namelesstavern.net

I don't think New London, Conneticut has too many bad areas. The pics I've seen of the homes being seized look pretty nice.

The area in Brooklyn where they are seizing property and building the Nets stadium isn't a bad neighborhood either. There are a lot of warehouses there that have been converted into fancy loft apartments that will be bulldozed. Not to mention Freddy's Bar and Backroom
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/bloc/031229.html

Goose_Man wrote: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.

Any you think that is justification to steal the land from these people so that government can make more money from the businesses it replaces these people with? And yes I said steal because just compensation is an attempt to rationalize stealing when fair market value means the absolute lowest amount you can pay without opening yourself to law suit when you are the only buyer and forcing someone to sell to you.

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

I disagree, under the precedence set it certainly could happen legally, and because power welcomes abuse of power, I think it is entirely in the realm of possibility, and I'd dare to say it will happen.

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

It doesn't matter one bit what the rest of the story is, it is the effects of the judgment, and not the specific case that are important. The end result, no matter how much of the story we do not know is still the same and that is that government is now free and clear to confiscate your property, not for the purpose of public infrastructure, but for the purpose of it's own subjective judgment of how land could be better used.

Goose_Man wrote: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.

Hmm funny someone thought there was a better use for the land, but it sure as hell wasn't the people who owned it.

But hey lets really dig into the whole run down neighborhood situation. If this was used as a qualification as to whether or not government could confiscate the property, it's really only a matter of time. If the powers that be can't take over the property in good repair, then they simply need only to deny permits until the property is in a state of disrepair.

This is not government by the people, for the people.... it is government by and for the almighty fucking dollar.

If you consider that an ungoverned people have absolute freedom, then a governed people give up some of their freedom to government for the needs of protection and civility. Unfortunately when to many freedoms are given up to government, and government becomes to powerful then government ceases to protect the individuals right, and instead oppresses them. History has countless examples, the founders of this country recognized this, feared it, and tried to safe guard against it. Anytime government is given additional powers it is at the expense of personal freedom. This decision sets a precedence expanding the powers of government and inversely declining personal freedom.... and it wasn't done so in the best interest of the people, but that of government it's self.

Great post Lueyen! Ultimately, I don't like the decision either. Tossica made a good point too. Eminent Domain is good for roads and other important conveyances, but for other things... nah. Too intrusive.

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

Considering CNN made it fairly clear that it was the so-called "Pro-Rich/Anti-Little Guy" conservative members of the Supreme Court who opposed this horrible ruling(applause) and that the liberal branch of the court is the one that heartily supported it, how could you possibly think the report was biased? Had they left out who voted how, then you could make that claim.

Living in Madison, I've seen this same type of tyrannical behavior from the ruling leftists here for decades. Again and again, this insanely leftwing city has annexed property from other communities because they
wanted the tax base. And they've condemmed plenty of property as well due to the owner not wanting to sell it. Hell, they bulldozed over a protected wetland here in order to build yet another Walmart!

Liberals screwing you over is just another broken record that will never stop spinning.

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

It's happened before, now it can happen more often

What I want to know is, what's the point of owning a home now when some developer can just talk your city into tearing it down at the drop of a hat?

And watch out farmers! It doesn't matter that your family has farmed that land for generations and it's your only source of income, some developer wants to parcel it out and put a subdivision and mini-mall there, so you're out of luck.

Of course, they'll pay you a 'fair' price. But that price is set by them and you have no choice on whether you accept it or not.

Wrath Child wrote:

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

Considering CNN made it fairly clear that it was the so-called "Pro-Rich/Anti-Little Guy" conservative members of the Supreme Court who opposed this horrible ruling(applause) and that the liberal branch of the court is the one that heartily supported it, how could you possibly think the report was biased? Had they left out who voted how, then you could make that claim.

Living in Madison, I've seen this same type of tyrannical behavior from the ruling leftists here for decades. Again and again, this insanely leftwing city has annexed property from other communities because they
wanted the tax base. And they've condemmed plenty of property as well due to the owner not wanting to sell it. Hell, they bulldozed over a protected wetland here in order to build yet another Walmart!

Liberals screwing you over is just another broken record that will never stop spinning.

Yeah, those liberals man, always bulldozing wetlands and putting up Walmarts. Haha. You fucking idiot.

BTW...There are eight states where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida.

Or bulldozing wetlands and putting up a parking lot that has never been used...THAT's never happened...

Oh shit wait, it did... less than a mile from me.

Mindia wrote:Um, that's a good thing. You don't want some Dufus getting in the way of production just because his grandpappy built the house he's living in. They're getting fair market value for the property anyway, so just take the money, move and stfu.

