Anyone who believes that they actually own their property need only look at their tax bill every year. You lease it from the government, pure and simple.

Sounds like SOCIALIST POLICY to me....

choad wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Sounds like SOCIALIST POLICY to me....

Wait, does that make phreddy a commie?

It makes everyone who drives on a public road or visits a public building a commie.

phreddy wrote:

choad wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Sounds like SOCIALIST POLICY to me....

Wait, does that make phreddy a commie?

It makes everyone who drives on a public road or visits a public building a commie.

Well, if you take advantage of such Socialist Contraptions, Public Water, Public Fire Department, Police Department, Public Roads, Public Schools, Munincipal Airports, and all the other accouterments of THE SOCIALIST AGENDA, then maybe you are SOCIALIST, or even COMMIE!

phreddy wrote:

I could be talked into privatizing all of those, but I couldn't stand the whining about paying for private educations and toll roads.

How eager the right-wing is to grab for profit what was built on the hard work of the populace.  The country became successful by working together, the corporate elitist have convinced the idiots on the right that they should sell off the sovereign wealth and rent it back.  Little do the fools know they only sell off the very greatness of this nation.

Gets my gander how the position themselves as the patriots yet neither serve nor share.

phreddy wrote:

I won't defend abuses of eminent domain because I know they happen, but there is another side to the story.  Imagine your town wants to build a road, or tear down a bunch of obsolete and vacant industrial buildings, or clean up the slums.  And one asshole refuses to sell out for a reasonable price.  Or, maybe a bunch of them get together and extort millions from the town for a few pieces of property..  Under Eminent Domain law you can argue the price, but you can't argue the  taking. The law provides for the owner to be paid fair compensation at the appraised value of the property.  Eminent Domain is absolutely necessary or your town is stifled.

In theory, that is how it's supposed to work. But with the Supreme Court ruling on the "Kelo vs. New London" case, guess what! Any corporation can now grab your property simply by claiming by doing so it will "create jobs." After all, as anyone can tell you nowadays, it's the government's duty to "create jobs," right? And so-called "fair compensation" is whatever the public officials along with the local banks (none of who'd ever even think of taking any kind of under-the-table compensation by said corporation, of course) say is fair compensation.

Aude wrote:

phreddy wrote:

I won't defend abuses of eminent domain because I know they happen, but there is another side to the story.  Imagine your town wants to build a road, or tear down a bunch of obsolete and vacant industrial buildings, or clean up the slums.  And one asshole refuses to sell out for a reasonable price.  Or, maybe a bunch of them get together and extort millions from the town for a few pieces of property..  Under Eminent Domain law you can argue the price, but you can't argue the  taking. The law provides for the owner to be paid fair compensation at the appraised value of the property.  Eminent Domain is absolutely necessary or your town is stifled.

In theory, that is how it's supposed to work. But with the Supreme Court ruling on the "Kelo vs. New London" case, guess what! Any corporation can now grab your property simply by claiming by doing so it will "create jobs." After all, as anyone can tell you nowadays, it's the government's duty to "create jobs," right? And so-called "fair compensation" is whatever the public officials along with the local banks (none of who'd ever even think of taking any kind of under-the-table compensation by said corporation, of course) say is fair compensation.

Not so Aude.  This case simply confirmed the existing practice of governmental entities using eminant domain for projects that will eventually be owned by private companies.  Yes, private developers get involved in the redevelopment projects, but it is the government who takes the property, compensates the owner, and justifies the taking.  If the local voters do not want their city, county, or state to use E.D. as a tool for redevelopment, they can end the practice.  Many redevelopment agencies in California do not have the right of E.D. because the citizens didn't want them to have it.