Eminent-domain strikes again, I dare you to defend it. - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Marvelous Marv · 06-26-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ah my post returns from the dead.

Look at the judges who voted for this horrible abuse of power.

Guess what 'side' of the political fence they are on.

Fucking typical.

This is indefensible, un-American, and I would expect such rulings only from a fascist or communist nation.

This is the quintessential precedence of the government being superior to the citizens it serves.

The fact that this is allowed by LOCAL governments only makes it more abusable and horrific in nature.

As an American I am disgusted.

What a unique discussion. The conservatives, thought to be in the pocket of the fat cat developers, abhor this decision.

The leftists, sticklers for individual freedom, applaud the taking of private property.

And those who despise the thought of drilling in the ANWR, and who want to confiscate all SUVs, are suddenly very concerned that our highway system is top-notch.

Hardknock · 06-26-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You know the SC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they uphold a local law (which this case was about) the citizens cry "how could they, liberals"..... Screw that. It's and excuse to not have to go about getting the local law changed by petitions and ballot.

Easier to blame everything on those libs.... instead of saying "well, fuck I guess we need to get off our fat asses and change the laws."

Then the SC is damned if they overturn a local law..... "how dare those fucking Libs, tell us what laws we can or cannot have." Instead of getting off your fatasses, figuring out what part of the law is illegal and rewriting it.

Jesus, it's not brain surgery people. The SC basically tells you in their summations what problems exist and it's up to you to change them.

It's bullshit to say they are legislating.... all they do is look at the laws as how they are on the book and make a ruling. Don't like the ruling.... change the laws so that they abide by what is constitutional. Stop fucking taking the easy way out and blaming "those libs" or those "neo-cons".... Blaming is just laziness and wanting to hate someone instead of working to change things.

You make a very excellent point. As hurtful as it may be to read this, I agree with you 100%. We americans are a bunch of fat lazy fuckers. We want everything yesterday. We always take the easy road. And when something doesn't go our way, we try to place on the blame elsewhere instead is standing up and taking responsibility for out actions. Or non-action in this particular case. The SC only interprets law. They don't legislate from the bench. The look at the law and apply it to the situation and rule on it. That's all they do. We, (yes that included you too) need to stand up and tell our "representatives" that this shit don't fly. If they wont represent us like they are elected to do, then boot their asses.

flstf · 06-28-2005, 04:20 PM

I guess the SP ruled correctly since eminent domain is the law. I wish it wasn't at least not the ability to take land from one private citizen and give it to another.

But if government has the ability to take from one and give to another at least the party losing the property should be given just compensation (fair market value). A $100,000 home in the way of a new Wal-Mart should be worth millions.

trickyy · 06-28-2005, 06:08 PM

Souter may be looking for another home soon...

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Quote:

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

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

i'm skeptical that it will go through, but it's interesting to see someone trying to do this.

DEI37 · 06-28-2005, 07:08 PM

I'm not fully (or even partially) versed in eminent domain, but I will say that in most case, especially this one, that it's a load of hooey. I like the one quote, back on page one, where the city officials said they were doing the renovations in the "HOPE" of improvements. That's bullshit, 110%. You had best NOT hope it's gonna improve the city. You better KNOW 130% that it WILL.

On the topic of "just compensation," giving someone market value for their home is ridiculous. My house was given a FMV (Fair Market Value) of just under $80,000. If I'm offered $80,000, what does that do for me? Not much, really. It gets me out, and that is it. It doesn't pay to find another place, doesn't pay for the time off from work that will be required to search, inspect, and do all the final closing on a new place, nor does it pay for the place that I have to stay between residences.

I realize that there is probably a time frame given, but, in extenuating circumstances, it may not be enough time. What then? If a person has to find land, then build a house, that takes a bit longer yet.

