Where do right wingers stand on property rights?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: soundguy

I hate what it has become, but its not a right or left wing thing, both parties have used it and abused it for personal gain and I wish we could see a court case that destroys the current standard for whats considered acceptable use.

This and "civil asset forfeiture" which is a government theft program have got to go.

Courts have been all too happy to hand these awful land-grabbing practices case law wins. Nothing that couldn't be overturned, but certainly will be difficult considering that landowners in this country are somehow viewed as less deserving of protection.

originally posted by: soundguy
Wow that’s pretty cool. Sounds like a really nice place, if you can deal with the winters, or is it a summer type place? Around where I live we have/had a similar set up. Leased land. You are as empowered as the lease papers say you are.. a reply to: mysterioustranger

Log cabin, 3 bedroom w upper loft, 50 ft. above the Au Sable river....asphalt rd-3 miles, gravel road a mile, dirt track/no road to cabin another 1/2 mile. Town is 3 miles out, little there. No public utilities...water, electric, heat.,nothing.

Could live yr. round, fully modern inside(logs too inside) w fieldstone fireplace....no insulation....so cold floors even in summer...but no TV, radio, people...just the Amish horse buggy's and farms.... closest civilization is Grayling Mi to the west.... East Tawas on Lake Huron shore to the east.

I have to go thru the gov or DNR to do anything because of being in a National Forest. All owners are subject to gov permission and access....

a reply to: soundguy

I really think you nailed some of the hypocrisy on the head

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: soundguy
Actually it’s called a right of way, you effectively own it, but they have the “right of way.” And no they can’t do”whatever they want” within that space. It’s generally granted for roads and utilities. When a development is platted. In many cases that land will be returned, unencumbered to the property owner, if abandoned. reply to: notsure1

have you ever owned a house?

Its called an easement .

And no they can’t do”whatever they want” within that space. It’s generally granted for roads and utilities.

LMAO what are they gonna put a tiny house on it?

They can put a sidewalk there or they can expand the road . or work on the sewage system . They can do whatever the eff they want.

Quoted for truth.

City of Raleigh is experiencing a robust housing market (particularly over here in West Raleigh) and the ‘easement’ (it’s an intermittent stream that pooled on the back of the property, until I got a spade shovel and recording setting rainfall and gravity did work; it is now the continuous stream to the reservoir ponds it was designed for) between me and the neighbor is soon to be a concrete canal, or 24 inch drainage pipe that connects to the storm water sewer.

Compensation? Doubt I get more than a few pine trees removed for free, but the loss of 10-12ft won’t be the gain the storm water easement fix will bring. My situation is the exception w.r.t. eminent domain.

If I remember correctly, years ago the state of New Jersey took, by eminent domain decree, a bunch of marginal lands to build a shopping mall. Could be wrong, but I do know eminent domain can be enforced by the gubmit for a 3rd party to use and benefit from. It’s definitely not just a “right of way”’issue for roads and utilities — they can take your sh$t and give it to a developer.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Yeah, they're climbing over peoples back fences...

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Raleigh, what a beautiful city with its blend of old and new.
It manages to be both futuristic and old south at the same time.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: soundguy

I really think you nailed some of the hypocrisy on the head

When it comes to border security we're talking about legitimate need. Not all eminent domain is bad. I just think it's bad when they hand private property over to corporations to develop for a profit and give nothing back to the communities they take from.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah, when I first got here as young buck, it was just starting to get a foothold in the conversation of ‘nicest cities’ (whatever that means) to live, and although I’ve spent a few years out-of-state, it really is a great spot. Still cheap here, too

Downtown Raleigh was revamped through an eminent domain corollary called “brownfield” development — owned a property in a high rise that was a brownfield development and actually got property tax relief because of it. Eminent domain has become a slippery slope and, again, I’ve been lucky enough to benefit financially from it (by sheer happenstance, because I sure as heck didn’t buy the condo for tax relief and was pissed having to dig out the washout and slit the neighbor caused by plugging the easement) but most citizens are left holding the bag.

The I-540 extension comes to mind. Lots of the farmers in that area of Wake/Johnston county aren’t going to be adequately compensated. Guess what. More roads equal more traffic. Way to go NCDOT.

Anyways, Happy New Year.

A few people don't want a wall on their land then wall them off on the Mexico side. They should be happy with that situation.

If a person is willfully letting illegals pass through their land then they are aiding criminals.

a reply to: projectvxn

This and "civil asset forfeiture" which is a government theft program have got to go.

Yessir. Holy smokes has that gotten out-of-hand.

