[acer]

Anyone else a bit worried that the highest court in the land just made it "OK" for a government to just take your land. So much for the constitution.

[schrocat]

Acer,
You know, at first I was outraged too.
But now I'm not so sure...

It's a Local and State issue ultimately.
The federal govt might come in and take your land for a park, or to expand a park, or maybe to add or remove access, expand interstate infrastructure...whatever, but they don't take the land to build shopping and office space, that is pretty much a local endeavor.

If the people think their leaders are grabbing land to enrich themselves or their friends without the public interest being the core of their activity...the people should respond at the ballot box and make it a third rail issue for all future candidates.

Eminent domain could be positive for some areas with large swaths of nearly abandoned neighborhoods (Detroit maybe?).
That being said, I'm a little suspicious when Connecticut water front property is taken from people to build office complexes.

I think we just have to wait on this one. If the developers abuse this tool, I would hope their cronies in city hall would be retired, their reputations stained, and that they become living warnings to future Boss Hoggs.

This SCOTUS clarification might actually help get people to go to future political events and ASK REAL RELEVANT QUESTIONS of their candidates.
It might get people to LOOK AT THE PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE to particular local candidates.

Or maybe try this time saving tip.
Find out who the most successful local zoning and land use attorneys are, which candidate they contributed to...and then don't vote for that guy.

[acer]

Your kidding right- your WERE outraged- are you really Ok with this obvious disregard for the constitition in it's most fundamental form. If it is a "local " matter- then say "no" . Rather, they opened up the "right" for local governments to take your land and defend themselves in court with a Sepreme court decision. How can a little guy defend himself against that??!! I thought the "little guy" was the main concern for the Democratic side of the ticket. HMMMM - guess not.

Originally Posted by schrocat

Acer,
You know, at first I was outraged too.
But now I'm not so sure...

It's a Local and State issue ultimately.
The federal govt might come in and take your land for a park, or to expand a park, or maybe to add or remove access, expand interstate infrastructure...whatever, but they don't take the land to build shopping and office space, that is pretty much a local endeavor.

If the people think their leaders are grabbing land to enrich themselves or their friends without the public interest being the core of their activity...the people should respond at the ballot box and make it a third rail issue for all future candidates.

Eminent domain could be positive for some areas with large swaths of nearly abandoned neighborhoods (Detroit maybe?).
That being said, I'm a little suspicious when Connecticut water front property is taken from people to build office complexes.

I think we just have to wait on this one. If the developers abuse this tool, I would hope their cronies in city hall would be retired, their reputations stained, and that they become living warnings to future Boss Hoggs.

This SCOTUS clarification might actually help get people to go to future political events and ASK REAL RELEVANT QUESTIONS of their candidates.
It might get people to LOOK AT THE PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE to particular local candidates.

Or maybe try this time saving tip.
Find out who the most successful local zoning and land use attorneys are, which candidate they contributed to...and then don't vote for that guy.

[Ninong]

Perhaps I should point out that schrocat is a registered Republican from a family of registered Republicans.

I don't agree with this latest decision on Eminent Domain. I think they went too far. This decision will benefit big corporations at the expense of the "little guy." At least they recognized that local governments can legislate restraints on the use of Eminent Domain. The only problem that I see with that is that the big corporations usually have more clout than the little individual property owner when he comes to influencing legislation at any level of government -- federal, state and local.

And, while we're on this topic, I should probably point out that seizure of property by federal, state or local governments (even the local school board) is provided for in the United States Constitution. It's in the famous Fifth Amendment. The one we usually think of when someone doesn't want to make self-incriminating statements.

The Fifth Amendment reads, in part:

"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The phrase "public use" is where I differ with this newest Supreme Court decision. Municipalities have been getting away with this for years and now the Supreme Court has given them the green light to continue. I believe it's one thing to seize private property to build a dam or a highway or even a public park, but I can't see giving local governments the right to seize private property just so they can sell it to a big corporation that will build something that generates a lot of tax revenue for that local government. That has been happening for years now and it appears that it will now pick up steam.

It started when cities decided to condemn large areas that were too rundown to rehabilitate. They simply condemned the areas, paid off the property owners and redeveloped the area into something nicer supposedly for the benefit of the community as a whole. Now it looks like you're out of luck if Pfizer offers your city council a bunch of money to seize your low income neighborhood to build a new research center. Or perhaps Wal-Mart thinks a new Super Center would look nice in your backyard.

[acer]

Hey Ninong-- WE agree then- the Democrats ( Liberal political judges) on the Supreme court Failed in their responsibility to protect citizens from big government and big corporations. I did not suggest in any way that Schrocat was a democrat or republican- their personal political affiliation is not relevant in this discussion. I was just astounded that he/she did not seem sure of their opinion regarding the topic. Looks like we have "something" in common after all.

[Ninong]

Should I point out that there are only two Democrats on the United States Supreme Court. The court is composed of seven Republicans and two Democrats. Three of those Republicans -- Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas -- are far right of center, three are centrist and one is left of center. The two Democrats on the court are Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The liberal leaning Republican is John Paul Stevens, who is 85 years old. I hope his doctor can keep him going for another 3.5 years.

