Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Zutballs wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
I think if you asked a bunch of people the reason they moved to a certain location, "effective local government" would probably be about #27 on the list.

Look at my hometown, lil' ol' Las Vegas, home of the most corrupt local government in the history of the free world, yet 7000 people move here every month :?

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the only effective way to build a community is to seize private property and raise taxes.





but I don't think so

There's a big difference between a city that is having its "growth spurt" and a small town that is trying to stay competetive. And believe me, there is LOTS of eminent domain action going on in places like Las Vegas, it's just not tearing down people's family homes that were built a century ago.


Oh las vegas, you mean the people who steal water from the citizens of the west half of the rockies. :wink:

You sure you don't mean "Los Angeles: the people who starved the rich culture of the lower Colorado basin into extinction by diverting an entire river unilaterally"?

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:18 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:25 pm
Posts: 3567
Location: Swingin from the Gallows Pole
punkdavid wrote:
Zutballs wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
I think if you asked a bunch of people the reason they moved to a certain location, "effective local government" would probably be about #27 on the list.

Look at my hometown, lil' ol' Las Vegas, home of the most corrupt local government in the history of the free world, yet 7000 people move here every month :?

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the only effective way to build a community is to seize private property and raise taxes.





but I don't think so

There's a big difference between a city that is having its "growth spurt" and a small town that is trying to stay competetive. And believe me, there is LOTS of eminent domain action going on in places like Las Vegas, it's just not tearing down people's family homes that were built a century ago.


Oh las vegas, you mean the people who steal water from the citizens of the west half of the rockies. :wink:

You sure you don't mean "Los Angeles: the people who starved the rich culture of the lower Colorado basin into extinction by diverting an entire river unilaterally"?


Well Las Vegas is the new LA. How's that? But the Colorado flows into Lake Mead and well...you get the picture.

_________________
This space for sale by owner. Contact within.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Zutballs wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Zutballs wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
I think if you asked a bunch of people the reason they moved to a certain location, "effective local government" would probably be about #27 on the list.

Look at my hometown, lil' ol' Las Vegas, home of the most corrupt local government in the history of the free world, yet 7000 people move here every month :?

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the only effective way to build a community is to seize private property and raise taxes.





but I don't think so

There's a big difference between a city that is having its "growth spurt" and a small town that is trying to stay competetive. And believe me, there is LOTS of eminent domain action going on in places like Las Vegas, it's just not tearing down people's family homes that were built a century ago.


Oh las vegas, you mean the people who steal water from the citizens of the west half of the rockies. :wink:

You sure you don't mean "Los Angeles: the people who starved the rich culture of the lower Colorado basin into extinction by diverting an entire river unilaterally"?


Well Las Vegas is the new LA. How's that? But the Colorado flows into Lake Mead and well...you get the picture.

I certainly do.

I don't know what the water controls are like in Nevada, but they seem to mostly have their shit together in Arizona and Colorado and don't let places overuse their supplies anymore. It wouldn't surprise me too much if Nevada didn't give a shit.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
I think if you asked a bunch of people the reason they moved to a certain location, "effective local government" would probably be about #27 on the list.

Look at my hometown, lil' ol' Las Vegas, home of the most corrupt local government in the history of the free world, yet 7000 people move here every month :?

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the only effective way to build a community is to seize private property and raise taxes.





but I don't think so

There's a big difference between a city that is having its "growth spurt" and a small town that is trying to stay competetive. And believe me, there is LOTS of eminent domain action going on in places like Las Vegas, it's just not tearing down people's family homes that were built a century ago.


Actually, George Magazine(remember that one?) said LV was one of the most corrupt cities in the US way back in '94 because of it's use of eminent domain. It's been an issue here long before it was on the national radar. Lots of the MGM land was taken through eminent domain (how's that for irony).

And since there are no homes that are 100 years old here, your last sentence is technically correct.

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
punkdavid wrote:
Zutballs wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Zutballs wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
I think if you asked a bunch of people the reason they moved to a certain location, "effective local government" would probably be about #27 on the list.

