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 149
    More: Sad, Thames River, U.S. Supreme Court, New London  
•       •       •

23597 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2014 at 2:27 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-20 10:47:35 AM
Having worked on software that was used by local jurisdictions to determine/collect property tax....keep in mind that the value of your property used in the calculation is basically meaningless.  This is how it works:

1.)  The city decides how much money they want.
2.)  The city 'assesses' the value of every parcel of land.
3.)  They divide the amount they want to get / all the land and call that the Mill Levy.

So, when property prices were dropping, a lot of people would get upset that the city said their house was worth $400k instead of $350k.  What they didn't get was, the city didn't care.  They could cut appraisals in half and call it $200k.  The Mill Levy would double and your tax bill would be the same.

Any time the city adjusts your value for you, rest assured, you aren't getting a discount - because they are adjusting everyone else's value too.  If the whole market is down (which is how it almost always goes) everyone's value goes down, and the mill levy goes up.

The only time you actually 'win' is when you get the value of your property reduced on it's own.  That never happens unless you fight about it with the city.  Right after you move in you've got a good chance of arguing it down.

Our system had a built in 'auto return to the mean' feature.  So if you buy a former crack-house for 100k in a neighbourhood where the other houses are 200k - the city will bill you as if your place is worth 200k.  If you fill out the paperwork and show that you paid 100k and that the property is in horrible condition and only worth 100k, they will accept it and make your value 100k.  The next year, the software will see your property as under appraised and automatically move it 20% towards the median value in your neighborhood.  Even if you have improved your house in anyway.  In five years, it's back to 200k.

The way most jurisdictions value properties are based on comps or comparables.  Those are similar houses that have been sold, and the amount they were sold for.  Since most houses aren't crack houses, they'll find one with the same beds/baths sq. footage and use those to deny your claim that the super-poor quality of your home should reduce the price.  If you REALLY stick to your guns - instead of 200k, you might end up with 185k for a few more years.

There is no way to win.
 
2014-03-20 10:49:55 AM

give me doughnuts: karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?

So you don't wind up with things like this:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


static1.stopklatka.pl

or this...
 
2014-03-20 11:04:06 AM

BMFPitt: They didn't favor the states over the federal government. They favored all levels of government over the people.



To reiterate, I agreed with the dissentng opinion, and am unhappy with the ruling. But the ruling did not ban restrictions on ED in any way. It just stated that the implicit limits of ED were smaller than most people assumed, and the Federal Government would not overrule the states' decisions on the matter.

Consequently, the net result was a strengthening of explicit protections against ED in most states.

I would have preferred that the explicit protection was enacted from the federal level, but this was not the truly disastrous ruling that people are making it out to be.

Rik01: 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'


In fact, if the above is accurate, if the law is ever challenged, Kelo could be used as stare decisis to strike the law down. Which law is it, by the way, these are the only enacted candidates since Kelo I could find, and they don't seem to address what you claim they do?

http://www.opencongress.org/issues/defunct/4981_eminent_domain?filte r= enacted
 
2014-03-20 11:09:19 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.


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

That's in the U.S. Constitution.

It's why the conservatives on the SCOTUS were actually correct on this one.

Eminent domain can be a necessary tool for local governments in building roads, rails, drainage, sea walls, etc.  But it shouldn't be used because a corporation doesn't want their new building located next to poor people.
 
jmf
2014-03-20 11:10:45 AM
We should use eminent domain all the time, with one slight modification...  When Pfizer wants to tear down a neighborhood of tenements and replace them with high end condos, they should then give the condos to the residents of the tenements that were torn down.
 
2014-03-20 11:11:18 AM

devildog123: It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


Why is that "hilarious"?  Basing one's views on the merits of the case and the law rather than which team is winning is bad or hypocritical or something, in your view?

That you found this "hilarious" says a lot more about you than than it does about "Farkers", dude.
 
