It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
I will never forget the first time I heard about eminent domain.
It seemed so wrong on so many levels that at first I thought it had to be a joke.
I guess the joke was on me once I realized that the government could actually get away with claiming my own property as theirs.
originally posted by: smurfy
originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
I will never forget the first time I heard about eminent domain.
It seemed so wrong on so many levels that at first I thought it had to be a joke.
I guess the joke was on me once I realized that the government could actually get away with claiming my own property as theirs.
In the UK there are such things as compulsory purchase orders, it can be done by the Westminster Government, or local authorities it is quite a powerful law, but can still be contested. However the law states that anyone displaced should never lose their financial position, that has to include a property value. It's mostly used for road and rail infrastructure improvements. Cities may use the order, I don't exactly how that applies, but rehousing is likely applicable including any other costs due to upheaval.
However the law states that anyone displaced should never lose their financial position, that has to include a property value
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: smurfy
The scariest part of this most recent issue is how the local municipalities classified target neighborhoods with home values between $90k and $212k as blighted. That way, the people could never actually sell their homes, loosing whatever fight they might have with the municipality before it even begins.
Despicable.
''The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.'' 160 Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.'' 161 In the early years of the nation the federal power of eminent domain lay dormant, 162 and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States 163 any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any State. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power, 164 but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wide- ranging that vast numbers of objects may be effected. 165 This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. 166 Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State. 167 - See more at: constitution.findlaw.com...
I need to strike at the right time and and expose the TRUTH at a time when EVERYONE will hear it