Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2005 General Board Posts >> 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
        
(Message started by: notseinfeld on Jun 28th, 2005, 1:27pm)
Title: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by notseinfeld on Jun 28th, 2005, 1:27pm
Grab your ankles Americans--it's all over but the shooting.

FREEPORT TEXAS WASTES NO TIME

Well, let's give credit to the Mayor and city officials of Freeport, Texas.  They sure recognize an opportunity when it presents itself.  These political predators didn't wait 24 hours after the Supreme Court's eminent domain decision before they struck .. .with a vengeance.  

Freeport officials have now ordered their city attorneys to prepare the documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property owned by two seafood companies.  One of the seafood companies, a shrimp processing plant that has been there for well over 50 years, will have to cease business and close.   While the seafood company owners are frowning, there's a big smile on the face of Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He can now use the government to seize some property from a private landowner, and then buy that property from Freeport for a lot less than he would have had to pay the private owners.  He'll then get to proceed with his plan for a nice privately owned marina.

Only in America --- thanks to our Supreme Court.

more...  http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3240725
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by giffy76 on Jun 28th, 2005, 1:51pm
F--king @ss holes.
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by aprilbee on Jun 28th, 2005, 1:59pm
::)  
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Jimmy_B on Jun 28th, 2005, 2:07pm
[smiley=hurl.gif] I'm now officially sick. Mean people Corporations suck!
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Gator on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:00pm

on 06/28/05 at 13:59:39, aprilbee wrote:
::)  



Don't be so quick to roll your eyes, April.  There are only eight states in the country that have laws preventing or seriously limiting eminent domain abuse.  Oklahoma ain't one of them.  You could be served notice tomorrow that your home is going to be taken away from you and given to WalMart - who is a MAJOR offender in the E.D. abuse cases along with Sams, Costco and then there's the land developers.  No one is safe in their homes any more and it's going to get much worse before (if ever) it gets better.

US Senator Imhofe, US Congressman Lucas, State Senator Coburn and State Congresswoman Denney have already received letters telling them my feelings on the matter.
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by clarence on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:12pm
Absolutely incredible.

Mean corporations do suck...but remember that it is people that run those corporations, and it is capitalism that drives those people.  Its all about money.

Cannibalism.

Casey
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by alienspacebabe on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:18pm
Eminent domain is supposed to be used to convert private property into public property, with just/fair compensation.  Generally speaking, this newly-public property is used for purposes that benefit societal infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc).

Now the need/want for private economic development is sufficient for use of eminent domain.

This entire situation is highly disturbing.


Lizzie
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Gator on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:20pm

on 06/28/05 at 15:12:34, clarence wrote:
Absolutely incredible.

Mean corporations do suck...but remember that it is people that run those corporations, and it is capitalism that drives those people.  Its all about money.

Cannibalism.

Casey


You expect a corporation to try to get away with this.  You don't expect the nation's highest court to rule that private property rights established over 200 years ago are null and void because someone wants to build a friggin hotel.
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Marc on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:24pm

Quote:
I'm now officially sick. Mean people Corporations suck!


Put the blame where it belongs - the Supreme Court.  Liberal leaning judges voted for this ruling and conservative against.
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by clarence on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:31pm

on 06/28/05 at 15:20:34, Gator wrote:
You expect a corporation to try to get away with this.  You don't expect the nation's highest court to rule that private property rights established over 200 years ago are null and void because someone wants to build a friggin hotel.



True true.

I am astonished.

Casey
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by ghost62 on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:46pm
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html


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.
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Gator on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:58pm
I think this is an absolutely BRILLIANT idea and a very necessary monument to this courts's ruling.  It could also be the catalyst necessary to get the decision overturned.  If another case like this reaches the Supreme Court, they can overturn this decision and restore the 5th amendment.  

Hey, I can dream, right?
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by notseinfeld on Jun 28th, 2005, 4:01pm
Ghost you rock!---This is great news in light of the tragedy. A silver lining, if you will.
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by burnt-toast on Jun 28th, 2005, 4:38pm
If everyone hasn't already written and called their Federal and State Reps/Senators - GET IT DONE.  -  The individual right to own property has been stolen by the Supreme Court.

