If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Eight years ago these people lost their homes so that developers could build something "for the betterment of the community." Let's check in and see how the community has been improved   (opposingviews.com) divider line 148
    More: Sad, Thames River, U.S. Supreme Court, New London  
•       •       •

23605 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2014 at 2:27 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 11:27:40 PM
I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.
 
2014-03-19 11:40:52 PM
And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.
 
2014-03-19 11:53:57 PM

devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


Meh. It was crazy for sure. Nothing compared to the registered libertarian I once saw whose entire family income was courtesy of the federal government. Now THAT was crazy.
 
2014-03-20 12:01:19 AM
"Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?
 
2014-03-20 12:13:29 AM
Non OV Link

/sad tag for OV making its unwelcome return
 
2014-03-20 12:21:02 AM
Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.
 
2014-03-20 12:31:06 AM

cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.


Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.
 
2014-03-20 12:36:41 AM

DanZero: /sad tag for OV making its unwelcome return


No sh*t, that was my first thought. I'd been thinking we were done with that site.
 
2014-03-20 12:43:31 AM

TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.


Necessary evil, you mean?
 
2014-03-20 12:57:04 AM

TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.


The permission for eminent domain should have to be decided by a grand jury type of body.
 
2014-03-20 02:30:15 AM
On of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, Kelo literally attacks the principles that are the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights.
 
2014-03-20 02:36:11 AM

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

The permission for eminent domain should have to be decided by a grand jury type of body.


From my POV in California, anything that makes NIMBY's even more powerful and infrastructure more expensive and harder to use is BAD.

/For all, by all.  You don't get to gentrify via eminent domain, you get to build the new mass transit and let gentrification naturally happen.
 
2014-03-20 02:40:16 AM

cman: TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Necessary evil, you mean?


Yeah, and so's the draft. It should only be used for things that really really matter, and the affected should be richly compensated.

A "better business climate" most certainly doesn't qualify. Kelo was an utterly shiat decision, I don't give a shiat if Jesus himself wrote it.

I like the grand jury idea, even though that can still be gamed.
 
2014-03-20 02:43:04 AM

fusillade762: "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?


Because that's how these weasels work the system.


1.  build in a crappy area because you can get the land cheap.
2.  once your site is built, biatch about the crappy neighborhood and push to have it changed/re-zoned.
3.  get your way, have it re-zoned and hit with eminent domain so your site is worth more.
4.  sell for ungodly profit
5.  go elsewhere and repeat.
 
2014-03-20 02:54:50 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.


Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?
 
2014-03-20 02:57:40 AM

Aulus: fusillade762: "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?

Because that's how these weasels work the system.


1.  build in a crappy area because you can get the land cheap.
2.  once your site is built, biatch about the crappy neighborhood and push to have it changed/re-zoned.
3.  get your way, have it re-zoned and hit with eminent domain so your site is worth more.
4.  sell for ungodly profit
5.  go elsewhere and repeat.


 You forgot to beg township/county for tax exemptions/reimbursements for "bettering the community" and jerbs.
 
2014-03-20 03:02:18 AM

Frederick: The permission for eminent domain should have to be decided by a grand jury type of body.


Or, I dunno, maybe it could be something that would have to be passed by the legislature, signed by the executive, and survive a challenge in the courts.

Wait a sec! That's exactly the system that we had, up until Midkiff abdicated the role of the courts and deferred all judgment about what was and wasn't a public use to the political branches.

Yes, I said Midkiff, not Kelo.  Midkiff was the decision that screwed over eminent domain law in this country, but no one in the media cared because that case was about the government stealing land from the rich to redistribute to the poor.  That decision was cheered in the media.

http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1369 &c ontext=urbanlaw
 
2014-03-20 03:07:53 AM
"Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution."  - Justice Thomas, Kelo v. New London

I have a coffee mug with this quote on it.
 
2014-03-20 03:08:23 AM
Chavez Ravine in LA. Bought it out, tore down the houses, were supposed to build low income housing that the previous residents would have first shot at getting, city agency was accused of being run by communists, and then magically some big businessmen built Dodger Stadium on it instead. Still a black mark on Los Angeles and reason enough to root for the Angels.
 
2014-03-20 03:13:50 AM
So, Pfizer failed to have an erection on this occasion? I hear they have a pill for that.
 
2014-03-20 03:19:36 AM

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


I OPPOSE THIS VIEW!
 
2014-03-20 03:19:58 AM

Talondel: Yes, I said Midkiff, not Kelo

Berman v. Parker?
 
