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.

 

Eminent Domain

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
High court OKs personal property seizures

This is not good. I don't know what to say. I happen to live behind a hospital, and for MANY years "they" have been wanting to expand the hospital facilities into my development but so far have been unsuccessful.

It's just not right. Throwing families out on the street and taking their land. My house, property, is all I have. It's my understanding the Fifth Amendment was a result of needing homes/facilities during war times for soilders etc.

has anyone here had to deal with the issue of Eminent Domain? How did it play out?

They just keep taking from us...

Peace




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
My home city, Mesa, made "Sixty Minutes" last year when the City Council wanted to take away an old brazke shop and give the land to another developer who would put a "neater' shop there. The national exposure enabled the owner of the brake shop to fight of the thieves from City Hall.

That sort of taking approach is a perversion of what eminent domain is -- or should be.

Any taking is a bad thing, but there are as few occasions (and I'm sure some of my more hard-core libertarian friends are going to flame me on this) where the greater good require that a person gives up his or her property. But at a very minimum[ such takings should be limited to:

(1) A public use, not kicking you out so the Mayor's brother-in-law can built a housing development there;

(2) Compensation twice what the comps and the appraisals (not the property tax valuation, which is usually too low) consider the fair market price of the property to be.

(3) More than one avenue of appeal, including a judicial appeal which is not a part of the taking entity. (In other words, a city taking would have to be reviewed by a county or state court, etc.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
As far as just compensation, I wonder who gets to decide that.

I agree, "just compensation" should be at least TWICE what the property value is!



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This is the second thread thats not news. We try to use the search function. I know we are all guilty of it, but we try to remember.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Eminent domain as it will be practiced by the ruling set down yesterday by the supreme court is among one of the most distrubing trends in this country today.........

The long term effects set by this precident and its implications on further restrictions of individual for the "common good" make this one of the darkest decisions against what made this country great.......

Taking personal property for the sake of economic development and higher property tax collecting that translates to the "common good" for all as determined by your city or county officials is a receipe for further degreneration of our society.............

America's greatness was not build on public officials standing for the common good of all............but on the tireless and high risk desires of individuals wishing to improve their lot in life..............as a result, their accomplishments have translated into new industries, employement and a better quality of life for all...........

Is it not interesting that when you examine any society in human history that erodes the rights of the individual for the common good of all citizens you end up with a governement that rules with oppression?

Lenin
Stalin
Hitler
Mousslini

are but a few that would rid their country of the individual in order to focus on the masses......................but what did they end up doing with those masses??

The rights of the individual serve as checks and balances against those wishing for the commmon good that end up abusing that common good........

Do you think that city and country governements with the temptation of increased property taxes and kickbacks from developers to their campaigns are going to use this new ruling on eminent domain in a descreet wise fashion??

This is yet another step in the direction down the dark tunnel of the loss in individual rights that are protected and guaranteed under the US Constitution............

This is such shocking and significant news yet is ignored by most of the media and citizens in general...............have we become that prosperous of a country that we are now that apathic towards what made this country great?.........

Are we wiling to give our individual rights of greatness away for the common good?........what ever in the World that means??..........

Look.......you give a politician a way to raise taxes without concequences and it will be abused..............not for the common good of people but for the very system that corrupts this transaction in the first place.........

Republicans and will as Democrats are both at fault on this ruling......they appointed 5 of those clueless and manipulative seats on the supreme court that voted for this atrosity against our way of life............

If we as a society in this country are apathic towards such ruling...........then the next step is that process will be oppression.......we wil throw down our freedom at the feet of governement and tell them to make us their slaves..................but just feed us.............

You think I'm overreacting??

Just wait............you'll see................

I don't have children..........so what is the excuse of apathy from those of you that do?



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Maybe they'll use the land they grab for detention camps or something....


Our Constitution is making its way through the shredder...slowly but surely....



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Paybacks a bitch huh? Check this out!!


YES!!!


www.freestarmedia.com...

"Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land..."



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Now this I like. Thanks skippytjc.



Hopefully this will wake people up.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
The Eminent Domain is wrong. Its not right to be able to throw people out of their house! Just because you want to build a shopping mall or something like that. Your home is YOUR home. You paid for it, its yours. They cant just come and than say its theirs!! Its just wrong!!!



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Proud_Red29, it isn't your home. The land belongs to the Government, if it was "Your Home" you would not have to pay tax on your land for the right to own a home. Just remember that, you do nothing more than rent the land from the Government.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I guess your right. But I still dont really agree with the fact of them just taking it from you. I wish the goverment didnt own everything. I thought this was a free country!

PS: when you replay just call me red(everyone)



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Well Red, until 1913 you did own your property/land and you always should do. Really the whole "Government" owning the land is very similar to a form of Socialism.

In some respects America has became a "Reverse" Socialist Nation, instead of the Governmetn owning the Industry now the Industry own the Government and just place Proxy Leaders in to do as they please.

God Bless Capitalism!

See this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The plans to build the new stadium for the NJ Nets, owned by bill ratner would require eminent domain to remove homes and buisnesses in the area.

espn article



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
In a plan that could result in the largest eminent domain case ever, Riviera Beach, Florida is considering a redevelopment project which could oust 6,000 residents in over 2,000 homes.



Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

"More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners.

Other plans for the project include creation of a basin for megayachts with high-end housing, retail and office space, a multilevel garage for boats, a 96,000-square-foot aquarium and a manmade lagoon.

full article


I have been sitting here for half and hour writing and rewriting my comments on this fiasco and I still can't express my outrage properly.

I'll simply say: good luck to all property owners in the U.S., maybe you'll get the chance to sell your property for a decent price before some developer comes along and takes it from you at "fair market value".




top topics



 
0

log in

join