Think your land is yours?

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Originally posted by HollowJDM@Jun 23 2005, 07:43 PM
however i would give you an employee discount on any mocha frappuccino...



Funny...but...


Its not quite that simple. There's a LONG LONG legal process that the government must undergo before simply kicking you off the land, like say for instance there's a starbucks right down the street or in more general terms the store/company is not a neccessity nor beneficial to the community. There's not going to be 4509845 Starbucks and Rite-Aids in town because the government keeps commadering your land.

Say there's no gas station in town and there's no location available for a gas station in town, if you can prove that its beneficial to the community via statistics and a hearing before a committiee than you probably could buy the land. If say there's an open lot down the street than the government isn't going to just seize the land from the property owner and give it to BIG BUSINESS TO RULE THE WORLD AND DIE.
 
Shit, I say bring it on. If they tried to kick me out, they better bring a lot of firepower, and a healthy supply of vehicles, because they won't have any that run when I am through, and if it were to be built, it wouldn't stand for long afterwards.


Of course a the same time, they do usually payout a LOT more than the house and property is worth, so that would be the determining factor. Only problem is the further implications of this.
 
I get to hear a lot about imminent domain, as my is my district's county supervisor. There is an involved process that has to be gone through first before any land can be taken. Of course it sucks because of the inconvience to the homeowner, but they are usually well compensated. Of course people will cite the slippery slope as an argument against it, but thats as much a logical fallacy as anything. I guess the question becomes (a question that we as both individuals and a society must ask) this: what is more valuable, unalterable property rights or the good of the community. Using the founding fathers intent as an argument is at best illogical, as we've gone through paradigm shifts that put us in a different world from them.
Its easy to dismiss this as a corrupt relationship between politicians and business owners (that was my first reaction), but there is probably much more to the situation than this. Beyond that if the citizens don't like the work of their local officials recall is always an option (im not sure that ct has the recall, but if they dont they can always vote it in). I mean, honestly, the responsability will always fall on the citizen in these situations.
 
what is more valuable, unalterable property rights or the good of the community


but this is the good ole capitalist USA...

the good of the community must be considered second to the rights of the individual...

and this may affect 10-20, maybe even 100 people...
100 people in a city can't due dick...
so it falls back on whats stated above that it will not affect a very large percentage of people...

but you can bet your ass that if you were one of those people you'd be wishing others would step up and stand up with you against this sort of goverment/business reach around none-sense...
 
Originally posted by reckedracing@Jun 24 2005, 09:12 AM
what is more valuable, unalterable property rights or the good of the community


but this is the good ole capitalist USA...

the good of the community must be considered second to the rights of the individual...

and this may affect 10-20, maybe even 100 people...
100 people in a city can't due dick...
so it falls back on whats stated above that it will not affect a very large percentage of people...

but you can bet your ass that if you were one of those people you'd be wishing others would step up and stand up with you against this sort of goverment/business reach around none-sense...
[post=515995]Quoted post[/post]​



And then if you're the community, you'll sit back and clap that something worthwhile has just been brought into your living space.

The question is, is it wrong to priotize the group's needs over the individual's? ...more people in the group certainly stand to benefit than the individual.
 
our whole country is all about the needs of the rich and powerful before the average citizen...

this is just another excellent example of that...

so what happens when they want to level 5 NYC blocks to put up an office building instead of the current living quarters that are there now...
sure, it will provide more jobs to the community, but the person who stands to gain the most is of course the developer...

saying the community will reap benefits is just an easy way to disguise the greed of the developer...

i honestly can not believe you are backing this decision by the supreme court...
think about these people that have spent their lives making a house into their home, decades spent in the same home, raising a family, marking the childrens growth on the door jams, etc etc etc...

and their houses just get ripped right out from under neath them because someone wants to build a complex, and somehow its better to have a few more jobs than to take away soemone's right to own their own property???
the whole idea behind capitalism is you can own your own shit, work hand buy your own stuff, the land/house is OWNED by you, and you can do with it whatever you choose within legal guidelines...

it just makes me sick that the whole us gov't is catering to the rich and to corporations over individuals...
corporations should never EVER come before individuals... EVER

the ford tire incident is a perfect example...
a few deaths = $$$ compared to a tire recall = $$$$$$$$

an individual should always come before $$$, profit, and corporations...


the gov't is by the people, and for the people, not by the rich for them to get richer...
 