Actually you won't get fair market value, you won't get expenses for moving and you won't get any help and you'll have 30 days to move. Would you call that fair?

Tossica wrote:
Yeah, those liberals man, always bulldozing wetlands and putting up Walmarts. Haha. You fucking idiot.

And yet they are the ones who voted for this on the supreme court. Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, the conservatives voted AGAINST it.

You can plant this puppy squarely on the doorstep of the liberals. They are the ones who did this in CT. They are the ones in the SCOTUS who passed this

Actually you won't get fair market value, you won't get expenses for moving and you won't get any help and you'll have 30 days to move. Would you call that fair?

Actually, you do get fair market value. You get full appraised value.

Anyone happen to watch Fox news last night when they reported on this story? Shepard Smith ended it by saying, "so-and-so reporting live from Havana..er, Washington."

I was mildly amused.

Yeah that was great

Mindia wrote:

Actually you won't get fair market value, you won't get expenses for moving and you won't get any help and you'll have 30 days to move. Would you call that fair?

Actually, you do get fair market value. You get full appraised value.

No, you get what they TELL you is fair market value. This ruling will also cause property values to plummet. All it'll take is some developer deciding they want your property and telling you that'll they pay you x amount of dollars and you'd better take it or they'll just force a sale by ED.

Yes, but what they TELL you is fair market value is based upon the valuation of a licensed appraiser.

There's a HUGE difference between Fair Value and Open Market Value.

Also, who do you think does the appraising? The city which is seizing your property. Who can you turn to if you disagree? No one, the city is the final arbiter. In a nutshell, you are screwed.

One of those homes about to be demolished is owned by an 80 year old couple that were married in that house. They raised their family and celebrated their 50th anniversary there. Now they are being forced to move. How is their rights any less than some developer?

Follow up...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fo ... tm?cnn=yes

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/05/real_es ... y_takings/

Yeah...sounds like a run-down neighborhood...

I did some more research on this and I've come to the conclusion that this case is seriously fucked up... please disregard my previous posts.

Yeah, this is seriously fucked up. I am completely on the side of the dissenting conservative judges here. (Yes, I'm siding with the conservatives. Alert Ripley.) Eminent domain for the purposes of civil projects is one thing, and even then it's questionable. Eminent domain for private business purposes? Fuck that. "Oh, I'm sorry, Billionaire X is going to donate to all the city councilmen's re-election campaign if we pass his 'development project'. He wants a private golf course, and your house happens to be in the way. Here's your pittance, get the fuck out within 30 days or go to jail."

Absolute crap decision.

-Arlos

Now, if these folks decided to take up arms and defend their land, would you still be on their side?

Can you imagine if they tried to pull this shit off in the 1700's? Bloodshed no doubt. Of everything i felt when i read that article, the feeling of having been betrayed was the strongest. As far as i can tell, the implications of this ruling put more power in the hands of local governments than i think even congress should have.

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.

Great, so in 10-15 years the fine assholes at the township hall can bulldoze the farmhouses around here and throw up a walmart. I really wouldnt be surprised if the farmers around here lost it and started shooting.

Now, if these folks decided to take up arms and defend their land, would you still be on their side?

100%

If they dont WANT to give up their land for walmart, they shouldnt have to. roads bridges ect are different but in the end eminent domain for public uses still can get me going in some cases.

There needs to be an amendment to the constitution that prohibits the seizure of private land for private moneymaking or this could spiral out of control. I've never written my representative but this might be the time to start

anyways,getting pissed off on a message board isnt helping anything

Minrott wrote:Now, if these folks decided to take up arms and defend their land, would you still be on their side?

Absolutely, and if it were close enough for me to be there I would stand beside them. Hell, I've contemplated taking vacation and flying out there for a week when they actually try and take the property over. That is how strongly I feel about this.

It's pretty amazing that for the most part everyone that frequents this board/forum is in agreement. I don't think this is going to be popular with the vast majority of people in this country. I will also not be surprised if when they go to take the property over and/or start bulldozing if there is a large number of people there protesting it... in fact I'll go so far to predict it. The only question in my mind is if it will be a peacful type of resistance or if people will be armed...

I wonder how many people they would be willing to arrest, or how large a bloodbath they would be willing to create to enforce this. The Supreme Court can hand down this decision, but those judges who voted in favor of it can't personally enforce it. Do you think a Police officer, or a member of the armed forces is going to be willing to forceably put down a resistance when they take into account that thier home could be next? What about the construction personel... same thing for them.

Guntaag Gorefeast wrote: I've never written my representative but this might be the time to start

The answer is yes, it is time, and to help you out:

http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html