Look at my hometown, lil' ol' Las Vegas, home of the most corrupt local government in the history of the free world, yet 7000 people move here every month :?

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the only effective way to build a community is to seize private property and raise taxes.





but I don't think so

There's a big difference between a city that is having its "growth spurt" and a small town that is trying to stay competetive. And believe me, there is LOTS of eminent domain action going on in places like Las Vegas, it's just not tearing down people's family homes that were built a century ago.


Oh las vegas, you mean the people who steal water from the citizens of the west half of the rockies. :wink:

You sure you don't mean "Los Angeles: the people who starved the rich culture of the lower Colorado basin into extinction by diverting an entire river unilaterally"?


Well Las Vegas is the new LA. How's that? But the Colorado flows into Lake Mead and well...you get the picture.

I certainly do.

I don't know what the water controls are like in Nevada, but they seem to mostly have their shit together in Arizona and Colorado and don't let places overuse their supplies anymore. It wouldn't surprise me too much if Nevada didn't give a shit.


Actually Nevada has the smallest allocation of water among the Compact 7.

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Man in Black wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
I think if you asked a bunch of people the reason they moved to a certain location, "effective local government" would probably be about #27 on the list.

Look at my hometown, lil' ol' Las Vegas, home of the most corrupt local government in the history of the free world, yet 7000 people move here every month :?

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the only effective way to build a community is to seize private property and raise taxes.





but I don't think so

There's a big difference between a city that is having its "growth spurt" and a small town that is trying to stay competetive. And believe me, there is LOTS of eminent domain action going on in places like Las Vegas, it's just not tearing down people's family homes that were built a century ago.


Actually, George Magazine(remember that one?) said LV was one of the most corrupt cities in the US way back in '94 because of it's use of eminent domain. It's been an issue here long before it was on the national radar. Lots of the MGM land was taken through eminent domain (how's that for irony).

And since there are no homes that are 100 years old here, your last sentence is technically correct.

Vegas has been growing at that kind of rate for about 20 years, so it's growth spurt was well under way by 1994. There was some hotel constructed about 1988 that is usually seen as the beginning of the "new" Vegas.

And I don't see any connection between corruption and use of eminent domain, on a fundamental level. It may be the case in Vegas. Sometimes the government just wants to turn an old slum into a new business center. The people who live there may not like it, but in the end it benefits the entire population of the city. It's called urban renewal, and it's been fixing older cities for 50 years.

The only reason the Supreme Court case got so much attention (especially from the right) is because the properties involved there WEREN'T a blight, they just weren't the most profitable use for the city. I agree that a city ought to have to make significant showing that an area is a blighted area to be able to do this, but to dismiss it wholesale as many in the thread are doing betrays just as much ignorance of the issue as giving the gov't carte blanche to condemn properties.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
punkdavid wrote:
The only reason the Supreme Court case got so much attention (especially from the right) is because the properties involved there WEREN'T a blight, they just weren't the most profitable use for the city. I agree that a city ought to have to make significant showing that an area is a blighted area to be able to do this, but to dismiss it wholesale as many in the thread are doing betrays just as much ignorance of the issue as giving the gov't carte blanche to condemn properties.


We're debating the scope, aren't we?
It is in the constitution after all.

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Man in Black wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
The only reason the Supreme Court case got so much attention (especially from the right) is because the properties involved there WEREN'T a blight, they just weren't the most profitable use for the city. I agree that a city ought to have to make significant showing that an area is a blighted area to be able to do this, but to dismiss it wholesale as many in the thread are doing betrays just as much ignorance of the issue as giving the gov't carte blanche to condemn properties.


We're debating the scope, aren't we?
It is in the constitution after all.

It is in the Consitution (well, it's under 6th Amendment jurisprudence), and we should be debating the scope, but a lot of people are simplifying this to the point of absurdity.

"Da gubment shunt be able to take ma land!"

Well, if you want the shit you flush down yer toilet to go away, sometimes the gubment does have to take people's land. If you don't want your "historic" downtown to become a ghost town, sometimes the government has to take those properties and sell them to someone who is going to make better use of them than being empty store fronts.