2014-03-20 03:23:42 AM
It reminds me when my city got into the "We can take their property lol" action. There was a very large and mostly empty lot with a single store on it, the local game and hobby store. It was where all the scout troops, model builders and tabletop gamers got their supplies and it was the "hub" of those communities. On the far end of the lot were some old beat-up houses, the kind with scrap sheet metal used as fencing (and not in the 'artistic' way). Then a developer said that if the city gave him the land, that he'd bring an entire Whole Foods market to the lot. The city was thrilled at the tax revenue prospects and promptly used the domain law and took the gaming shop. The nice old couple that ran it were unable to open a new shop with the paltry sum that the city forced them to take. Then the city went to domain the ramshackle houses on the far side, and it turned out they were owned by the same person who owned half the car dealerships in the city. He said that if ANY of his property was taken, he'd move ALL of his dealerships out of the city. The crappy houses were suddenly allowed to stay.

It gets worse

Eventually one of the city council actually called Whole Foods to congratulate them on their choice to move to the town and send them a gift basket. Their reaction: "Uh... we have no plans to open a store there." It turns out the "developer' was just a fraudster who was hoping the city would straight-up give him the land (which it almost did) so he could sell it and walk away with the money.

Ten years later, the land (Which is in the heart of the town on the 'main' road, surrounded by other commercial development) is still empty. Nobody will buy it because they know what happened to the last owner.
 
2014-03-20 03:28:48 AM

cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.


I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."
 
2014-03-20 03:32:19 AM
Pocket Ninja:
I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.

Vote with the wallet and don't pay for TF.
Well, actually, you probably remain sponsored 100% of the time now that I think about it...
But yes, one of Fark's revenue streams is from copy/pasta news aggregates like Gawker
 
2014-03-20 03:32:21 AM

Elmo Jones: Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


Yes, mine dropped quite a bit in Los Angeles. Over the course of about 4 or 5 years, it dropped from $550K to about $400K. One of those good thing/bad thing situations.
 
2014-03-20 03:34:47 AM
http://spiritplumber.deviantart.com/art/Zero-Tolerance-427102917  This is what I post every time there's a retarded zero-tolerance story. Fortunately, it is a dramatization of something that really happened to me. My dad kicks ass.
 
2014-03-20 03:37:22 AM
This is an America worth fighting for, so my vote is to send more troops overseas, ASAP.
 
2014-03-20 03:39:59 AM

spiritplumber: http://spiritplumber.deviantart.com/art/Zero-Tolerance-427102917  This is what I post every time there's a retarded zero-tolerance story. Fortunately, it is a dramatization of something that really happened to me. My dad kicks ass.


Wrong thread I think
 
2014-03-20 03:45:50 AM

hervatski: spiritplumber: http://spiritplumber.deviantart.com/art/Zero-Tolerance-427102917  This is what I post every time there's a retarded zero-tolerance story. Fortunately, it is a dramatization of something that really happened to me. My dad kicks ass.

Wrong thread I think


Yeah, apologies.
 
2014-03-20 03:47:41 AM
Seems to me that if they hadn't spent so long fighting it it would have been finished before the crash. That'll teach them to fight city hall.
 
2014-03-20 03:50:50 AM

Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."


Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.
 
2014-03-20 03:52:34 AM

devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


Well it just goes to prove the 2establishment parties are about protecting the establishment machine.
 
2014-03-20 03:55:15 AM

Elmo Jones: TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


Mitch Daniels, his big business cronies, and Republican majorities in both houses managed to push through "Property Tax Reforms" here in Indiana that amounted to removing several ways municipalities assess property value, and for good measure capping all property taxes at a 1%, 2%, or 3% rate depending on your property. I know the assessed value of my property dropped about $3,000 when it went through. It did a good job of slashing millions out of the operating budgets of every town, city, and county, resulting in large public safety and service cuts. But hey, Eli Lilly gets to pocket a few extra million at the end of the year! Go Indiana!
 
2014-03-20 03:58:11 AM

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


welcometofark.jpg and stuff.
 
2014-03-20 03:58:46 AM
Here's a lesson in corporate think.

Fifteen years ago, Osco Drug decided Des Moines was ripe for a head to head attack on Walgreens. They proceeded to put up big, monster drug stores within 3 or 4 blocks of every Walgreens in the area of Des Moines and its suburbs. One is about 10 blocks from where I live. In order to do this, they and their crack legal team strong armed the city council (don't even get me started on what a bunch of wusses they are) into condemning a quarter of a city block so they could put in their store. This meant displacing 6 small businesses, several of which were "mom & pop" operations with out the realistic means to resist or effectively relocate and who had been in the same location for over 20 years, two private homes and major alterations to one side street.


In one of the suburbs, they proceeded to tear down a building holding doctors' offices on a nice rolling hill. They tore into the front of the hill to created a winding driveway up the hill that turned out to be well near impossible to safely use in the winter. It also had to be closed off entirely after a year, as it was done so poorly that the face of the hill by it threatened to slide into the six lane street it fronts. It also changed the drainage patterns of the whole block, making for wet street conditions most of the spring and fall and icy all winter.


