Plan on passing your house down to your children?

Post by **Tossica** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:44 pm

Finawin was owned, Tossica was edited. :-x

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:46 pm

This thread is decent. Can we try to not Mindia or Finiawin hijack it?

Ginzburgh · Post by **Ginzburgh** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:53 pm

Fuck this.. I'm moving to Canada or Switzerland, places more free than America really is. Who's coming with me?

I think you're alone there.

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:16 pm

So much for personal property rights. Why don't we just convert to communism and get it over with, we're already headed a good ways down that path. Personal rights are being surplanted 'for the good of the many'. You can't even be guaranteed you'll keep your home that you put so much time and effort into.

Post by **Tossica** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:21 pm

Communism my ass... why don't we just admit that our government is elected by and ran by whoever waves the biggest pile of cash?

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:24 pm

Jennay wrote:Fuck this.. I'm moving to Canada or Switzerland, places more free than America really is. Who's coming with me?

hahaha

You think Canada is more free than America? You better start studying about Canadian government...

Eziekial · Post by **Eziekial** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:26 pm

Fine, we admit it. Will that stop you from voting in the next election for any person who looks to expand the size and scope of our government?

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:29 pm

Eziekial wrote:Fine, we admit it. Will that stop you from voting in the next election for any person who looks to expand the size and scope of our government?

Wtf? I don't vote democratic. Wth are you smoking, son?

Yamori · Post by **Yamori** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:31 pm

Communism my ass... why don't we just admit that our government is elected by and ran by whoever waves the biggest pile of cash?

This is a step towards socialism... the government is taking private property to make more money for itself. The businesses involved are only a detail - a means towards the end of increasing government revenue.

It's sacrificing a few people's property for the good of the many, via more government funds... very socialist.

Fuck this.. I'm moving to Canada or Switzerland, places more free than America really is. Who's coming with me?

Not me. I don't think you'll find a free country anywhere on this Earth.

shiraz · Post by **shiraz** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:46 pm

Scalia is pretty consistent in his viewpoints and this goes against it. The liberals are pretty much for government doing what they want. Why does this surprise you, Shiraz?

I guess I am coming to the realization that I am more left-libertarian than liberal....

I've seen this policy in action, my old neighborhood in Brooklyn is being taken by the city to build an NBA stadium. Many small businesses (and my favorite bar in NY

)are going out of business. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that democrats worked for the little guy, rather than the big business.

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:47 pm

Not anymore. Lately it seems no one is looking out for the little guy.

mofish · Post by **mofish** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:51 pm

Our whole country is infected with corporatism, and cronyism, this is just another manifestation of it. Capitalism is fine and good. Our version, however, is diseased. Government, public sector giving advantage to, helping out unfairly, certain private enterprises over another. Who you know landing you contracts instead of your merit.

Now government can actually enforce a private company's property interest over your own, and can seize your property from you. Great.

Welcome to The United States of McWAllyChina. I swear, we need a new amendment, call it 'The Separation of Corporation and State.'

Mindia, this isnt Eminent Domain you mongoloid. Why dont you follow that link you threw up and see if you can figure out the difference.

Post by **Tossica** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:44 pm

The government taking money/property away from people and giving it to corporations is not communism or socialism, it's a sick and twisted form of capitalism.

Eziekial · Post by **Eziekial** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:47 pm

Mindia wrote:
Eziekial wrote:Fine, we admit it. Will that stop you from voting in the next election for any person who looks to expand the size and scope of our government?

Wtf? I don't vote democratic. Wth are you smoking, son?

Nothing, but you must be on some really fantastic shit if you believe Republicans that are in office today want smaller government. It's the reason I am no longer a Republican. Both major parties have gone off the reservation.

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:13 pm

Tossica wrote:The government taking money/property away from people and giving it to corporations is not communism or socialism, it's a sick and twisted form of capitalism.

The philosophy is that government owns the land and you only live there at their sufferance. Sounds pretty socialist to me.

The current crop of politicians are not going to be happy until they control every aspect of our lives.

Post by **Tossica** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:25 pm

The philosophy is that the government is working for corporate America and taking care of all the messy stuff that gets corporations sued. Sounds pretty capitalist to me.

The current crop of corporations are not going to be happy until they control every aspect of our lives.

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:39 pm

Can we at least agree that this ruling is horseshit?

Post by **Tossica** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:40 pm

Martrae wrote:Can we at least agree that this ruling is horseshit?

No argument there.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:08 pm

P.S. The sky is falling and it's mcdonalds' fault.

Goose_Man · Post by **Goose_Man** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:50 pm

I seriously doubt this was in a neighborhood with quality homes and people living in it. My guess is that over half the homes were vacant and the people who were living there saw dollars when the developers approached them and got too damn greedy.

The comment about building a brand new house then 6 months later having it taken away is ludicrous it just wouldn’t happen.

Considering the source of this article I guarantee there is MUCH more to this story than meets the eye.

I’m pretty sure this falls somewhere within the best use of land laws. Apparently the land had a much better use for it rather than a run down neighborhood.

10sun · Post by **10sun** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:54 pm

My office is in town on a 4 acre lot on a high traffic street. Sure, putting in a strip mall back here would be highest and best use, but chances are, all development progress would be firebombed before my boss gave up her office.

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:55 pm

Sooooo...people that live in a run down neighborhood have less rights than those in an upscale one. That's good to know.

Goose_Man · Post by **Goose_Man** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:58 pm

Yes I agree with you 10sun but my point was that you're boss probably pays her property taxes and takes good care of the property. In this neighborhood I highly doubt that was the case.

I drive through neighborhoods around my town looking at houses going to Tax sales and the majority of them are in some seriously fucked neighborhoods. Maybe 1 out of 3 houses isn’t boarded up and the ones that are actually lived in look completely run down. Those kind of neighborhoods need some help and if the government won’t revitalize the area but a private party will and some ass clown is holding up the progress because he wants a million dollars for his 50k house then I'm all for giving that guy 100k for his 50k house and developing his land.

Does that not make sense?

Yamori · Post by **Yamori** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:28 pm

It doesn't matter how shitty the neighborhood is... forcing someone off their own property for some company's benefit is immoral and should be illegal. I'm pretty sure it actually IS illegal already and they are just stretching the interpretation to include tax dollars as "government interest" when they shouldn't be.

If companies want land they should deal with owning the property first, and then develop. I'm sure a contract that says "we will buy your house on so-and-so a date for X amount of dollars, provided all neighboring owners agree to the same" is not infeasible.

Ciladan · Post by **Ciladan** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:44 pm

Unbelievable..