2014-03-20 11:13:20 AM

Cubicle Jockey: To reiterate, I agreed with the dissentng opinion, and am unhappy with the ruling. But the ruling did not ban restrictions on ED in any way. It just stated that the implicit limits of ED were smaller than most people assumed, and the Federal Government would not overrule the states' decisions on the matter.


There was no "federal decision" involved, unless you're referring to the 5th Amendment, which the majority wiped their assess with.

Consequently, the net result was a strengthening of explicit protections against ED in most states.

That's one way of saying that 30 states reiterated what everyone understood the law to be for centuries prior to the decision.

I would have preferred that the explicit protection was enacted from the federal level, but this was not the truly disastrous ruling that people are making it out to be.

I think the level of disaster is being downplayed.
 
2014-03-20 11:16:42 AM

Aulus: Here's a lesson in corporate think.


stoppedreadingthere.tga
 
2014-03-20 11:18:49 AM

PunGent: TerminalEchoes: 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?

It's best to appreciate Pocket Ninja's posts as a unique art form, rather than a direct commentary on whatever the matter at hand is.

Some of them are uniquely beautiful, once you get in the proper mindset...I've got him color-coded mind-bending purple, so I don't accidentally take his performance art in a matter-of-fact way.


Oh yea, that is some classic PN wordsmithing!

/Also coincidentally Opposing views is a POS website.
//The double irony is the joke.jpg
 
2014-03-20 11:19:17 AM

deadlyplatypus: Securitywyrm: 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.

Not only that, but it assumes "fair market value" for someone who is already WILLING to sell their property, which they obviously aren't since the gov. is using E.D. to take it.  People who want to keep things always ask (and deserve) MORE for things that they want to keep. This is completely ignored.  You should get some sort of "bonus" percentage of the value on top of the "fair market value" for every year you lived there or owned the property to make up for sentimental value/equity/trouble in moving. Instead they put a figurative gun to peoples' heads and say "you'll sell it to us at the price WE say is fair, not what YOU would ...



Or to boil it down to a super-simple analogy... your pants are worth $30. I am going to eminent domain your pants and take them, and give you $30. You now have no pants and have to go to the store to buy some, all without pants. You have to carry your wallet because you have no pants. Then you find that they no longer make the pants you like and all the other pants are $40. Eventually you settle for an old beat-up pair of pants that is $30... but then there's sales tax. You have no pants. NO PANTS!
 
2014-03-20 11:21:11 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.


Monorail?
 
2014-03-20 11:34:22 AM
In Illinois, they've passed new laws to make Eminent Domain easier, and effectively prevent owners from staying the seizure in court.

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/illinois-passes-quick-take-fo r- illiana-expressway/article_7ad81295-221e-5040-9d65-7d16b869e1fc.html

From the above link: "If the property owner does not accept the appraised price, the state can take the land. The property owner can then head to court to argue about the price but not the taking of the land itself."

The above article refers to a newly proposed tollway that no one can seem to decide how to fund... but this also pertains to something called the "Peotone Airport".

This also leads to other fun topics involving Fark-favorite Jesse Jackson Jr. and private investors with allegedly suspicious backgrounds. Then on to  the BloombergSuperPAC-funded replacement for JJJ, Robin Kelly, and her apparent comfort with Quick-Take & Eminent Domain.

There seem to be a number of parties anxious to seize property for questionable benefit in that area.
 
2014-03-20 11:35:53 AM
Not sure which is worse, the OV link or the fact that it is a Joe Jacoby article.

Both should be smashed in the face.
 
2014-03-20 11:36:51 AM

Snort: Not sure which is worse, the OV link or the fact that it is a Joe Jacoby article.

Both should be smashed in the face.


Erm, Jeff Jacoby.

Back to drinking for the NCAA Playoffs!
 
2014-03-20 11:40:07 AM

KellyX: give me doughnuts: karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?

So you don't wind up with things like this:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

[static1.stopklatka.pl image 600x354]

or this...


Or this:
i723.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-20 11:54:59 AM

Ficoce: Igor Jakovsky: As someone whose grandparents lost the family home and land to eminent domain i kind of despise it the government takes it for public works purposes but still cant believe the Kelo decision. For the government to take your land and give it to a PRIVATE entity legally is still astonishing.