Three years later, Osco declared it was all a mistake. They were losing money hand over fist to Walgreens. They stated all the stores would close in 30 days. Two of the six stores would be sold to Walgreens, the others would just close and they hoped they could find buyers. One sat empty until this winter. All prescription records were dumped on Walgreens. Customers were told to go there to get their records. At the time of the announcement, one of the local TV stations did a story on the closing. They had the usual smarmy sound bite from the corporate spokesperson who tried to spin it so it would make Osco look ever so responsible. Then it got ugly.


At the end of the piece, in the studio, the reporter had a little addendum to the piece. After they had interviewed the corporate shill, they interviewed an employee. The employee stated she was sad the store was closing. She said she really liked working at Osco. She liked the pay. She liked the benefits. She liked the hours. She liked her boss. She was really sorry Osco was going as it was going to be hard to find as good a place to work as Osco. After the inteview, the corporate shill approached them both. She told the employeee and the reporter that if the interview with the employee was aired, the employee would be fired that day, she would get no severence pay and no help in finding another job, as had been promised to all employees. This for saying nice things about her employer.


For years, the city was stuck with four empty stores, each taking up a quarter of a block. The windows are covered over with wrapping paper. The parking lots filling with blown in trash and debris, the grass strips in front unmowed. This is coprorate morality at its worst. These are bully boy tactics.
Of course, you can say that it is just an example of the people choosing who wins and who loses by means of where they chose to shop. It is more than that. It is predatory retail marketing that does not give a damn for the consequences. I suppose that this makes me some anti-capitalist liberal. BFD. I am not. I am very much for capitalism. Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve. I find very little in this sorry history that commends Osco. Instead, it condemns it. I am sure that the usual crowd will come up with a plethora of excuses for Osco's actions. Still, to any one with a conscience, it is wrong, stupid and if not immoral, at least amoral.
 
2014-03-20 04:14:21 AM

Mitrovarr: Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."

Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.


In the past, wealthy developers (or companies like Pfizer) would have to negotiate directly with each home owner for the property.  After the city or town approved the building of a major project, the property owners would jack up the asking price for their homes.  Thanks to Kelo, the developer or business can simply negotiate a bulk deal for all of the homes with local politicians, leading to unfair negotiations and inviting corruption.  One would argue that the home value one minute before the city approved the project was substantially less than one minute after.  So the tax asesment does not reflect the market price. Some states have banned Kelo type eminent domain actions, others have not.
 
2014-03-20 04:38:21 AM
The final triumph of privatization.
 
2014-03-20 04:47:31 AM

wildcardjack: So, Pfizer failed to have an erection on this occasion? I hear they have a pill for that.


ladies and gentlemen, i believe we have a winner.
 
2014-03-20 04:55:04 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool


Would you please explain why?
 
2014-03-20 05:01:24 AM

Mitrovarr: Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."

Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.


The core problem of "Fair market value" is that it neglects all the costs of moving. Let's say you have a little house that is appraised for $250,000. The government uses eminent domain on your property and gives you $250,000. However there are no other properties within a hundred miles for sale for $250,000, or even remotely in that range. Looks like you're farked.
 
2014-03-20 05:13:19 AM
cman

Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.


So nice to hear a rational voice shining through the darkness of stupidity like a beacon.

Emanate domain originally was set up to be used by the Federal Government in times of great need. Like moving out all of those hill folks who lived in the valley which would later be flooded by a great dam -- the object of which was to generate cheap power for thousands (which it did), provide more irrigation for local agriculture (which it did) and provide jobs as well as homes for the thousands of workers during the Great Depression (which it did).

However, only a few years ago, Congress, pressured by special interest groups, passed a bill which increased the use of Emanate Domain by local city governments for the 'benefit of their communities' -- meaning, the rich can steal your land and you can't do anything about it. Taking your land no longer has to be 'For The Good of the Nation' but for the good of the greedy.

I'm surprised the public didn't raise hell about it when the new version of the law came out. People were actually kinda quiet about it all instead of rising in rage and threatening lawsuits and refusing to vote certain congressmen back in.

They probably won't unless their homes come in danger of being bulldozed because their city needs an over priced parking lot.

You don't see these million dollar homes along assorted predominate beaches being bulldozed to put in a shopping mall. Rich folks have the means to throw highly paid lawyers at the city leaders and tie them up in expensive litigation for decades. Plus, big campaign checks will go to someone else.
 
2014-03-20 05:45:18 AM
As much as I disagree with taking land from private citizens to give to corporations, SCOTUS made the right call.

They said the constitution doesn't prevent the practice, but that the individual states have the right to pass laws preventing this practice. Since this decision, a number of states have passed laws making this practice illegal.

If you're in favor of States Rights, it's hypocritical to criticize this decision.
 