[Ninong]

The Supreme Court decision expanding Eminent Domain was joined by three Republicans (Stevens, Kennedy and Souter) and two Democrats (Breyer and Ginsburg): http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/624...reme_Court.asp

You really can't hold the Democrats on the court responsible for anything because they can't do anything at all without at least three Republicans joining them.

As far as reversing Roe v. Wade is concerned, that would require that two justices other than Rehnquist retire. Replacing Rehnquist with another ultra-conservative justice won't matter because Rehnquist is one of the three justices known to favor overturning Roe. The other two are Scalia and Thomas.

If O'Connor, Rehnquist and Stevens all retire before the end of Bush's term, he might be able to get three new justices that would favor overturning Roe. On the other hand, he may not push things that far. I guess we will just have to wait to see what he does should the opportunity present itself.

[acer]

I guess you just couldn't leave it alone that we actually agreed on something. Senator Specter from PA is a "rebulican" as well- but in my opinon he is "far left" . THis is a perfect example of why I think Republican/democrat party affiliation doesn't mean that much. Joe Lieberman is right of Specter. Obviously - you missed the point : LIberal political activist Judges ( both Dem and Rep) just put a stamp of approval for the local governments to take away a home in order to increase taxes which they will then turn around and spend on their socialist projects, their salaries,etc . Sounds alot like Communism ( government decides and distributes goods,services,housing and they determine what is best for you)- at this rate we will be the "peoples republic of the united states" in a decade or two. I dont really have time to continue this dicussion with you Ninong - just wanted to make a comment on the "decision" - besides, last time you and I "got into it" you decided my comments "didn't add to the discussion" -so you deleted them and threatened me with being able to visit this site. I would rather not have that happen again as you are the MODERATOR ( kind of like the government authority who decides "what is in the best interest of the community"). So this will be my last reply to this thread unless someone else replies.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by acer

I guess you just couldn't leave it alone that we actually agreed on something. Senator Specter from PA is a "rebulican" as well- but in my opinon he is "far left" . THis is a perfect example of why I think Republican/democrat party affiliation doesn't mean that much. Joe Lieberman is right of Specter. Obviously - you missed the point : LIberal political activist Judges ( both Dem and Rep) just put a stamp of approval for the local governments to take away a home in order to increase taxes which they will then turn around and spend on their socialist projects, their salaries,etc . Sounds alot like Communism ( government decides and distributes goods,services,housing and they determine what is best for you)- at this rate we will be the "peoples republic of the united states" in a decade or two. I dont really have time to continue this dicussion with you Ninong - just wanted to make a comment on the "decision" - besides, last time you and I "got into it" you decided my comments "didn't add to the discussion" -so you deleted them and threatened me with being able to visit this site. I would rather not have that happen again as you are the MODERATOR ( kind of like the government authority who decides "what is in the best interest of the community"). So this will be my last reply to this thread unless someone else replies.

Acer,
Before you make conclussions on the long term tax local tax gains garnished by commercial replacement of a residential property (or properties) you need to check out the incentives offered to the developer.

Obviously it will vary everywhere.

Where I live, more and more major infrastructure seems to be "given away for free" to get businesses to come here (when it isn't neccesary). It takes a lot of "tax time" to get that money back.

Jax florida just legally lost millions to a developer who isn't even going to build downtown anymore.

Sorry you're so mad at me for pondering.
Next time I'll try to do better.

But since I come from a "land develop'n family" I'm afraid I'm a bit contorted on this one.
Can I get an extension?

[acer]

Wasn't "mad' - really just surprised- just thought it was an obvious situation to render an opinion about , but thought others could differ - you have pointed out possible reasons to ponder it.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by acer

I dont really have time to continue this dicussion with you Ninong - just wanted to make a comment on the "decision" - besides, last time you and I "got into it" you decided my comments "didn't add to the discussion" -so you deleted them and threatened me with being able to visit this site. I would rather not have that happen again as you are the MODERATOR ( kind of like the government authority who decides "what is in the best interest of the community"). So this will be my last reply to this thread unless someone else replies.

This is exactly why statements like this should be deleted- does not add anything to the discussion and IS a personal atack in nature. I can delete this part from your post for this very reason but I'll leave it for Ninong to decide. Any and all personal atacks on any member of the staff will not be tolerated, on any board.
Consider this as a warning that is coming not from Ninong.

[acer]

Hey Gene, look at my last statement to Schrocat- is that "politically correct" for you?

Originally Posted by zhenya

This is exactly why statements like this should be deleted- does not add anything to the discussion and IS a personal atack in nature. I can delete this part from your post for this very reason but I'll leave it for Ninong to decide. Any and all personal atacks on any member of the staff will not be tolerated, on any board.
Consider this as a warning that is coming not from Ninong.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by acer

Hey Gene, look at my last statement to Schrocat- is that "politically correct" for you?

Well, I don't see any problem with your response to Schrocat, difference in opinion should be just that a difference in opinion. All the other remarks as who;s a moderator and what not is what I was talking about.
The point is, lets try to be civil and understanding of all opinions and points of view.