This is only the beginning of the greatest corportate land grab in history.

Don't sit back an do nothing about this one because we've been pushed into Communism.

Tom

Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 28th, 2005, 7:16pm
Um, I dont really watch any "news" anymore cause the news in america has been cancelled, but i thought it was Congress that passed that law.  Then yesterday it was the supreme court ruling on the 10 commandments thing.
Maybe I'm wrong.  Too bad the news has been cancelled in favor of biased political agendas and crap.  Does anyone care about the runaway bride?  Michael Jackson on molestation case # what?  The Pope-A-Palooza?  Does anyone really care about this while the mastermind of 9/11 is still at large and American soldiers die daily and aren't even looking for him?
The news has been cancelled.
PF wishes
BMonee
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 28th, 2005, 7:21pm
Oh, and by the way, isnt this fascism?
Fascism is the combining of corporate and government interests, right?  So the judicial body of the US gov't voted to help the corporations, or the wealthy to get even richer.  Now, the big corporations and the wealthy elite are in bed with the government to squeeze the middle class even more.  
If i want to buy some property, i have to pay full price for it.  If an extremely rich person wants to buy land to build an investment, the Gov't just made it possible to purchase that land at a greatly reduced cost.
Go figure.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
BMonee
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Charlie on Jun 28th, 2005, 8:14pm
Good posts kids.

The thing is Liz that this ruling has taken away the idea that ED has to make sense or be somewhere near the ballpark of fairness.

Charlie http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/mad crowd.gif
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by burnt-toast on Jun 28th, 2005, 8:48pm
The question is what is everyone doing about it?

One of the most important rights in a free Republic - and one  the The Founding Fathers fought a revolution over is the right of individuals to own property.

5 Supreme court Justices just eliminated this right and made new law by interpreting 'taken for Public Use' in the 5th Amendment as 'taken for Private Purposes' if it increases the tax base.

Don't just worry about corporations - worry about idiot neighbors and local politicians who would rather see 20 new homes next to them instead of the 10 wooded acres or family farm you own and love.  If they - have the money you're gone.  
   
Now here's the kicker - New London residents correctly argued that the so-called financially beneficial development is in fact losing money = no benefit.  So the Justices also decided that developers need only show potential for financial benefit - the fact that the development may never be profitable is not relevent.

The Government now owns all lands and can evict any citizen(s) at any time.  In the justice system Local Government is always considered acting in good faith.   If landowner’s do not  want to leave or receive unfair offers they often lose more fighting a system with rules stacked against citizens.    

The floodgates are wide open for abuse through corruption, greed, and by local officials that simply don’t like you.

This is a serious decision that every American needs to take very seriously and find a way to get involved to reverse it.

Tom
 
   
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 28th, 2005, 9:21pm
i dont believe its an issue to prevent people from owning property.  Its just to allow lobbyists and wealthy people the right to force a person to sell prime real estate for substantially lower than market value.
This is just like when the USA built its highway, bridge and tunnel system.  If they wanted to build a highway right through your front lawn, they paid you $1 to purchase your land, then you had to fight a court battle to get fair market value for your land, but the legal fees bankrupted people.  
This is more geared toward the corporate interests and the wealthy.  The gov't can force you to sell your land for dirt cheap, then they sell it to a developer, lobbyist or wealthy donor.  This has nothing to do with government interests.  Its has to do with continuing to help the wealthy.
Like Thom Hartmann says "people think they make a couple hundred thousand a year and think they are rich, but you gotta be a multi millionaire, or billionaire before the republicans really take care of you".  How true that is.
PF wishes
BMonee
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by burnt-toast on Jun 28th, 2005, 10:16pm

on 06/28/05 at 21:21:15, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
i dont believe its an issue to prevent people from owning property.  Its just to allow lobbyists and wealthy people the right to force a person to sell prime real estate for substantially lower than market value.
This is just like when the USA built its highway, bridge and tunnel system.  If they wanted to build a highway right through your front lawn, they paid you $1 to purchase your land, then you had to fight a court battle to get fair market value for your land, but the legal fees bankrupted people.  
This is more geared toward the corporate interests and the wealthy.  The gov't can force you to sell your land for dirt cheap, then they sell it to a developer, lobbyist or wealthy donor.  This has nothing to do with government interests.  Its has to do with continuing to help the wealthy.
Like Thom Hartmann says "people think they make a couple hundred thousand a year and think they are rich, but you gotta be a multi millionaire, or billionaire before the republicans really take care of you".  How true that is.
PF wishes
BMonee