You feel as if the world is always against you.


Just as Guy said, you seem to fall into the misconception of the "slippery slope" theory and that all will go down hill.


They're not going to level 5 blocks of NYC housing and throw people out without due compensation. Its not likely that such a large portion of land is going to be taken especially if its apartments and densely populated with peoples but lets say for instance that the stadium project does cause something like this to happen. The government will MORE THAN compensate the peoples and arrange for living space if an apartment building was ever going to be knocked down.

Realistically they're not going to knock an apartment building down because it houses too many people, thus providing a large living space and being VERY BENIFICIAL to the community. The only way an apartment building would get leveled is if it was a ramshackle place that it was cheaper to knock down and move the occupants elsewhere. Space, especially in the city is very precious, so land simply will not be seized in a city like NYC for just any old reason. In a small town where there's no where else left to build and the community needs more commerce or to widen the roads to allow the transport of commerce than this is a more likely situation.

You seem to think that tomorrow the government is going to come knocking on your door, say "get out" and make you go on your merry way without compensation. Even if they do take your home because they deam the land to have a more worthy cause for something else, is it that god damn hard to take the money they give you and move? "But I want to live here...*grobble grobble grobble*" Well you should be so happy and lucky to live in a country where you can speak out against this and vote against an idea such as this.

People take too much for granted. Right now you're living on land that was either stolen from the Native Americans or Great Britain. Open your eyes.
 
Originally posted by reckedracing@Jun 24 2005, 11:51 AM
an individual should always come before $$$, profit, and corporations...


the gov't is by the people, and for the people, not by the rich for them to get richer...




Did you grow up in a poor family or town? It just seems as if its you against the rich and you're going to save the world!


You seem to think that the rich are against everyone. Nearly everyone wants to be wealthy, but not everyone can be.

The whole idea here is that if the land is more profitable or better suited to be used by some corporation or government institute then why should they not be able to seize the land.

Because you want the land? The land that was stolen from people before you? The land that was alotted by the government? The land that resides in the country that you live in, thus belonging to the country moreso than you?

You have no more right to that land than anyone else, if we're all equals here.
 
gov't institute, or roadway is WAY diffrent that taking land in the name of a corporation...

i also don't think the land should have been stolen from native americans... but how does that, in any way, relate to this discussion?

the rich are out to protect and grow their wealth, they do not want others to be rich cause they would lose their positions of power if everyone had an equal social status to them...

i have no grudge against the rich, but i think making decisions based on profit instead of people is absurd...

lets take for example shipping jobs over seas...
corp's want to sell their products to US people, but they do not want to employ US people because their labor is too expensive...

i think a company should be socially responsible, accept REASONABLE gains and provide the communities which they wish to sell to, with reasonably waged jobs...

sending a job to india or china, just to increase your profit margin, note i said INCREASE, seems to be very socially irresponsible to me...

people should always be valued higher than money... someone being able to feed their family, keep their house, and have a job to do all these things is more important to me than a corporation making a larger profit...

90% of wealth is in the top 10% of society in america... and the gov't and gov't officials are given money to get elected by these corp's and wealthy individuals, so they hand favors back to their generous donors...

this is not what the founding fathers wanted... senators that are basically paid representatives for big business instead of the people they are suspossed to be representing...


You have no more right to that land than anyone else, if we're all equals here.

so who gives corp's more rights to the land than individuals?
and saying its better for the community is socialism my friend...
 
Originally posted by reckedracing@Jun 24 2005, 12:22 PM


i also don't think the land should have been stolen from native americans... but how does that, in any way, relate to this discussion?


...because without that chain of events you would not be here. Be thankful.

the rich are out to protect and grow their wealth, they do not want others to be rich cause they would lose their positions of power if everyone had an equal social status to them...


