Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
78 year old company threatened by eminent domain
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Oren
Jun 25, 2012, 2:09:18 PM6/25/12
to
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)
... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size
Video:
<http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937>
... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size
Video:
<http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937>
Duesenberg
Jun 25, 2012, 3:44:35 PM6/25/12
to
that. I wish more people would do that...
Hell Toupee
Jun 25, 2012, 4:08:45 PM6/25/12
to
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/22/pushed-out-and-shut-up-78-year-old-business-threatened-by-eminent-domain-forced-to-take-down-banner/
In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority designated
an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for future university
expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then, they've been gradually
acquiring property in the area via direct purchase and eminent domain.
As they acquire it, they turn it over to the university's real estate
foundation, who pays them for it. At some point the foundation will
bring in developers to redevelop the area as a mixture of university
buildings, student housing, and businesses serving the student community.
There have been three lawsuits fighting the eminent domain claims made
in this redevelopment zone; all three cases have lost. There's very
little land left to fight over; this company and another company are
two of the largest holdouts. Part of the dispute is (as always) over
the definition of fair compensation. One company said they were
offered a take-it-or-leave-it settlement before an appraiser had even
visited the property.
The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.
Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.
bob haller
Jun 25, 2012, 6:27:17 PM6/25/12
to
On Jun 25, 4:08 pm, Hell Toupee <w...@menull.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/2012 2:44 PM, Duesenberg wrote:
>
> > On 6/25/2012 2:09 PM, Oren wrote:
> >> ... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)
>
> >> ... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size
>
> >> Video:
>
> >> <http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threaten...>
> On 6/25/2012 2:44 PM, Duesenberg wrote:
>
> > On 6/25/2012 2:09 PM, Oren wrote:
> >> ... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)
>
> >> ... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size
>
> >> Video:
>
>
> > Thanks for typing in that it's a video and not text source.
> > Appreciate that. I wish more people would do that...
>
> Here's an article for those who'd rather read the news than watch it:
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/22/pushed-out-and-shut-up-78-year-old-...
> > Thanks for typing in that it's a video and not text source.
> > Appreciate that. I wish more people would do that...
>
> Here's an article for those who'd rather read the news than watch it:
>
such taking should only be for the public good
Home Guy
Jun 25, 2012, 7:00:50 PM6/25/12
to
Hell Toupee wrote:
> In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority
> designated an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for
> future university expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then,
> they've been gradually acquiring property in the area via direct
> purchase and eminent domain.
So much for your precious freedom and liberty and property rights in the
> In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority
> designated an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for
> future university expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then,
> they've been gradually acquiring property in the area via direct
> purchase and eminent domain.
USA.
There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that
can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal
level.
The only situations in Canada where private land-owners were forced to
sell is either for the development of a roadway / highway, or an
airport.
But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of
homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.
Duesenberg
Jun 25, 2012, 8:00:49 PM6/25/12
to
On 6/25/2012 7:00 PM, Home Guy wrote:
> Hell Toupee wrote:
>
>> In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority
>> designated an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for
>> future university expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then,
>> they've been gradually acquiring property in the area via direct
>> purchase and eminent domain.
>
> So much for your precious freedom and liberty and property rights in the
> USA.
>
> There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that
> can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal
> level.
>
> The only situations in Canada where private land-owners were forced to
> sell is either for the development of a roadway / highway, or an
> airport.
>
In Canada Eminent Domain is called expropriation:
> Hell Toupee wrote:
>
>> In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority
>> designated an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for
>> future university expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then,
>> they've been gradually acquiring property in the area via direct
>> purchase and eminent domain.
>
> So much for your precious freedom and liberty and property rights in the
> USA.
>
> There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that
> can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal
> level.
>
> The only situations in Canada where private land-owners were forced to
> sell is either for the development of a roadway / highway, or an
> airport.
>
Here are the laws that govern it in all jurisdictions in Canada
http://www.expropriationlaw.ca/expro005.asp
Ed Pawlowski
Jun 25, 2012, 9:59:14 PM6/25/12
to
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:08:45 -0500, Hell Toupee <w...@menull.com>
wrote:
>
>The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
>this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
>exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
>public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
>include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
>the real estate.