Wealthy is a revelent term - there are weathy in big cities and wealthy in rural communities.  They just happen to occupy every seat in the U.S. Senate and House, nearly every seat in every state governent and most seats in local government.  

My land is not for sale to any private developer for any amount.  Regardless - if "Houses "R" US" wants it they can now negatiate a price with local government, hand me a check and  my family has to leave - How is this not preventing individuals from owning property?

What if the "Prime Property" is a family's 200 year old farm with a house built in 1849 where generations were raised?  A developer can now steal the property through the local govenment and evict the family.  How is that not preventing individuals from owning property?

A small long standing community of well maintained houses is located on a penninsula jutting out into a river.  A developer can now steal the properties through local government, evict residents and build endless ugly condos.  How is that not preventing individuals from owning property?

Tom    
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 28th, 2005, 10:53pm
People can buy any property that is for sale.  In all the cases you mentioned, people owned property, and after the government steals it and gives it to a developer, they will still go purchase a different property.  If you are unlucky enough to get screwed by the government that is for the people by the people, you can just go purchase some more property.
I sincerely hope that as referenced in this thread earlier, that developer gets Souter's home and turns it into a hotel.  That would be great Karma.  And i sincerely hope that Souter loves that home with all his heart and it has tremendous sentimental value and gets knocked with a wrecking ball.
Talk about eating your own dog food
PF wishes
BMonee
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Gator on Jun 28th, 2005, 11:00pm

on 06/28/05 at 20:48:26, burnt-toast wrote:
The Government now owns all lands and can evict any citizen(s)it's subjects at any time.
 
   



Here, I corrected this line for you.  When the government has this much control, we are no longer citizens.
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by burnt-toast on Jun 29th, 2005, 1:18am

on 06/28/05 at 23:00:13, Gator wrote:
When the government has this much control, we are no longer citizens.


You're absolutely right - What was I thinking?  Hard to grasp the concept of no longer living in a free Republic.

Tom


Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by stevegeebe on Jun 29th, 2005, 8:35am
Another twist on the proposed hotel would be to submit a request to the National Park Service to have Mr. Souter's house placed on the Historic Registry.  

The developer could include the building in the Master Plan and obtain tax credits from the government to assist in the financing of the project.

"Live Free or Die"....  How ironic!

Steve G
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by ExplodingEyeBall on Jun 29th, 2005, 9:04am

on 06/28/05 at 19:21:45, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
BMonee


This hangs above my bosses desk in our shared office. I've been looking at it every day for 5 years now. And it becomes more true every day
http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b5d808b3127cce9222adb876b800000016108EZs2rJy0ba
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Jimmy_B on Jun 29th, 2005, 9:22am

on 06/28/05 at 15:24:28, Marc wrote:
Put the blame where it belongs - the Supreme Court.  Liberal leaning judges voted for this ruling and conservative against.


By and large...yes you're correct. I do put the blame on the Supreme Court. But I put most of the blame on the tie-breaking Moderate Justice Kennedy...who seemed to bow out and sell himself to the Special interests. He has always seemed opposed to this type of legislation...but then voted with Stevens, Souter, Breyer, & Ginsberg. [smiley=huh.gif]
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by aprilbee on Jun 29th, 2005, 10:38am

on 06/28/05 at 15:00:07, Gator wrote:
Don't be so quick to roll your eyes, April.  There are only eight states in the country that have laws preventing or seriously limiting eminent domain abuse.  Oklahoma ain't one of them.  You could be served notice tomorrow that your home is going to be taken away from you and given to WalMart - who is a MAJOR offender in the E.D. abuse cases along with Sams, Costco and then there's the land developers.  No one is safe in their homes any more and it's going to get much worse before (if ever) it gets better.