My opinion on the matter is this...I understand the provison to take, with just compensation. However, if the evictee isn't wanting nor willing to sell, or move, then the local government can do no more. Forcing a sell would constitute some such crime that I can't think of a name for...either way, it's bad. Theft, it would almost amount to. If a government wants land, they can go about it like us common folk do. If they don't like it, that's too bad. If E-D needs to be invoked, just compensation needs to equal FMV for the residence, plus a percentage of a year's wages, plus compensation for time living in an apartment, plus the downpayment to a new home, plus another 15% of that overall total for the inconvenience. Maybe more.

I'll go away now, before I get too worked up, and get myself in trouble. At least you know what I think.

On trickyy's article above, I do find that ironic, really. As much as I dislike the whole general idea of E-D, this would kick ass! Get bit by the law/decision that you approved!

Elphaba · 06-28-2005, 07:49 PM

There are far more knowledgable folks than I that could look into Freestarmedia, but that article looks like a sophisticated hoax. Nothing at Snopes as yet.

Addition: C'mon folks..."Lost Liberty Hotel" sounds legitimate?

pan6467 · 06-28-2005, 08:03 PM

This court ruling is that IF your local government allows private eminent domain then it is legal.

That being the case if your community VOTES to have or HAS laws that already state you cannot do that....... then that law is upheld also.

So if your area doesn't have a law protecting you, go out get petitions signed and get it on the ballot and vote to pass it. That way you have nothing to worry about.

Blaming the SC is freaking easy and what the Right wants so that they have a rubber stamp in all 3 branches and can do whatever they want.

The Right finds fault in every ruling now because THEY want public opinion to hate the SC and blame the SC for everything.

The 10 Commandment ruling.............. what was wrong with that .... truly what was wrong with it? Constitutionally the government CANNOT show favoritism to one religion over another. Putting the 10 Commandments up and then other Judeo Christian symbols without any other religion represented is in fact government showing favoritism toward a religion.

They did not say a private company could not have walls with nothing but religious artifacts on them..... just government buildings..... and yet the Right wants you to believe the SC is just whacked out and trying to take God out of everything.

So why are they playing to the fears of the people? Why are they making these rulings more than what they truly are? One has to truly wonder.

Hardknock · 06-28-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I guess the SP ruled correctly since eminent domain is the law. I wish it wasn't at least not the ability to take land from one private citizen and give it to another.

But if government has the ability to take from one and give to another at least the party losing the property should be given just compensation (fair market value). A $100,000 home in the way of a new Wal-Mart should be worth millions.

One would think. In reality however, most likely you would only get the last appraised value from the county treasurers office. Usually, that number is below fair market value.

Hardknock · 06-28-2005, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

This court ruling is that IF your local government allows private eminent domain then it is legal.

That being the case if your community VOTES to have or HAS laws that already state you cannot do that....... then that law is upheld also.

So if your area doesn't have a law protecting you, go out get petitions signed and get it on the ballot and vote to pass it. That way you have nothing to worry about.

Blaming the SC is freaking easy and what the Right wants so that they have a rubber stamp in all 3 branches and can do whatever they want.

The Right finds fault in every ruling now because THEY want public opinion to hate the SC and blame the SC for everything.

The 10 Commandment ruling.............. what was wrong with that .... truly what was wrong with it? Constitutionally the government CANNOT show favoritism to one religion over another. Putting the 10 Commandments up and then other Judeo Christian symbols without any other religion represented is in fact government showing favoritism toward a religion.

They did not say a private company could not have walls with nothing but religious artifacts on them..... just government buildings..... and yet the Right wants you to believe the SC is just whacked out and trying to take God out of everything.

So why are they playing to the fears of the people? Why are they making these rulings more than what they truly are? One has to truly wonder.

Beucase that's all the right is good for. They prey on the fears of everyone to justify their actions. Whether it's Iraq, 10 commandants, telling people that they'll die if they vote for Kerry, or anything else. They're just so power hungry it's sickening.