>
>Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
>authority or local government is in bed with the local property
>owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
>outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.
There have been quite a few cases of abuse in the past few years. Here
in CT, some houses were taken for development. After a lengthy fight,
the homeowners lost and were kicked out. The project that was
supposed to happen never did. Shameful what they did.
Its all about tax revenue.
wrote:
>
>The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
>this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
>exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
>public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
>include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
>the real estate.
>
>Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
>authority or local government is in bed with the local property
>owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
>outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.
in CT, some houses were taken for development. After a lengthy fight,
the homeowners lost and were kicked out. The project that was
supposed to happen never did. Shameful what they did.
Its all about tax revenue.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Jun 25, 2012, 10:45:21 PM6/25/12
to
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jun 26, 2012, 12:02:54 AM6/26/12
to
In article <4FE8EDA2...@Guy.com>, Home Guy <Ho...@Guy.com> wrote:
> But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
> declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of
> homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.
the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
> But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
> declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of
> homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.
property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those
recycl...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2012, 1:05:35 AM6/26/12
to
Ed Pawlowski
Jun 26, 2012, 5:42:11 AM6/26/12
to
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), recycl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey, that's not nice to say. We have the best politicians money can
buy.
wrote:
buy.
George
Jun 26, 2012, 8:25:22 AM6/26/12
to
"supremes" in I think MA? I only vaguely remember the story but some
developer paid off the right people to get the properties they wanted
and one of those just happened to be owned by "justice x"?
George
Jun 26, 2012, 8:28:41 AM6/26/12
to
would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.
Kurt Ullman
Jun 26, 2012, 8:39:27 AM6/26/12
to
In article <jsc9te$1p8$1...@dont-email.me>, George <geo...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
> Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
> would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
> and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
> The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.
It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
decides not to run, usually the last year of their term.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
wrote:
> Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
> would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
> and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
> The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.
have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
decides not to run, usually the last year of their term.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 26, 2012, 9:55:20 AM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 12:02 am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The govt wins even when they lose. How much money
does an individual or a small business spend to TRY to
win? Answer, a hell of a lot. And the govt? Why they
couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that
get the legal bill, win or lose.
In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for
the municipality to offer a fair price. They lowball it
time after time. Rather than give a fair price, which
might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a
legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
does an individual or a small business spend to TRY to
win? Answer, a hell of a lot. And the govt? Why they
couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that
get the legal bill, win or lose.
In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for
the municipality to offer a fair price. They lowball it
time after time. Rather than give a fair price, which
might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a
legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 26, 2012, 9:59:04 AM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 8:39 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <jsc9te$1p...@dont-email.me>, George <geo...@nospam.invalid>
any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
be out.
I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
campaign money, etc from influencing them. They
still have to run for the first election, don't they?
They still need a job afterward, don't they?
> In article <jsc9te$1p...@dont-email.me>, George <geo...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
> > would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
> > and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
> > The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.
>
> It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
> have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
> itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
> decides not to run, usually the last year of their term
And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. Like
>
> > Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
> > would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
> > and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
> > The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.
>
> It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
> have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
> itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
> decides not to run, usually the last year of their term
any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
be out.
I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
campaign money, etc from influencing them. They
still have to run for the first election, don't they?
They still need a job afterward, don't they?
Oren
Jun 26, 2012, 2:03:15 PM6/26/12
to
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:02:54 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
<atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
>property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
>very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those
Why the owner has not requested a zoning variance and the city granted
<atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
>property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
>very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those
one, tells me they are just grabin' land. They are not supporting a
local business.
The local govt. picked on a local family that owned land on the Vegas
Strip. Deep pockets, a long fight -- never followed up on the final
disposition.
Nevada has had several votes on ED :-\
Robert Macy
Jun 26, 2012, 2:19:20 PM6/26/12
to
properties for the benefit of the general population, primary examples
are constructions to provide expanding infrastructures - highways,
right of ways, govt buildings to centralize, water, power etc.