Besides, it's not like people aren't being paid fair market value for these properties.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
The only reason the Supreme Court case got so much attention (especially from the right) is because the properties involved there WEREN'T a blight, they just weren't the most profitable use for the city. I agree that a city ought to have to make significant showing that an area is a blighted area to be able to do this, but to dismiss it wholesale as many in the thread are doing betrays just as much ignorance of the issue as giving the gov't carte blanche to condemn properties.


We're debating the scope, aren't we?
It is in the constitution after all.

It is in the Consitution (well, it's under 6th Amendment jurisprudence), and we should be debating the scope, but a lot of people are simplifying this to the point of absurdity.

"Da gubment shunt be able to take ma land!"

Well, if you want the shit you flush down yer toilet to go away, sometimes the gubment does have to take people's land. If you don't want your "historic" downtown to become a ghost town, sometimes the government has to take those properties and sell them to someone who is going to make better use of them than being empty store fronts.

Besides, it's not like people aren't being paid fair market value for these properties.


...so you agree with the decision?

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
punkdavid wrote:
Besides, it's not like people aren't being paid fair market value for these properties.


The biggest dispute by far in condemnation cases is not whether the gov't has a right to take the land, but whether just compensation was paid. From my experience, the gov't will always try to lowball as much as possible.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Man in Black wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
The only reason the Supreme Court case got so much attention (especially from the right) is because the properties involved there WEREN'T a blight, they just weren't the most profitable use for the city. I agree that a city ought to have to make significant showing that an area is a blighted area to be able to do this, but to dismiss it wholesale as many in the thread are doing betrays just as much ignorance of the issue as giving the gov't carte blanche to condemn properties.


We're debating the scope, aren't we?
It is in the constitution after all.

It is in the Consitution (well, it's under 6th Amendment jurisprudence), and we should be debating the scope, but a lot of people are simplifying this to the point of absurdity.

"Da gubment shunt be able to take ma land!"

Well, if you want the shit you flush down yer toilet to go away, sometimes the gubment does have to take people's land. If you don't want your "historic" downtown to become a ghost town, sometimes the government has to take those properties and sell them to someone who is going to make better use of them than being empty store fronts.

Besides, it's not like people aren't being paid fair market value for these properties.


...so you agree with the decision?

I went months without ever responding to this thread, not because I agreed or disagreed, but because I hadn't read the decision in enough detail to really know how I felt about it. I have no problem with eminent domain in general, as I think that it is overwhelmingly used properly and for the public good, and I have limited respect for the property rights of private owners in relation to what is best for society. Some people are more absolutist about this sort of thing, but I guess that's the remnants of my socialist background.

At the same time, I think that the current Court leans too much in favor of business interests at the expense of personal rights and interests, and that I oppose. I think that business and personal should be treated with equal deference in relation to the government, perhaps even leaning a bit towards personal over business in some cases. I'm suspicious of the rationale(s) of the Court in this case, as well as the strange bedfellows that this case made. The left of the Court favored governmental power over private property interests. A couple on the right favored business over personal property interests. The far right (if I remember correctly) stuck to their absolutist position as it relates to private property rights.

I'm not sure that I agree with any of them, and I think that it is possible that the specific result was unjust because of a mix of inconsistent rationales for the same result.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
Zutballs wrote:
You people need to spend more time understanding your local governments. They don't have money, but do spend money on local events to attract home buyers (you know people who have families and kids and are looking for a nice town with things to do) which in turn attracts business. Why move into a neighborhood that doesn't have events and things for kids to do, when the city next door does? Hello.

And the typical comment is quite funny. I've been working with local governments building communities for the last 10 years. I think I've got a good understanding of what happens in small towns and cities. But you really have no idea and its quite obvious.


...and I would ask you: What about the the 27 states that have passed restrictions on eminent domain usage? Virtually every state is considering such action.
Are they all misguided? Is it possible that every state legislature is full of people that "need to spend more time understanding your local government"?