If I’m not mistaken, an Ohio man is having his case heard by SCOTUS and this SCOTUS would have to be drugged and/or extorted not to rule in the plaintiff’s favor. It’s a clear violation of the 8th amendment and it’s clear as day. How civil forfeiture caught on isn’t surprising, the fact it took so long to be — eventually— heard and ruled unconstitutional is less surprising — drug dealers and people who carry large sums of cash are reluctant to engage the criminal justice system.

a reply to: projectvxn

yup Civil asset Forfeiture is another in a list of reasons I will never vote Republican or Democrat again.


Astonishes me daily that people will still claim one is better than the other, they are just 2 different shades of the same turd.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: soundguy

I really think you nailed some of the hypocrisy on the head

When it comes to border security we're talking about legitimate need. Not all eminent domain is bad. I just think it's bad when they hand private property over to corporations to develop for a profit and give nothing back to the communities they take from.

so you need to sacrifice your land for the greater good?

guess the OP was right...

originally posted by: soundguy
More specifically, Eminent domain? I hear very little talk about the property owners that will be affected but trumps proposed wall. Sorrry about their luck? Or, does the greater good outweigh a single individuals rights? A very socialistic idea in my opinion. And while I’m thinking a about it. Who should be the arbiter on such matters? Is this a states rights matter? Should the fed be allowed to override the state, or the local government? And one last thought. Where do you draw the line on intrusion into you life by others, government or corporate? Or do you even have a line? Well, besides gunz?

Happy new year!

From what I hear, most farmers/ranchers want the wall to come through their property because they're dealing with cattle being killed in the night for food.

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: soundguy

I really think you nailed some of the hypocrisy on the head

When it comes to border security we're talking about legitimate need. Not all eminent domain is bad. I just think it's bad when they hand private property over to corporations to develop for a profit and give nothing back to the communities they take from.

so you need to sacrifice your land for the greater good?


guess the OP was right...

We dont actually own any land in this country lol. We just rent it from the government.

If you dont pay them there rent they just take it back from you.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: soundguy

I really think you nailed some of the hypocrisy on the head

When it comes to border security we're talking about legitimate need. Not all eminent domain is bad. I just think it's bad when they hand private property over to corporations to develop for a profit and give nothing back to the communities they take from.

IE: pipelines.

They don't even pay royalties, just force you to sell at value so your property value can drop.

If it's a legitimate state need such as infrastructure, I'm more open minded to those prospects.

Corporations should have to make deals with the property owner having the final say. If it's worth so much to them, they should fork over the dough so you can at least find another dream spot instead of being forced to sell a parcel and take the hit.

Eminent Domain has it's place.
I know a family that was offered 2x the value of their total land and home value for just 20' in front of their homes for a new road going through.

They counter-offered at $1,000,000 for the 20'
House and land may have been worth $60,000 total
Held up the road for months

Finally , the local government stepped up , claimed eminent domain , paid fair market value , and took the land
They should have taken the original offer.

www.usatoday.com...

as long as it ain't their property or business, why be concerned?

a reply to: toysforadults

If you like a constant stream of people who do not belong on it coming across it, then go for it.

Thing is that there are lawyers who will sue you as being liable for what happens to all those people. So say little Juan catches something and dies suddenly ... on your ground. It was *your* fault. You are liable for not having provided proper access to medical care for people passing through.

Yeah, people have gotten injured in other people's outbuildings while trespassing and the property owners have been nailed for having and "enticement" on the property.

So, in this case, sacrificing land for the greater good is also directly for my good as well.

a reply to: toysforadults

so you need to sacrifice your land for the greater good?

guess the OP was right...

Sure if your intent is to be childish and completely misinterpret my words.

a reply to: ketsuko

thing is though, having the uninvited on your land is a problem many american citizens have and that liability is true if you are in NY or Texas. Heck we moved from one duplex after one neighbor kid saw fit to kick our garage door in and chase another neighbor hit though our home!! that liability that we could have faced if the one kid happened to catch the other within our property was the excuse we gave the landlord for breaking the lease!! As kids, we grew up near a cornfield. my neighbor had an old car that we would ride through the cornfield after harvest, I imagine the farm that owned that cornfield would have been liable if we managed to flip that danged car over and killed ourselves. that farmer also had a pond on that land. it was a great fishing hunting spot. oh, ya, and the most dangerous thing... that was where my brother tried to teach me how to shoot his rifle.... I still can't shoot for crap!
the point I am making is that the reason that so many living on the border should be more than happy to give up their land, well, is it good enough for those not on the border that have that same problem with trespassers and neighborhood kids tracking through their land, playing in their creek, climbing their trees?? if not, then well... what can I say.