US Senator Imhofe, US Congressman Lucas, State Senator Coburn and State Congresswoman Denney have already received letters telling them my feelings on the matter.

Gator,
THAT is exactly what I was rolling my eyes at....I agree 100% with you!!  ;)
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by notseinfeld on Jun 29th, 2005, 4:00pm
If we, the people, fail to find a peaceful way to change the government, the only other option I see is civil war. I am not willing to surrender my property to private business interests and any attempt to take my property will be met with the appropriate force.

Let's just hope the opposing artillery finishes me off b/c CH and bullet wounds make for a very unsavory pair.
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by ghost62 on Jun 29th, 2005, 4:32pm
I have to agree with my voices I have an entire platoon  ;;D ;;D ;;D
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Marc on Jun 29th, 2005, 5:46pm

Quote:
But I put most of the blame on the tie-breaking Moderate Justice Kennedy.


No offense, but I think that most of the blame rests with all of people who ruled in favor of this, not just one individual who was a tie-breaker!

It's very interesting that so many people aren't facing the fact that the Liberal leaning judges just robbed the average American of their very basic rights.

What I've been hearing is a lot of "big, bad evil Republicans/Conservatives/Corporations are going to take my property!"  In my opinion, this is the most dangerous ruling to come out of the Supreme Court in at least 50 years – and it was very clearly done by Liberals – not Conservatives.

Marc
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Rock_Lobster on Jun 29th, 2005, 6:22pm
I am with you nots.  My resistance would be a bit more discreet/terrifying.  The developer / political sock-puppets / construction foreman / et al would perish at some future date which would coincide with my last day in the country.

This manner of shit is why the 2nd amendment exists.

 
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Rock_Lobster on Jun 29th, 2005, 6:25pm
Without getting into the political side of the argument, Marc is absolutely correct.  The liberal half of SCOTUS pulled this one off.

That said, they simply interpreted the constitution, which means it is in the hands of the states... which sadly for us means a group of 'easier to buy' politicos will be getting lots of donations from developers this fall.  
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by Jonny on Jun 29th, 2005, 6:36pm
Start gathering the militia!!!  [smiley=bigguns.gif]
Title: Re: 1st Eminent Domain Casualty after ruling
Post by burnt-toast on Jun 30th, 2005, 6:15am

on 06/29/05 at 17:46:56, Marc wrote:
No offense, but I think that most of the blame rests with all of people who ruled in favor of this, not just one individual who was a tie-breaker!

It's very interesting that so many people aren't facing the fact that the Liberal leaning judges just robbed the average American of their very basic rights.

What I've been hearing is a lot of "big, bad evil Republicans/Conservatives/Corporations are going to take my property!"  In my opinion, this is the most dangerous ruling to come out of the Supreme Court in at least 50 years – and it was very clearly done by Liberals – not Conservatives.


Mixed bag on this one - Greed/corruption crosses all political boundaries.  

5 of 9 Justices - Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy - (2 Liberals, 2 Conservatives, 1 Moderate) affirmed.  Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor (3 Conservatives, 1 Liberal/Moderate/Conservative) dissented.
 
The "Right" to own property is one of, if not the primary reason the American Revolution was fought, and one that Founding Fathers believed was key to a Free Republic.  Most Americans don't want to to understand that when government can grant and take away property at will - government has assumed the role of the King our founding fathers broke away from.      

I believe that most Americans today don't believe it affects them: I don't own property - So?

Doen't matter if you own 1,000 acres or a 1/4 acre tract in a plan - if a private entity can work the greed strings on a few politicians - you're out.  This is the most dangerous decison by the Supreme Court in this nations history.

We have been pushed into a Communistic state - The government now completly owns all property, Americans have a right to pay for and be taxed for it but we do not have a right to own it.    

The meda has been almost silent on this disasterous decison.  Why?  I've written my letters and made my calls to fed/state reps/senators.  I am asking everyone I know to do the same.  Every elected official has to know that there is growing outrage over this decision so that there is opportunity to reverse it and possibly impeach some Justices that have overstepped their authority.


P.S. By the way there can be only one F*ing King around here. ;)


Tom


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.