Forsyth technical college in winston salem is built on top of what was the family homestead. Our family got screwed in compensation imo.

That blows. As I look out over my .2 acre empire I think about the 1500 acres a few miles away that used to be the family homestead. In my case, I think the problem was the guys in my family couldn't keep their fly's zipped.

They always lowball on emanate domain. Wonder what would happen if they approached you with a dollar number for your property and you went the residual route. Like you counter their offer with, "That's too much money. How about a third of your offer upfront and 1% of the pretax gross the property produces for 4 generations or 100 years, whichever comes first, regardless of ownership." These guys have a mindset of greed and privilege - they might just fall for a royalty counter. On one hand It might end up an empty lot for a while, but your kids might love you - or a Walmart, MDonalds, and strip mall could be built by next year. I'd be like, Emanate Domain! Hell Yeah!


Just did a gis of the college and the old family homestead probably wouldnt have survived progress. Suburbia seems to have taken over the area. Probably wouldnt be such a great place to live anymore even if we hadnt lost the land to the gubment. It would have been nice though if my great grandparents could have lived out the remainder of their years in their own home rather than the apartment they ended up in.
 
2014-03-20 11:57:34 AM

Securitywyrm: deadlyplatypus: Securitywyrm: 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.

Not only that, but it assumes "fair market value" for someone who is already WILLING to sell their property, which they obviously aren't since the gov. is using E.D. to take it.  People who want to keep things always ask (and deserve) MORE for things that they want to keep. This is completely ignored.  You should get some sort of "bonus" percentage of the value on top of the "fair market value" for every year you lived there or owned the property to make up for sentimental value/equity/trouble in moving. Instead they put a figurative gun to peoples' heads and say "you'll sell it to us at the price WE say is fair, not what YOU would ...


Or to boil it down to a super-simple analogy... your pants are worth $30. I am going to eminent domain your pants and take them, and give you $30. You now have no pants and have to go to the store to buy some, all without pants. You have to carry your wallet because you have no pants. Then you find that they no longer make the pants you like and all the other pants are $40. Eventually you settle for an old beat-up pair of pants that is $30... but then there's sales tax. You have no pants. NO PANTS!


And your hypothetical person had to change their name to Peter Pantsless. Your analogy did make me chortle fwiw.
 
2014-03-20 11:58:13 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.


www.awsm.com
 
2014-03-20 12:00:49 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: I have a simple 1-2-3 solution:

1. Return ED to it's previous incarnation.
2. Replace the home you are taking with another of equal USE* to the family you are screwing.
3. Pay for their moving expenses

This will of course never happen because politicians are evil. [FULL STOP]

*USE in this context refers to same number of features that the family enjoys at their current home (bedrooms, bathrooms, community type, school type, shopping access, pool (if applicable), etc... same value does not necessarily give them the same thing they are loosing if it's in a different neighborhood (esp. if they choose to move out of state - and yes you will have to cover that too)

/end of line


Also, introduce high fines to the company if eminent domain is used but the land is not developed for the same or very similar purpose. A "you wasted everyone's time and money" fine which will hopefully encourage them to think of other actions first.
 
2014-03-20 12:01:32 PM

The_Mad_Dutchman: 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!


On the flip side of this, the working poor (read:  me and most of the people I know) are not being gouged by outrageously inappropriate property tax bills every year.  Before this law was implemented, it wasn't uncommon to see a property tax bill of $1000 on a trailer that was only worth, perhaps, $12,000 dollars.  What this law did was keep the poor from being soaked for owning a home.  Here in Ft. Wayne, we saw no service cuts or cuts to public safety as a result, but the savings to the general populous was quite substantial.  So, yeah... Go Indiana!
 
2014-03-20 12:02:48 PM
I like how at the end local politicians said it will be a "black stain" on the community. No shiat ya greedy farks, but it was classy of them to put up a plauqe for the person who died during the case. I wonder if any of the politicians involved are still in office?
 