Sadly, the concept has been perverted to now allow acquiring property
for the benefit of not the general population, but for narrower
selected populations, BY PRIVATE INVESTORS. Meaning, your home can be
taken to enable a large housing development, shopping mall, hotel/
convention structure WHATEVER development is deemed to 'increase' the
value of the land use. Even if that proposed land use will benefit
only a select few [ie a golfing site] and NOT benefit the general
population.
Oren
Jun 26, 2012, 2:26:34 PM6/26/12
to
land for - whatever?
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 26, 2012, 2:28:19 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 2:03 pm, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:02:54 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:02:54 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
>
> <atlas-bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
> >property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
> >very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those
>
> Why the owner has not requested a zoning variance and the city granted
> one, tells me they are just grabin' land. They are not supporting a
> local business.
I don't see a zoning variance being an issue. The
>
> >the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
> >property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
> >very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those
>
> Why the owner has not requested a zoning variance and the city granted
> one, tells me they are just grabin' land. They are not supporting a
> local business.
business is apparently there and in compliance with
the zoning. It looks like the city is taking the land
and turning it over to the college real estate trust
so that it can be used as some kind of new development
zone in the future in conjunction with the college.
Apparently for college buildings and businesses
that support the college.
Sure doesn't sound like one of the strongest cases for
using ED to me.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 26, 2012, 2:37:28 PM6/26/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, that's pretty much what has happened and this
case is an example of it. AT least in this case a
college is involved, but as you say, in other cases
it's been private, for profit, developers. I can see
doing that in very select cases. An example here
in NJ is Asbury Park, where they used ED to take
large parts of the beachfront area so that developers
could then turn what was a total slum into businesses,
apartments, condos, etc. It has been a big benefit
to the city and has cleaned up what was a real pit.
Prior to that it had been mostly crumbling, unoccupied,
boarded up buildings.
But the problem is that it's then being used in other
cases, where the need isn't nearly as clear and
compelling. An example here would be Long Branch,
where they started out in a similar fashion to turn
around a waterfront in decline. But
even then, LB was not close to being as bad as
Asbury Park was. And having started down the road,
they have continued and have used ED on people in small,
modest homes by the ocean that are well kept and
perfectly fine to sell with ED so they can turn it over
to condo developers. How you draw the line and
prevent the abuse is a problem.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 26, 2012, 2:59:51 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 2:26 pm, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), recyclebin...@gmail.com
have a problem with the use of ED, it's being used
by govt to take property and then in turn, sell it to
developers. In this case, it's not corporate developers
directly, but instead the govt is going to take it and
then sell or give it to the college. The college in
turn will use some of the properties for it's own
future buildings and the rest will be for commercial
properties that fit in with the colleges grand plan.
college. In all that, clearly there are those in the
private sector that will benefit.
In worse cases, govts have used ED to take property
and the sell it directly to commercial developers.
But in all those cases, it's not really "big corporate
CEOs" that are involved. The developers are
generally smaller, at most regional firms. Not that
it makes it any better, just that it's not typically
Fortune 500 type companies involved.
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), recyclebin...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
> >> ... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)
>
> >> ... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size
>
> >> Video:
>
> >> <http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threaten...>
>
> >On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
> >> ... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)
>
> >> ... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size
>
> >> Video:
>
>
> >Like I always say: Politicians letting big corporate CEOs run amok.
>
> Um mm, this is not a case about "corporate", but rather govt. takin'
> land for - whatever?
I think his point is that in cases where people tend to
> >Like I always say: Politicians letting big corporate CEOs run amok.
>
> Um mm, this is not a case about "corporate", but rather govt. takin'
> land for - whatever?
have a problem with the use of ED, it's being used
by govt to take property and then in turn, sell it to
developers. In this case, it's not corporate developers
directly, but instead the govt is going to take it and
then sell or give it to the college. The college in
turn will use some of the properties for it's own
future buildings and the rest will be for commercial
properties that fit in with the colleges grand plan.
college. In all that, clearly there are those in the
private sector that will benefit.
In worse cases, govts have used ED to take property
and the sell it directly to commercial developers.