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Man in Black wrote:
Zutballs wrote:
You people need to spend more time understanding your local governments. They don't have money, but do spend money on local events to attract home buyers (you know people who have families and kids and are looking for a nice town with things to do) which in turn attracts business. Why move into a neighborhood that doesn't have events and things for kids to do, when the city next door does? Hello.

And the typical comment is quite funny. I've been working with local governments building communities for the last 10 years. I think I've got a good understanding of what happens in small towns and cities. But you really have no idea and its quite obvious.


...and I would ask you: What about the the 27 states that have passed restrictions on eminent domain usage? Virtually every state is considering such action.
Are they all misguided? Is it possible that every state legislature is full of people that "need to spend more time understanding your local government"?

I'd say that the higher up in government one serves, the more out of touch they are with people in local government. People complain about the federal government sticking their noses into local issues, how is this any different?

Besides, legislators are political hacks who do what it takes to get elected, and that is not always what is best for the most people. Even what is most popular (and therefore what leads to people getting elected) is not what is best for the most people. Essentially, people don't know what's good for them. As much as we'd like to let them think for themselves, they've continually shown their incapacity to understand complex issues or to focus on things that are critical rather than bright and shiny.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
Zutballs wrote:
You people need to spend more time understanding your local governments. They don't have money, but do spend money on local events to attract home buyers (you know people who have families and kids and are looking for a nice town with things to do) which in turn attracts business. Why move into a neighborhood that doesn't have events and things for kids to do, when the city next door does? Hello.

And the typical comment is quite funny. I've been working with local governments building communities for the last 10 years. I think I've got a good understanding of what happens in small towns and cities. But you really have no idea and its quite obvious.


...and I would ask you: What about the the 27 states that have passed restrictions on eminent domain usage? Virtually every state is considering such action.
Are they all misguided? Is it possible that every state legislature is full of people that "need to spend more time understanding your local government"?

I'd say that the higher up in government one serves, the more out of touch they are with people in local government. People complain about the federal government sticking their noses into local issues, how is this any different?

Besides, legislators are political hacks who do what it takes to get elected, and that is not always what is best for the most people. Even what is most popular (and therefore what leads to people getting elected) is not what is best for the most people. Essentially, people don't know what's good for them. As much as we'd like to let them think for themselves, they've continually shown their incapacity to understand complex issues or to focus on things that are critical rather than bright and shiny.


pd you're defining obfuscation here.
I think that the state legislatures, for the most part, are close to your position. No one's trying to override the constitution, but I think many see the need to set some kind of boundaries after Kelo.
(look at the actual bills that have been passed...setting boundaries)

In fact, I think that the majority of posters in this thread could reach a general agreement on this issue...except Zut, who feels that private property is some kind of giant government buffet.

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:41 am 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:25 pm
Posts: 3567
Location: Swingin from the Gallows Pole
Man in Black wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
Zutballs wrote:
You people need to spend more time understanding your local governments. They don't have money, but do spend money on local events to attract home buyers (you know people who have families and kids and are looking for a nice town with things to do) which in turn attracts business. Why move into a neighborhood that doesn't have events and things for kids to do, when the city next door does? Hello.

And the typical comment is quite funny. I've been working with local governments building communities for the last 10 years. I think I've got a good understanding of what happens in small towns and cities. But you really have no idea and its quite obvious.


...and I would ask you: What about the the 27 states that have passed restrictions on eminent domain usage? Virtually every state is considering such action.
Are they all misguided? Is it possible that every state legislature is full of people that "need to spend more time understanding your local government"?

I'd say that the higher up in government one serves, the more out of touch they are with people in local government. People complain about the federal government sticking their noses into local issues, how is this any different?

Besides, legislators are political hacks who do what it takes to get elected, and that is not always what is best for the most people. Even what is most popular (and therefore what leads to people getting elected) is not what is best for the most people. Essentially, people don't know what's good for them. As much as we'd like to let them think for themselves, they've continually shown their incapacity to understand complex issues or to focus on things that are critical rather than bright and shiny.


pd you're defining obfuscation here.
I think that the state legislatures, for the most part, are close to your position. No one's trying to override the constitution, but I think many see the need to set some kind of boundaries after Kelo.
(look at the actual bills that have been passed...setting boundaries)

In fact, I think that the majority of posters in this thread could reach a general agreement on this issue...except Zut, who feels that private property is some kind of giant government buffet.