2014-03-20 12:22:02 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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.


I agree, the problem is that anything and everything is for the good of the community if the proper palms are greased.

I think when most people say things like this, what they really mean is, "It's okay for government to have this power as long as it's not misused." which is kind of like saying that it's okay if Paris Hilton is made president as long as she takes the job seriously.
 
2014-03-20 12:34:38 PM
For the record, most of the 'politicians' involved at the time were spouses and friends of Pfizer board members. This was the first case I ever read in law school, and have followed the fallout ever since. It's just...disgusting.
 
2014-03-20 12:37:34 PM
It's always amusing when people refer to America as a Christian country that has freedom of religion. We absolutely have a state religion, and this is its symbol:


                                                              $
 
2014-03-20 12:43:23 PM

Cubicle Jockey: BMFPitt: They didn't favor the states over the federal government. They favored all levels of government over the people.


To reiterate, I agreed with the dissentng opinion, and am unhappy with the ruling. But the ruling did not ban restrictions on ED in any way. It just stated that the implicit limits of ED were smaller than most people assumed, and the Federal Government would not overrule the states' decisions on the matter.

Consequently, the net result was a strengthening of explicit protections against ED in most states.

I would have preferred that the explicit protection was enacted from the federal level, but this was not the truly disastrous ruling that people are making it out to be.

Rik01: 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'

In fact, if the above is accurate, if the law is ever challenged, Kelo could be used as stare decisis to strike the law down. Which law is it, by the way, these are the only enacted candidates since Kelo I could find, and they don't seem to address what you claim they do?

http://www.opencongress.org/issues/defunct/4981_eminent_domain?filte r= enacted


I agree, there was an upside to this ruling. A lot of states immediately did the right thing to prevent this kind of thing. It's one of the few times a knee-jerk reaction has been a good thing.

And I also agree that the Kelo ruling could be used to overrule an ED claim. In the ruling, it states that it applies to this one situation; and whether or not this situation turns out well will determine how they rule on a similar issue in the future. Kelo was a test case, and if it resulted in a net poitive for the greater good (the greater good) then the court would be more likely to side with the government.

However, given how poorly it's turned out, any future cases like this will likely side with the property owner.
 
2014-03-20 12:45:32 PM
paygun:
I agree, the problem is that anything and everything is for the good of the community if the proper palms are greased.


something something former president something something sports stadium something something Texas
 
2014-03-20 01:27:55 PM

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.


TY
 
2014-03-20 01:32:05 PM

Texas Gabe: KellyX: give me doughnuts: karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?

So you don't wind up with things like this:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

[static1.stopklatka.pl image 600x354]

or this...

Or this:
[i723.photobucket.com image 555x427]


or this...

corbettharrison.com
 
2014-03-20 01:35:06 PM
Karma's a biatch ain't it. :)
 
2014-03-20 02:16:21 PM

Aulus: Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve.


False premise.  Capitalism serves the owner's financial interest and nothing else.
 
2014-03-20 02:19:31 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.


I never understood the liberal hate for this.  Fark ProgressivesTMwasnt more government and generally against the conceptanof private property this was diffidently more government and anti-property rights
 
2014-03-20 02:39:36 PM

hasty ambush: 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.

I never understood the liberal hate for this.  Fark ProgressivesTMwasnt more government and generally against the conceptanof private property this was diffidently more government and anti-property rights


The 'government' that approved this land-grab was made of individuals who would benefit...
 
2014-03-20 02:45:16 PM

Githerax: Aulus: Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve.

False premise.  Capitalism serves the owner's financial interest and nothing else.


Yeah, but the entire concept of Capitalism is that once you've prevented fraud and theft, if I want to get rich, I have to provide you with something that you value more than your money.

And so if I'm worth $1 Billion, it's because the difference between "Value to you of thing I sold" and "Money it cost me to make it" is $1 Billion.  And that's a LOT of value-added.  So assuming that you can prevent cronyism and corruption (and fraud, theft, etc, etc.  We're talking a much more ideal capitalist system than is ever capable of existing).