You fail to understand money. There's a difference between nouveau riche (newly rich) and old money. Old money is not threatened by the newly rich because the newly rich have not lived a refined life, they have not made their money the old fashion way - inheritting it. So for all purposes, the newly rich will always be behind old money thus old money is not frightened by Bill Gates because he has not lived a cultured and refined life. Old money has a completely different psychological outlook than new money. There goes your theory.

i have no grudge against the rich, but i think making decisions based on profit instead of people is absurd...

It is based on the people. BENIFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY. It may not be benificial to the individual but is it logical to believe that you can please everyone? No, because its impossible, therefore if you can please the masses, go ahead and do so.

lets take for example shipping jobs over seas...
corp's want to sell their products to US people, but they do not want to employ US people because their labor is too expensive...

i think a company should be socially responsible, accept REASONABLE gains and provide the communities which they wish to sell to, with reasonably waged jobs...

sending a job to india or china, just to increase your profit margin, note i said INCREASE, seems to be very socially irresponsible to me...


So you mean like all the american car companies that we as Americans do not purchase cars from because they're not up to par with foreign cars? Except here's the kicker, they're not up to par with foreign cars because of labor unions in the United States costing far more than overseas. Foreign car makers are making profit 3 to 1 to American car makers.

You're up on your soapbox and demanding that we recognize the individual but you're saying that the "individuals" that run these big companies do not have a right to benefit in CAPITALIST America? You're going to limit their capabilities but not the capabilities of a "common person". With this outlook you have just accomplished exactly that opposite of what you seek to accomplish, you have alienated big businesses rights and made their rights take a back seat to the individuals. Is that fair? I think not.

Companies will continue to outsource because the cost of living in the United States is far more expensive than in foreign countries. The trend of making products in China has now shifted to Taiwan simply because China's living standards have increased and their cost of living has gone up, which in turn means wages must increase.

If you want to live in a capitalist society and be able to buy products for miniscule prices at places like Walmart than you must understand the consequences. Either pay top dollar for everything and not complain that one product is more expensive than another or bite your tongue.

Big business operates the way it does because the consumer will buy the cheapest product 9 out of 10 times. To manufacture the cheapest product and still have a profit margin you're going to have to cut costs, its just a fact of life.

You want your pie and to eat it too. Not happening.


people should always be valued higher than money... someone being able to feed their family, keep their house, and have a job to do all these things is more important to me than a corporation making a larger profit...

Then don't bitch that taxes keep increasing because of welfare. Infact, donate all the money you can so these people have better lives. Until then, you're a hypocrite and should keep quiet.

90% of wealth is in the top 10% of society in america... and the gov't and gov't officials are given money to get elected by these corp's and wealthy individuals, so they hand favors back to their generous donors...

this is not what the founding fathers wanted... senators that are basically paid representatives for big business instead of the people they are suspossed to be representing...


Wrong.

Last I checked, we the people elect our government officials, not big business. We as individuals cast the votes, not businesses. Businesses can attempt to sway things one way or another but so can individuals like Hollywood star. Thats an INDIVIDUALS RIGHT.

You want to limit the rights of big business that is run by a small elite group of INDIVIDUALS, you just won't call them that because they have power and money. So thus you're trying to limit the rights of wealthy individuals and give those rights to the common people.

I pose this question, why should the common people have more rights than the elite millionaires? ...because they're not rich? Thats fair... Your logic is flawed.

so who gives corp's more rights to the land than individuals?

The community as a whole because they vote on the most beneficial use of the land.

and saying its better for the community is socialism my friend...


And socialism my friend, is Utopian in ideal. When you say socialism you obviously relate it to communism. They're two ENTIRELY different ideas.

So whats wrong with a Utopian ideal, here?
 