Marvelous Marv · 06-29-2005, 05:35 AM

Well, I don't see that anyone else has posted this yet. Sure hope it's not a hoax.

Link

Quote:

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

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

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com

sapiens · 06-29-2005, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Well, I don't see that anyone else has posted this yet. Sure hope it's not a hoax.

Link

There's a thread on the article here

06-28-2005, 04:20 PM	#83 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I guess the SP ruled correctly since eminent domain is the law. I wish it wasn't at least not the ability to take land from one private citizen and give it to another. But if government has the ability to take from one and give to another at least the party losing the property should be given just compensation (fair market value). A $100,000 home in the way of a new Wal-Mart should be worth millions. Last edited by flstf; 06-28-2005 at 04:22 PM..

06-28-2005, 07:08 PM	#85 (permalink)
DEI37 Go faster! Location: Wisconsin	I'm not fully (or even partially) versed in eminent domain, but I will say that in most case, especially this one, that it's a load of hooey. I like the one quote, back on page one, where the city officials said they were doing the renovations in the "HOPE" of improvements. That's bullshit, 110%. You had best NOT hope it's gonna improve the city. You better KNOW 130% that it WILL. On the topic of "just compensation," giving someone market value for their home is ridiculous. My house was given a FMV (Fair Market Value) of just under $80,000. If I'm offered $80,000, what does that do for me? Not much, really. It gets me out, and that is it. It doesn't pay to find another place, doesn't pay for the time off from work that will be required to search, inspect, and do all the final closing on a new place, nor does it pay for the place that I have to stay between residences. I realize that there is probably a time frame given, but, in extenuating circumstances, it may not be enough time. What then? If a person has to find land, then build a house, that takes a bit longer yet. My opinion on the matter is this...I understand the provison to take, with just compensation. However, if the evictee isn't wanting nor willing to sell, or move, then the local government can do no more. Forcing a sell would constitute some such crime that I can't think of a name for...either way, it's bad. Theft, it would almost amount to. If a government wants land, they can go about it like us common folk do. If they don't like it, that's too bad. If E-D needs to be invoked, just compensation needs to equal FMV for the residence, plus a percentage of a year's wages, plus compensation for time living in an apartment, plus the downpayment to a new home, plus another 15% of that overall total for the inconvenience. Maybe more. I'll go away now, before I get too worked up, and get myself in trouble. At least you know what I think. On trickyy's article above, I do find that ironic, really. As much as I dislike the whole general idea of E-D, this would kick ass! Get bit by the law/decision that you approved! __________________ Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

06-28-2005, 07:49 PM	#86 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	There are far more knowledgable folks than I that could look into Freestarmedia, but that article looks like a sophisticated hoax. Nothing at Snopes as yet. Addition: C'mon folks..."Lost Liberty Hotel" sounds legitimate? Last edited by Elphaba; 06-28-2005 at 07:52 PM..

06-28-2005, 08:03 PM	#87 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	This court ruling is that IF your local government allows private eminent domain then it is legal. That being the case if your community VOTES to have or HAS laws that already state you cannot do that....... then that law is upheld also. So if your area doesn't have a law protecting you, go out get petitions signed and get it on the ballot and vote to pass it. That way you have nothing to worry about. Blaming the SC is freaking easy and what the Right wants so that they have a rubber stamp in all 3 branches and can do whatever they want. The Right finds fault in every ruling now because THEY want public opinion to hate the SC and blame the SC for everything. The 10 Commandment ruling.............. what was wrong with that .... truly what was wrong with it? Constitutionally the government CANNOT show favoritism to one religion over another. Putting the 10 Commandments up and then other Judeo Christian symbols without any other religion represented is in fact government showing favoritism toward a religion. They did not say a private company could not have walls with nothing but religious artifacts on them..... just government buildings..... and yet the Right wants you to believe the SC is just whacked out and trying to take God out of everything. So why are they playing to the fears of the people? Why are they making these rulings more than what they truly are? One has to truly wonder. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"