So my best interest is your better interest or I don't get any of your money.

/Besides, be honest.  If given a choice between late 1980's Soviet Russia or the 3rd worst neighborhood in Detroit, which would you pick?  Heck, if you're not allowed to live in Moscow or St. Petersburg, I'll drop down to 2nd worst.
 
2014-03-20 03:08:27 PM

hasty ambush: I never understood the liberal hate for this. Fark ProgressivesTMwasnt more government and generally against the conceptanof private property this was diffidently more government and anti-property rights


because  liberals want social service programs for the poor and a tax structure that benefits the middle class instead of the very wealthy it means they also would support this kind of ruling?
 
2014-03-20 03:17:04 PM

Allen. The end.: hasty ambush: 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.

I never understood the liberal hate for this.  Fark ProgressivesTMwasnt more government and generally against the conceptanof private property this was diffidently more government and anti-property rights

The 'government' that approved this land-grab was made of individuals who would benefit...


You mean like the Justices of the Supreme Court type individuals?

If I understand it correctly part of the rational behind this travesty was that government ( always a force of good in liberal eyes) could take the private property (with compensation) of some individuals and give it to other individuals whose development and use of it would generate more revenue for government (again always a good thing  according liberals) than had it been left with the original owners, thereby serving the greater good meaning justified under Eminent Domain.
 
2014-03-20 03:20:53 PM
clancifer:

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.

That's my cousin to a tee. He's an active, screaming, crazy libertarian whose entire family (wife, him, father, grandfather) all were government employees of some kind or other.
 
2014-03-20 03:33:50 PM

deadlyplatypus: BMFPitt: Possibly a Top 10 worst SCOTUS decision ever.

Pretty close to the top, though it'll be hard for anything to beat the overreach and implications of  Wickard v. Filburn.

/I'm only counting court decisions that still stand.
//Overturned ones have been "corrected."


Scott v. Sandford was never actually overturned.
 
2014-03-20 03:42:31 PM

This text is now purple: deadlyplatypus: BMFPitt: Possibly a Top 10 worst SCOTUS decision ever.

Pretty close to the top, though it'll be hard for anything to beat the overreach and implications of  Wickard v. Filburn.

/I'm only counting court decisions that still stand.
//Overturned ones have been "corrected."

Scott v. Sandford was never actually overturned.


I'd say that the 13th Amendment put that to rest.
 
2014-03-20 03:43:49 PM

This text is now purple: deadlyplatypus: BMFPitt: Possibly a Top 10 worst SCOTUS decision ever.

Pretty close to the top, though it'll be hard for anything to beat the overreach and implications of  Wickard v. Filburn.

/I'm only counting court decisions that still stand.
//Overturned ones have been "corrected."

Scott v. Sandford was never actually overturned.


The 13th Amendment would like a word with you.
 
2014-03-20 06:08:10 PM
If you hate this stuff, remember blame liberals who supported in at the time, while conservatives opposed it and look at who voted for it on the Supreme Court

Voted For
upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org

Voted Against

upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-20 06:42:23 PM

Geotpf: karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?

If you want to build a:

1. Road
2. School
3. Power line
4. Sewage Treatment Plant
5. Retaining wall to prevent erosion
6. Similiar governmental uses

...sometimes you need to use such a process.  Especially for roads.  Otherwise, one guy could hold up an entire freeway project if his house was in the middle of where it was supposed to go.

It shouldn't be used for commercial development, however.


Understood, but that last line is the real point.  Eminent domain has outlived its usefulness.  The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.  I can see some legitimate cases still cropping up here and there, but they should be far and few between compared to, say, 50 or 60 years ago.  And turning residential into commercial for private enterprise by force is immoral and should be illegal, full stop.
 
2014-03-20 06:46:30 PM

karmachameleon: The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.