...because without that chain of events you would not be here. Be thankful.

yea, that makes sense... i should be thankful that someone 300 years ago stole land from native americans?? do you think before you type?

if i weren't here then it would make no diffrence, cause i would have never known what here is like...

thankful my ass...

no, i do not fail to understand money... people that are rich want to stay rich, pure and simple... and everyone can;t be rich... my theory is solid...
the rich want to protect their wealth, fuck how they grew up, they want to stay rich...

so pleaseing the masses at the expense of the individuals right to own land???
that makes sense...
and how many of the masses are going to use a fucking day spa?

labor unions?? wtf are you talking about
a lot of foreign cars are manufactured here in the US, and foreign cars are better than US cars because they have higher standards for tolerances on parts... american cars are made with shitty parts, so they fail, so no one wants them...

there is a huge diffrence between a corporation profiting, and a corporation using the gov't to TAKE land so they can profit...
gov't taking land so the corp's can use it is not capitalism...
capitalism would be the corporations paying enough money to pursuade the people to leave their land... not taking it from them...
corp and the individuals that run them should play by the same rules as every other individual... if i want your land i can't tell the gov't to take it from you so i can use it... so why should a corp be able to do that?

and you;re telling me that products are going to be so much more expensive if they are made here in the US? i don;t think so... perhaps the corps could be a little less greedy with their profit margin and then we can have our pie and eat it too...

have you ever heard me say one thing about the percentage of taxes? ever?
a better idea would be to stop using taxpayers money to pay for illegal wars and giving corps huge bonuses for raping the taxpayers in the ass with price gouging...
then there would be enough for decent education and all the social programs you would ever need...

so me not donating all my money to the poor makes me a hypocrite how??

how am i limiting the rights of big business? by not letting big business TAKE land from people? yea, thats limiting their rights... :blink:

The community as a whole because they vote on the most beneficial use of the land.

no the supreme court said local officials can decide how to use the land... i would not have a problem with their ruling if they said let the people vote on how the land should be used...


and no, i do not relate socialism to communism, in fact i would much prefer a non corrupt socialist society to a capalist sociaty anyday...
 
Alright, no further comment.

Ignorance is bliss.

You're set in your ways and can't open your eyes.

I think you're way off base and think the world is against you and most of your logic is flawed, but thats my .02cents.

:worthy:
 
The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300 million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property tax revenue.


hmmm, who buys upscale houses, and who uses a marina???

But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go. One of them, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.


this is the kind of thing no one can put a price on...

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."


He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.

"Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects," he wrote.


exacerbate these effects... does that sound like "slippery slope" theory cause it sure sounds like it to me...
 
Honestly I think what the supreme court did was set precedence for the states and communities to be able to make these kind of choices on their own. As far as individual rights go, I guess the question becomes where is the limit? If we respect the individual right to own property absolutely, then it is the individual's perogative to keep up slums and violate county code enforcement laws? No, because they are aware of these laws (municipal codes) and it can effect the property value and quality of life of their neighbors. That said there are states where eminant domain is illegal, and by living in a state where it is legal, you are effectively giving up your chance of avoiding that.
All of that said, I think that the community, citizens and civic leaders, are better able to make these decisions than the federal court. This decision, in my eyes, opens up the ability for communities to rule on these issues.
The notion that we have certain inaliable freedoms is a delusion. We recieve liberties because of our living in the absence of liberty. As i recall from my business law class, it even says somewhere in the constitution that our rights are not absolute. That said I can see the appropriation of private land, by way of government's use of eminant domain, for private business as being at times immoral. If that is the case it becomes the responsibility of the citizens of that area to change things for the better. While negative use of eminant domain may only effect 3% of the population of an area, if you can make the rest realize that its more than an individualized issue than its easy to rally people to your side. In our area we have had three recall campaigns within the past decade, instituted, funded, and supported by volunteers, for representatives who did not fulfill the will of the community. If it can happen in the area i live in, it can happen anywhere.
 
Honestly, if the bible thumpers would stop being dicks about it and let this casino/resort go through then that would be a ton in payments "in lieu of taxes" to the tune of 17 mil (at least) in the first 5 or 6 years. That aside we do have an industreal sector that has been bought up and is in the process of development (i know for sure warehousing but other things as well). Linda is predominantely service industry oriented, and as such has a number of service related business setting up (a&w opened up recently, and sonics is on the way). The Plumas lake specific plan has a few shopping areas in it as well. Both marysville and wheatland are incorperated so they are sorta doing their own thing. Olivehurst is in the process of incorperation as well, with 2007-08 set as the goal time.
Of course the fact that we're becoming a bedroom community to sacramento will bring in money from property taxes as well.
 
It's bullshit. I'm with John. Unless you convince me with money, I'm not leaving.
 
Back
Top