But in all those cases, it's not really "big corporate
CEOs" that are involved. The developers are
generally smaller, at most regional firms. Not that
it makes it any better, just that it's not typically
Fortune 500 type companies involved.
bob haller
Jun 26, 2012, 3:05:21 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 9:59 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:
strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
company. no PACs etc......
make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as
part of their license renewal
2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
out........
let people who want to help the country run for congress.
it cant be worse than the current arrangement
wrote:
company. no PACs etc......
make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as
part of their license renewal
2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
out........
let people who want to help the country run for congress.
it cant be worse than the current arrangement
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jun 26, 2012, 3:51:09 PM6/26/12
to
In article <5c6990c3-8aa6-4087...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
that's all basically true, but every time they do that they sow the seeds for
future battles...battles that are becoming more and more common. the gov't may
not care, but those people that are in office sure do
future battles...battles that are becoming more and more common. the gov't may
not care, but those people that are in office sure do
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 26, 2012, 5:42:36 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 3:51 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5c6990c3-8aa6-4087-8fd8-914116eca...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> not care, but those people that are in office sure do- Hide quoted text -
govt doesn't care, but the people in office do?
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5c6990c3-8aa6-4087-8fd8-914116eca...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't even begin to decode what that means? The
> - Show quoted text -
govt doesn't care, but the people in office do?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Jun 26, 2012, 10:24:17 PM6/26/12
to
amok.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Jun 26, 2012, 10:26:38 PM6/26/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:05:21 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 9:59 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
>wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 8:39 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <jsc9te$1p...@dont-email.me>, George <geo...@nospam.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
>> > > would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
>> > > and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
>> > > The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.
>>
>> > It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
>> > have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
>> > itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
>> > decides not to run, usually the last year of their term
>>
>> And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. Like
>> any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
>> By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
>> be out.
>>
>> I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
>> campaign money, etc from influencing them. They
>> still have to run for the first election, don't they?
>> They still need a job afterward, don't they?
>
>strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
>company. no PACs etc......
I see you don't care much about the Constitution either.
>On Jun 26, 9:59 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
>wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 8:39 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <jsc9te$1p...@dont-email.me>, George <geo...@nospam.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
>> > > would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
>> > > and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
>> > > The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.
>>
>> > It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
>> > have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
>> > itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
>> > decides not to run, usually the last year of their term
>>
>> And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. Like
>> any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
>> By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
>> be out.
>>
>> I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
>> campaign money, etc from influencing them. They
>> still have to run for the first election, don't they?
>> They still need a job afterward, don't they?
>
>strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
>company. no PACs etc......
>make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as
>part of their license renewal
candidate, too?
>2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
>out........
>let people who want to help the country run for congress.
>it cant be worse than the current arrangement
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jun 26, 2012, 11:12:40 PM6/26/12
to
In article <399273fa-7e9a-4a55...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
"tra...@optonline.net" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <4FE8EDA2.B41F0...@Guy.com>, Home Guy <H...@Guy.com> wrote:
> > > > > But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
> > > > > declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block
> > > > > of homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.
> >
> > > > the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them
> > > > the property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper
> > > > valuation, at the very worst there are court cases and the gov't
> > > > doesn't always win those
> >
> > > The govt wins even when they lose. How much money does an individual or
> > > a small business spend to TRY to win? Answer, a hell of a lot. And the
> > > govt? Why they couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that
> > > get the legal bill, win or lose.
> >
> > > In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for the municipality
> > > to offer a fair price. They lowball it time after time. Rather than
> > > give a fair price, which might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a
> > > legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.
> >
> > that's all basically true, but every time they do that they sow the seeds
> > for future battles...battles that are becoming more and more common. the
> > gov't may not care, but those people that are in office sure do- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I can't even begin to decode what that means? The govt doesn't care, but the
> people in office do?
so you did decode it
> > > > In article <4FE8EDA2.B41F0...@Guy.com>, Home Guy <H...@Guy.com> wrote:
> > > > > But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
> > > > > declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block
> > > > > of homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.
> >
> > > > the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them
> > > > the property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper
> > > > valuation, at the very worst there are court cases and the gov't
> > > > doesn't always win those
> >
> > > The govt wins even when they lose. How much money does an individual or
> > > a small business spend to TRY to win? Answer, a hell of a lot. And the
> > > govt? Why they couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that
> > > get the legal bill, win or lose.