So just in case you think I'm farking with you, it's currently 3:42 here on the West Coast and these are screenshots from Google maps.

img.fark.net

img.fark.net

Yeah, if the highways are built, it's time to build mass transit, and if the mass transit is built, they did a shiatty farking job.  And we should be building more mass transit (that's preferably at least as fast as a car with no traffic).
 
2014-03-20 07:03:51 PM

meyerkev: karmachameleon: The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.

So just in case you think I'm farking with you, it's currently 3:42 here on the West Coast and these are screenshots from Google maps.

[img.fark.net image 424x431]

[img.fark.net image 643x358]

Yeah, if the highways are built, it's time to build mass transit, and if the mass transit is built, they did a shiatty farking job.  And we should be building more mass transit (that's preferably at least as fast as a car with no traffic).


Fair enough, but again, that's not what the issue is here.  Eminent domain should be extremely strict, and that's not how SCOTUS ruled.
 
2014-03-20 07:13:25 PM

karmachameleon: meyerkev: karmachameleon: The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.

So just in case you think I'm farking with you, it's currently 3:42 here on the West Coast and these are screenshots from Google maps.

[img.fark.net image 424x431]

[img.fark.net image 643x358]

Yeah, if the highways are built, it's time to build mass transit, and if the mass transit is built, they did a shiatty farking job.  And we should be building more mass transit (that's preferably at least as fast as a car with no traffic).

Fair enough, but again, that's not what the issue is here.  Eminent domain should be extremely strict, and that's not how SCOTUS ruled.


Yeah, fair enough, agreed, but you're saying that eminent domain in it's entirety is wrong.

karmachameleon: Eminent domain has outlived its usefulness.  The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.


And I'm calling bullshiat.

Hell being a little bit TOO over the top would let us redo mass transit in the Bay to be good*, and maybe get some functional mass transit in this state.

*Assuming that the chucklefarks at the various agencies didn't fark it up.  I've never been quite so sympathetic to Tea Partiers as when I read about the clusterfark that is HSR/Caltrain/BART/VTA planning.  "You spent HOW MUCH?  On the PRE-STUDY for WHAT?  And it'll be ready WHEN?  Why do I pay taxes again?"
 
2014-03-20 07:24:30 PM
Well, to be fair, I could think of a lot of neighborhoods where it would be "for the betterment of the community" if they were turned into vacant lots.
 
2014-03-20 07:33:24 PM

meyerkev: Yeah, fair enough, agreed, but you're saying that eminent domain in it's entirety is wrong.


No, I'm not.  I asked the question and got answers that made me see some legitimacy to it.  So that's fine, it's needed in some cases where the public good far outweighs private ownership.  But things like what are described in this article should never, ever happen.  And it did, and that sucks.
 
2014-03-20 09:23:31 PM

jedihirsch: If you hate this stuff, remember blame liberals who supported in at the time, while conservatives opposed it and look at who voted for it on the Supreme Court

Voted For
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x330][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x287][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x280]

Voted Against

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x334][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x303][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]


Every one of the justices that voted for that bullshiat needs to be kicked in the dick. Especially that guy with the green earrings!
 
2014-03-20 09:57:46 PM
I love how farkers react when the big powerful government they want undeniably shows its true nature. A partnership with select corporations screwing over ordinary people largely for the sake of doing so.
 
2014-03-21 10:24:09 AM

meyerkev: karmachameleon: The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.

So just in case you think I'm farking with you, it's currently 3:42 here on the West Coast and these are screenshots from Google maps.

[img.fark.net image 424x431]

[img.fark.net image 643x358]

Yeah, if the highways are built, it's time to build mass transit, and if the mass transit is built, they did a shiatty farking job.  And we should be building more mass transit (that's preferably at least as fast as a car with no traffic).


The highways weren't built/finished. They are horrendously incomplete if you see the original transportation plans. All that red you see is from bottlenecks in the system because travelers are forced onto 1-2 roads in areas that were planned to have several more. Our current Gov (when he was in power in the '70s) and his dad thought we didn't need to finish them.
 
Displayed 49 of 149 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