2014-03-20 06:03:48 AM

RandomRandom: As much as I disagree with taking land from private citizens to give to corporations, SCOTUS made the right call.

They said the constitution doesn't prevent the practice, but that the individual states have the right to pass laws preventing this practice. Since this decision, a number of states have passed laws making this practice illegal.

If you're in favor of States Rights, it's hypocritical to criticize this decision.


Oh, you and your reason, and thinking, and stuff. You must be some kind of liberal.
I want to be outraged at the gummint, dammit!
 
2014-03-20 06:48:16 AM
Seizing residential property so private developers can get rich building more expensive residential property on the site is wrong and should be a crime.  Period.

What's to stop me from taking your house to build a nicer house on your lot when property values have risen?  I mean, after all, the public would benefit from the higher property taxes that would be collected.....
 
2014-03-20 06:48:35 AM
It's quite a feat to have made New London even more of a shiathole than it already was.
 
2014-03-20 06:49:06 AM

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


So instead of actually making a comment about the issue, you instead attack the website that posted it. Utterly worthless, you say?
 
2014-03-20 06:57:14 AM

Elmo Jones:  Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


Yes, California in the '70s passed Proposition 13, lowering property taxes. I remember when that happened, because suddenly the free after-school programs all got cut.

With nothing constructive to keep us latch-key kids occupied, we all turned to hoodlinism, where we remain today.


i102.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-20 06:58:11 AM

Aulus: Here's a lesson in corporate think.

Fifteen years ago, Osco Drug decided Des Moines was ripe for a head to head attack on Walgreens. They proceeded to put up big, monster drug stores within 3 or 4 blocks of every Walgreens in the area of Des Moines and its suburbs. One is about 10 blocks from where I live. In order to do this, they and their crack legal team strong armed the city council (don't even get me started on what a bunch of wusses they are) into condemning a quarter of a city block so they could put in their store. This meant displacing 6 small businesses, several of which were "mom & pop" operations with out the realistic means to resist or effectively relocate and who had been in the same location for over 20 years, two private homes and major alterations to one side street.


In one of the suburbs, they proceeded to tear down a building holding doctors' offices on a nice rolling hill. They tore into the front of the hill to created a winding driveway up the hill that turned out to be well near impossible to safely use in the winter. It also had to be closed off entirely after a year, as it was done so poorly that the face of the hill by it threatened to slide into the six lane street it fronts. It also changed the drainage patterns of the whole block, making for wet street conditions most of the spring and fall and icy all winter.


Three years later, Osco declared it was all a mistake. They were losing money hand over fist to Walgreens. They stated all the stores would close in 30 days. Two of the six stores would be sold to Walgreens, the others would just close and they hoped they could find buyers. One sat empty until this winter. All prescription records were dumped on Walgreens. Customers were told to go there to get their records. At the time of the announcement, one of the local TV stations did a story on the closing. They had the usual smarmy sound bite from the corporate spokesperson who tried to spin it so it would make Osco look ever so responsible. Then it got ugly.


At the end of the piece, in the studio, the reporter had a little addendum to the piece. After they had interviewed the corporate shill, they interviewed an employee. The employee stated she was sad the store was closing. She said she really liked working at Osco. She liked the pay. She liked the benefits. She liked the hours. She liked her boss. She was really sorry Osco was going as it was going to be hard to find as good a place to work as Osco. After the inteview, the corporate shill approached them both. She told the employeee and the reporter that if the interview with the employee was aired, the employee would be fired that day, she would get no severence pay and no help in finding another job, as had been promised to all employees. This for saying nice things about her employer.


For years, the city was stuck with four empty stores, each taking up a quarter of a block. The windows are covered over with wrapping paper. The parking lots filling with blown in trash and debris, the grass strips in front unmowed. This is coprorate morality at its worst. These are bully boy tactics.
Of course, you can say that it is just an example of the people choosing who wins and who loses by means of where they chose to shop. It is more than that. It is predatory retail marketing that does not give a damn for the consequences. I suppose that this makes me some anti-capitalist liberal. BFD. I am not. I am very much for capitalism. Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve. I find very little in this sorry history that commends Osco. Instead, it condemns it. I am sure that the usual crowd will come up with a plethora of excuses for Osco's actions. Still, to any one with a conscience, it is wrong, stupid and if not immoral, at least amoral.


Same exact thing happened here, but it was USA Drug instead if Osco. Walgreens brought most if the stores because they where less than 2 years old. The others where sold on the cheap.
 
2014-03-20 07:00:40 AM
Yeah, using eminent domain to zone in non-infrastructure private developments has always been dodgy, and by "dodgy" I mean that like 95% of Americans consider it completely and unambiguously morally unacceptable.

// I specify "non-infrastructure" because tollways and power plants are reasonably legitimate uses of eminent domain even though the government is usually only part-owner.
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report