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.

 

NEWS: (Breaking) Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I ask myself, why is all this silly sh*t happening all at once? Is there some big plan happening, that the general public isn't being privileged to know? Taking a house for office buildings? What office buildings? And used for what?

We can all send those responsible a post card with our naked butts on the front, and on the back, it says "Kiss it. From the Real America."

Troy




posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Sounds awefully like Delta City to me.
Looks like all these films from the 80s had more insight then one might think.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
It seems the law is going to be applied soon in Brazoria County, Texas.



Houston Chronicle

FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
It seems the law is going to be applied soon in Brazoria County, Texas.



Houston Chronicle

FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.


Nice. I hope there is a huge backlash against this. We have all let our countries get away from us. The real question now is does the average American have enough strength, will and resolve to stand? IMO yes, it just needs the first person to say NO MORE!



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I have heard of this before. When major highways were being built Eminent Domain is not a new idea. Many people posted that if it is a blighted urban area that it is okay.

I live in a Major City in the US and I am impovershed. Does that mean that I have less rights as a citizen of this country because I am not fortunate enough to have the all mighty buck growing on a tree out in my yard.

My neighborhood is working hard to try to refurbish abandond properties, but you see cheap slumlords buy the homes cheep, make minimum repairs and then rent them out to section 8 families.

The government pays from $1,000.00 a month for these families. These folks do not pay a mortgage, they do not own, and have never worked for anything. So they treat these properties like S#@T. While my other nieghbors are working hard to make it a better place. You can never apprieciate something if it is not earned.


So it doesn't suprise me that some think that it is okay to take homes from the poor. But that isn't what happend to these folks. They weren't impovershed, so all you middle and upper class better watch out it isn't just the poor any more. Every One is Fair Game.

And as far as for Public betterment that is also B#LL S&^T.

Welcome to America land of the Capitalist and Squelcher of the hard working and impovershed


[edit on 6/25/2005 by Rhiannon1968]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
It will be interesting to see what the reactions will be from my fellow Americans.

I'm seriously considering opening a betting house for world events and such. Given the track record I'd have to give it 20 to 1 against there being any major out cry concerning this issue.

Any incidents will be scattered and localized. For some reason I don't think the major media outlets will keep track and keep us updated.

I got $20 on the Guvurnmint.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Seeing as the Gov't Can now literally take your home from you... pay you only 25 percent of the original value for it, then demolish it for commercial purposes, without your consent (I may add) Then we should be able to go up to a government owned building pay them 1/4 of the properties net value, and start demolishing it the way we see fit.

This is an outrage. If I am reading correctly the government is LITERALLY stealing your property from you and demolishing it for their own fraudulent purposes.

Hmm the MPAA and RIAA look sort of like hypocrites now as they always tell us that stealing is wrong (mp3s movies...) Heck they even advertise it in theatres and on DVD's.

So let me get this right.... Gov't stealing from people is right, yet people stealing from gov't equals jail time?

The judges who passed the law should be in jail. These are the people who control the laws of us citizens. I would hate to see what their personal lives are like.

If I lived in the USA and the gov't was about to demolish my PRIVATELY owned home without my consent. I would take my gun, and wait for them to try... then shoot them legally seeing as they are trespassing on my land and have no right to do such a thing.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Actually I have to agree with dj that this is the correct ruling by the supreme court. The problem is not the Supreme Court, nor the Liberal Justices on the court.

Vahall has a very nice write up that can be found here. The problem is with the Conneticutt State legislator and The State's Supreme Court, not the Federal Supreme Court.

OP/ED: Eminent Domain: Shame on Connecticut Legislators

However, personally, I don't like the states interpretation of the law one bit. I can also say I'm not sure how I would react after my initial adrenilene rush quit kicking in.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join