> >
> > > In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for the municipality
> > > to offer a fair price. They lowball it time after time. Rather than
> > > give a fair price, which might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a
> > > legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.
> >
> > that's all basically true, but every time they do that they sow the seeds
> > for future battles...battles that are becoming more and more common. the
> > gov't may not care, but those people that are in office sure do- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I can't even begin to decode what that means? The govt doesn't care, but the
> people in office do?
George
Jun 27, 2012, 7:04:24 AM6/27/12
to
maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have the
resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market" style. Why
would someone like me even think about complaining?
HeyBub
Jun 27, 2012, 7:43:42 AM6/27/12
to
bob haller wrote:
>>
>> And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. Like
>> any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
>> By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
>> be out.
>>
>> I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
>> campaign money, etc from influencing them. They
>> still have to run for the first election, don't they?
>> They still need a job afterward, don't they?
>
> strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
> company. no PACs etc......
In my view, we have too LITTLE money in politics. I'd implement the three
>>
>> And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. Like
>> any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
>> By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
>> be out.
>>
>> I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
>> campaign money, etc from influencing them. They
>> still have to run for the first election, don't they?
>> They still need a job afterward, don't they?
>
> strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
> company. no PACs etc......
rules put forth by George Will:
1. No cash,
2. American citizens only, and
3. Instant disclosure.
Let ME make a decision on whom to support - perhaps based on who
contributes.
>
> make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as
> part of their license renewal
think on it...
>
>
>
> 2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
> out........
>
> let people who want to help the country run for congress.
>
> it cant be worse than the current arrangement
Sure it can. Things, some things, most things, all things, can ALWAYS get
>
>
> 2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
> out........
>
> let people who want to help the country run for congress.
>
> it cant be worse than the current arrangement
worse.
HeyBub
Jun 27, 2012, 7:47:46 AM6/27/12
to
George wrote:
>>
> Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
> maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
> there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
> sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
> cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
> politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
> the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
> style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?
Seize your property for what purpose? To expand the marina?
>>
> Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
> maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
> there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
> sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
> cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
> politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
> the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
> style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?
Well, you had fair warning when you let the city get into the marina
business.
Next, the city can't actually "seize" your property - they have to condemn
it if the two of you can't work out an acceptable price. When that happens,
a court contest ensues and you have an opportunity to persuade your
neighbors on the jury...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Jun 27, 2012, 10:12:31 AM6/27/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:47:46 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>George wrote:
>>>
>> Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
>> maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
>> there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
>> sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
>> cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
>> politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
>> the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
>> style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?
>
>Seize your property for what purpose? To expand the marina?
>
>Well, you had fair warning when you let the city get into the marina
>business.
Not true. Since the lefties on the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case, ED
>George wrote:
>>>
>> Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
>> maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
>> there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
>> sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
>> cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
>> politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
>> the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
>> style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?
>
>Seize your property for what purpose? To expand the marina?
>
>Well, you had fair warning when you let the city get into the marina
>business.
can now be used to take your property and give it to someone who will pay more
taxes. The city doesn't have to be in the marina business at all.
>Next, the city can't actually "seize" your property - they have to condemn
>it if the two of you can't work out an acceptable price. When that happens,
>a court contest ensues and you have an opportunity to persuade your
>neighbors on the jury...
"You have the resources to purchase the correct politicians to seize
our properties on your behalf and we don't have the resources to fight."
recycl...@gmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 11:11:20 AM6/27/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Jun 27, 2012, 11:18:44 AM6/27/12
to
> In fact, if left up to them, conservatives would likely let big corporations do what ever they want without any restraint or regulation. You keep calling the supreme court “lefties”. It seems to me that with their decisions on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Kelo v. City of New London there are more “righties” in the supreme court then there are “lefties”.
Stormin Mormon
Jun 27, 2012, 11:23:34 AM6/27/12
to
I think your perspective is different than mine. About conservatives, and
thier views on big business.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<recycl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cd9cb44-2f75-4b19...@googlegroups.com...
thier views on big business.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<recycl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cd9cb44-2f75-4b19...@googlegroups.com...
