to be sold, but to force people out of their homes so they can build a hotel is really absurd.
Quote from: Hazard on July 01, 2005, 07:25 AM
When did I say a hotel was a public service? Again, PLEASE point out where I said that. The government can't see the future. It is far better for them to have to deal with the situation as it arises, perhaps by taking small pieces of land from several people, than it is to just have them start building things EVERYWHERE out of the anticipation of POSSIBLE development.
What the fuck are you talking about?! I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just forgot to read the article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html) that everyone (except you) seems to be talking about, where the supreme court ruled in favor of private land being taken under eminent domain for
private use, for an office building to be built.
Hitmen, you're a moron. I've stated, numerous times now, that I don't neccessarily disagree with the principal of seizing land for development. I'm not talking about the case that you seem to be fixated on you damned moron, I'm talking about the idea in general. That sort of thing interests me. This one narrow case isn't all that exciting.
Quote from: Hazard on July 01, 2005, 09:40 AM
This one narrow case isn't all that exciting.
The problem is, that it is. This "narrow" case opens up the opportunity in the entire country to petition local governments to seize private land in the interest of private development -- which would indeed help the public, but not in a tangible, direct way.
Your posts imply that you support the Supreme Court decision, which means that you support the knocking down of a private home to erect a hotel.
I think it's an abuse of eminent domain.
And Warrior -- if eminent domain was not available, the state of Arizona would be screwed right now. I live in the fastest-growing city in the US for 2 decades running, and we've seen in 20 years a population growth from roughly 15,000 to 170,000. I live right off of a highway as well -- the U.S. 60, which is branches to the I-17 interstate. Just before I moved here, the US 60 used to only go about 7 miles to the east. Now it goes roughly 25-30. They also expanded it from 3 lanes going each direction to 6. If the government didn't have the ability to seize land for something like this, we'd never have the infrastructure to support such a population boon.
If anything, what they get out of selling the land ( in kinder terms ) to the government, is more than what they'd get from selling it on the market. There's nothing they or us can do about it, but at least they get reimbursement.
Quote from: Topaz on July 01, 2005, 07:04 PM
If anything, what they get out of selling the land ( in kinder terms ) to the government, is more than what they'd get from selling it on the market. There's nothing they or us can do about it, but at least they get reimbursement.
But in this case the goverment should not be the one setting a price, not if it is for
Private development. That should really be up to the property holder.
Quote from: Forged on July 19, 2005, 01:28 AM
Quote from: Topaz on July 01, 2005, 07:04 PM
If anything, what they get out of selling the land ( in kinder terms ) to the government, is more than what they'd get from selling it on the market. There's nothing they or us can do about it, but at least they get reimbursement.
But in this case the goverment should not be the one setting a price, not if it is for Private development. That should really be up to the property holder.
But then the owner could ask for 100x what it is worth & if the developer really wanted that land they'd have to pay. This way the gov can make whomever pay a reasonable price (I still don't agree with this type of imminent domain)
If they are not willing to pay the asking price tough shit. They shouldn't be able to run up to daddy goverment and get him to make the person sell cheaper.