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 27, 2012, 1:35:37 PM6/27/12
to
bitching about GM and Chrysler being bailed out by
the govt.....
In fact, if left up to them, conservatives would likely let big
corporations do what ever they want without any restraint or
regulation.
fine with the anti-trust laws.
denni...@gmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 4:19:33 PM6/27/12
to
On Monday, June 25, 2012 7:00:50 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
> There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that
> can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal
> level.
There isn't in the USA, either. The problem is there is nothing stopping a municipality from exercising eminent domain, then "changing its mind" and selling to a private developer, usually at price far below the fair market value of the property.
It's abuse of power, corruption, at its finest.
> There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that
> can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal
> level.
There isn't in the USA, either. The problem is there is nothing stopping a municipality from exercising eminent domain, then "changing its mind" and selling to a private developer, usually at price far below the fair market value of the property.
It's abuse of power, corruption, at its finest.
recycl...@gmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 4:39:32 PM6/27/12
to
“You must have been asleep when conservatives were
Crocodile tears. They weren’t “bitching” when Bushie was in office. They only started to “bitch” when Obama took over.
bitching about GM and Chrysler being bailed out by
the govt.....”
Crocodile tears. They weren’t “bitching” when Bushie was in office. They only started to “bitch” when Obama took over.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Jun 27, 2012, 5:08:06 PM6/27/12
to
recycl...@gmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 7:21:38 PM6/27/12
to
I must be a real funny kind of “leftie”.
I’m against gun control.
I’m completely in favor of states right. In fact I’m for leaving up to each individual state to make their own laws on abortion, single sex marriage and The Affordable Care Act.
I’m against affirmative action.
I’m for the death penalty.
I’m against public service unions.
I believe in a school voucher program to let parents have a choice.
I’m against amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I’m in favor of anyone putting up religious signs or symbols anyplace they want as long as they personally pay for it.
I’m for withdrawing from the UN.
I believe that captured terrorists should be treated as spies.
I oppose long-term welfare.
I’m against gun control.
I’m completely in favor of states right. In fact I’m for leaving up to each individual state to make their own laws on abortion, single sex marriage and The Affordable Care Act.
I’m against affirmative action.
I’m for the death penalty.
I’m against public service unions.
I believe in a school voucher program to let parents have a choice.
I’m against amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I’m in favor of anyone putting up religious signs or symbols anyplace they want as long as they personally pay for it.
I’m for withdrawing from the UN.
I believe that captured terrorists should be treated as spies.
I oppose long-term welfare.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Jun 27, 2012, 8:00:42 PM6/27/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:21:38 -0700 (PDT), recycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>I must be a real funny kind of “leftie”.
Sorry, no lefty is funny. Most are just sick.
>I must be a real funny kind of “leftie”.
HeyBub
Jun 27, 2012, 9:33:42 PM6/27/12
to
DID do is preside over 4% unemployment. Until the Democrats took over
Congress in '06. Then the country went to hell.
recycl...@gmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 11:38:20 PM6/27/12
to
“Bush didn't try to bail out GM and Chrysler. What the Bush administration
But Bushie did bail-out AIG who still owes 29 BILLION,
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/8-aig
which is more than GM.
The unemployment was due to the national debt that Bushie left
for Obama to clean-up:
http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
DID do is preside over 4% unemployment. Until the Democrats took over
Congress in '06. Then the country went to hell”
But Bushie did bail-out AIG who still owes 29 BILLION,
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/8-aig
which is more than GM.
The unemployment was due to the national debt that Bushie left
for Obama to clean-up:
http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Atila Iskander
Jun 28, 2012, 8:25:56 AM6/28/12
to
<recycl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c8ff761-6f20-426e...@googlegroups.com...
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 28, 2012, 11:28:54 AM6/28/12
to
changing of the govts mind involved. The case in this
post is an example. The city is taking land with the stated
intention of then giving it to Old Dominion Universtiy, a private
college.
There have been many other cases where the city has
taken property as part of a redevelopment with the clear
intention of transfering that property to private developers.
A case in CT about that very issue reached the US Supreme Court
and they affirmed the city's right to take the land. The
decision, driven by the libs on the court, said essentially
that as long as the city had any plausible explanation for
the taking being in the public interest, even if they were not
using the land for a public project, it's OK. The conservatives
dissented.
Locally here in NJ, the exact same thing has been done in
Asbury Park and Long Branch. They took all or most of
the waterfront properties via ED as part of a plan to sell
them to commercial developers to build condos, apartments,
commercial properties, etc.
HeyBub
Jun 28, 2012, 11:29:06 AM6/28/12
to
I notice your referenced chart stops at 2008 with a bit over $1 trillion.
The chart trumpets this as "A NEW RECORD."
The national debt did go up by some $5 trillion during the eight years of
the Bush administration. This is partially understandable in view of
Katrina, two wars, and the World Trade Center business, but most of the
increase was in the last year, when the Democrats controlled Congress.
The debt, however, increased ANOTHER $5 trillion in just THREE years of the
Obama administration. This increase was in spite of no Katrinas, one war,
and no terrorist attacks.
You can check this chart.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 28, 2012, 11:39:35 AM6/28/12
to
liberals do, you're confusing conservatives with republicans.
I recall many leading conservatives denouncing the govt
bailouts. Here, for example is Rush Limbaugh in Dec, 2008:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2008/12/10/stand_up_on_the_auto_bailout_gop
Stand Up on the Auto Bailout, GOP!
December 10, 2008
"Yes, yes, we're going to get to the auto bailout. This really steams
me, by the way. Well, you know, I'm getting so sick and tired... Here
we had the auto execs, the white-collar guys, they gotta get fired.
Pelosi and everybody else were saying they don't know how to run their
business. Obama was seen saying the same thing. .....They had the guts
to fly in here. How come nobody's telling us how Gettelfinger got to
Washington? Did Gettelfinger fly in on a jet or did he drive in a
General Motors car? How come we never hear about any of the excesses
of the unions? We don't hear about that because that's who the
bailout's actually for.
This is a travesty what is happening here. It is a pure, 100%
travesty. There is so much anger for this bailout out there. If the
Republicans do not stand up to this, I don't care how much Obama
screws up, nobody's going to have the guts to vote for Republicans
anymore."
recycl...@gmail.com
Jun 28, 2012, 11:54:58 AM6/28/12
to
recycl...@gmail.com
Jun 28, 2012, 12:02:07 PM6/28/12
to
Atila Iskander
Jun 28, 2012, 2:55:25 PM6/28/12
to
<recycl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c444888-d356-4c28...@googlegroups.com...
Are you really this ignorant ??
Oren
Jun 28, 2012, 3:45:09 PM6/28/12
to
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:54:58 -0700 (PDT), recycl...@gmail.com
wrote:
>And who was the idiot that started the Iraq war which cost and is still costing trillions not to mention thousands of American lives? I’m still waiting to see the weapons of mass destruction.
Fix your single line posting.
Remember civilians run our military - in the USA.
Britain is still our colony.
wrote:
>And who was the idiot that started the Iraq war which cost and is still costing trillions not to mention thousands of American lives? I’m still waiting to see the weapons of mass destruction.
Remember civilians run our military - in the USA.
Britain is still our colony.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 28, 2012, 5:16:09 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 12:02 pm, recyclebin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:39:35 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 4:39 pm, recyclebin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > “You must have been asleep when conservatives were
> > > bitching about GM and Chrysler being bailed out by
> > > the govt.....”
>
> > > Crocodile tears. They weren’t “bitching” when Bushie was in office. They only started to “bitch” when Obama took over.
>
> > Again, you must have either slept through it or as many
> > liberals do, you're confusing conservatives with republicans.
> > I recall many leading conservatives denouncing the govt
> > bailouts. Here, for example is Rush Limbaugh in Dec, 2008:
>
> >http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2008/12/10/stand_up_on_the_auto_bai...
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:39:35 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 4:39 pm, recyclebin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > “You must have been asleep when conservatives were
> > > bitching about GM and Chrysler being bailed out by
> > > the govt.....”
>
> > > Crocodile tears. They weren’t “bitching” when Bushie was in office. They only started to “bitch” when Obama took over.
>
> > Again, you must have either slept through it or as many
> > liberals do, you're confusing conservatives with republicans.
> > I recall many leading conservatives denouncing the govt
> > bailouts. Here, for example is Rush Limbaugh in Dec, 2008:
>
>
> > Stand Up on the Auto Bailout, GOP!
> > December 10, 2008
>
> > "Yes, yes, we're going to get to the auto bailout. This really steams
> > me, by the way. Well, you know, I'm getting so sick and tired... Here
> > we had the auto execs, the white-collar guys, they gotta get fired.
> > Pelosi and everybody else were saying they don't know how to run their
> > business. Obama was seen saying the same thing. .....They had the guts
> > to fly in here. How come nobody's telling us how Gettelfinger got to
> > Washington? Did Gettelfinger fly in on a jet or did he drive in a
> > General Motors car? How come we never hear about any of the excesses
> > of the unions? We don't hear about that because that's who the
> > bailout's actually for.
>
> > This is a travesty what is happening here. It is a pure, 100%
> > travesty. There is so much anger for this bailout out there. If the
> > Republicans do not stand up to this, I don't care how much Obama
> > screws up, nobody's going to have the guts to vote for Republicans
> > anymore."
>
> Sure he would say that in December since Obama was already elected in November. What better opportunity to sabotage Obama. He wouldn’t have said that if a Republican had been elected.- Hide quoted text -
> > Stand Up on the Auto Bailout, GOP!
> > December 10, 2008
>
> > "Yes, yes, we're going to get to the auto bailout. This really steams
> > me, by the way. Well, you know, I'm getting so sick and tired... Here
> > we had the auto execs, the white-collar guys, they gotta get fired.
> > Pelosi and everybody else were saying they don't know how to run their
> > business. Obama was seen saying the same thing. .....They had the guts
> > to fly in here. How come nobody's telling us how Gettelfinger got to
> > Washington? Did Gettelfinger fly in on a jet or did he drive in a
> > General Motors car? How come we never hear about any of the excesses
> > of the unions? We don't hear about that because that's who the
> > bailout's actually for.
>
> > This is a travesty what is happening here. It is a pure, 100%
> > travesty. There is so much anger for this bailout out there. If the
> > Republicans do not stand up to this, I don't care how much Obama
> > screws up, nobody's going to have the guts to vote for Republicans
> > anymore."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course Rush would have. He's speaks out all the time
against feckless republicans who are not conservative.
You most likely don't even listen to him, yet claim to know
what he says.
It's liberals who change their positions depending on
which way the wind is blowing, because they have no
grounding. Just look at Obama on
immigration. Just last Fall he said as president, he doesn't
have the power to just implement changes in immigration
policy. Now, faced with poor re-election prospects, he's
done precisely that by defying th constitution and announcing
that he won't enforce the law.
HeyBub
Jun 29, 2012, 8:05:41 AM6/29/12
to
I agree (snort) that it's Bush's fault.
Still, Obama could have ordered an immediate and complete withdrawal. In
maybe two months every indicator of U.S. presence in Iraq could have been
gone. That Obama did not so order implies he supported the notion of keeping
our troops there, and the concomitant expense.
Kurt Ullman
Jun 29, 2012, 10:42:25 AM6/29/12
to
In article <f6OdnRIE1b-LB3DS...@earthlink.com>,
certain (IIRC 1 year, but I am too lazy to look it up). The point being
that ALL money spent after that deadline HE put out there should be on
his shoulders.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Still, Obama could have ordered an immediate and complete withdrawal. In
> maybe two months every indicator of U.S. presence in Iraq could have been
> gone. That Obama did not so order implies he supported the notion of keeping
> our troops there, and the concomitant expense.
One of Obama's campaign promises was to get us out of I/A by a time
> Still, Obama could have ordered an immediate and complete withdrawal. In
> maybe two months every indicator of U.S. presence in Iraq could have been
> gone. That Obama did not so order implies he supported the notion of keeping
> our troops there, and the concomitant expense.
certain (IIRC 1 year, but I am too lazy to look it up). The point being
that ALL money spent after that deadline HE put out there should be on
his shoulders.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
0 new messages