Well let's talk about Kelo. The homes were in an industrial zone which was going to be rezoned into a mixed use area. The only reason those homes were even there in the first place was because they were built before zoning was ever dreamed up in the 70's and 80's. If someone wanted to build a new home where the existing homes were, they wouldn't have been allowed.

This is about cities and towns making changes to their zoning maps and re-positioning where commercial areas lie. You keep neglecting the fact that home after home has been built over the last 20 years and new highways are being built and businesses aren't located near the high traffic areas; hence the reason for all the rezoning and yes the reason for eminent domain. The ugly side of the housing boom is where do we develop the business and facilities people need...something has got to give because land is not infinite.

Instead of making the hard decision, you choose not to make a decision at all. The problems are still there without eminent domain.

_________________
This space for sale by owner. Contact within.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
http://www.ij.org/private_property/didden/12_18_06pr.html

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider
Eminent Extortion Case for Review

Developer Demanded $800,000 or Village Would Take Property;
Property Owners Refused, Village Condemned Land Next Day

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arlington, Va—A federal court has now approved an extortion scheme using eminent domain under last year’s Kelo decision. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the rulings, developers may threaten property owners, “Your money or your land.”

Think this is an overstatement?

Consider what is happening right now in Port Chester, N.Y., to entrepreneur Bart Didden and his business partner, whose case will be considered for review by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 5, 2007.

With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port Chester, the Village’s chosen developer approached Didden and his partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him “go away” or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this extortion under last year’s Kelo eminent domain decision. The court ruled that because this is taking place in a “redevelopment zone” they couldn’t stop what the Village is doing.

“Essentially, the courts have ruled Kelo turns any redevelopment zone into a Constitution-free zone for property owners confronted by politically connected developers,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Didden and argued on behalf of the Kelo property owners. “We want the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution does not permit governments or citizens acting on their behalf to demand money in exchange for allowing property owners to keep what is rightfully theirs. The very fact that we have to ask the highest court in the land for such a ruling underscores how precarious and threatening things are getting for ordinary American landowners.”


“My case is about extortion through the abuse of eminent domain; it is about payoffs and government run amok,” said Didden. “It took me years of hard work to buy that property, pay off my mortgages and really feel like I own it. How dare the Village of Port Chester and this developer threaten me in this way. I want to see integrity restored to the governmental process of exercising eminent domain. There is no integrity here. Unless the Supreme Court takes up my case, I fear for anyone else who owns a piece of property not just in Port Chester, but anywhere a politically connected developer is eyeing it.”

For now, the property remains vacant.

Didden expressed universal disappointment with the government officials who are charged with the duty of protecting his rights. “What really surprised me about this whole ordeal was the total lack of concern my situation earned from the Village politicians, to the County District Attorney’s office, all the way into the federal courts. A private citizen using the government’s power is extorting me. And the government that was supposed to protect my rights is nowhere to be found. If anything, it is making this extortion possible. It is an outrage.”


****


Government owns you.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
http://www.ij.org/private_property/didden/12_18_06pr.html

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider
Eminent Extortion Case for Review

Developer Demanded $800,000 or Village Would Take Property;
Property Owners Refused, Village Condemned Land Next Day

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arlington, Va—A federal court has now approved an extortion scheme using eminent domain under last year’s Kelo decision. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the rulings, developers may threaten property owners, “Your money or your land.”

Think this is an overstatement?

Consider what is happening right now in Port Chester, N.Y., to entrepreneur Bart Didden and his business partner, whose case will be considered for review by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 5, 2007.

With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port Chester, the Village’s chosen developer approached Didden and his partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him “go away” or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this extortion under last year’s Kelo eminent domain decision. The court ruled that because this is taking place in a “redevelopment zone” they couldn’t stop what the Village is doing.

“Essentially, the courts have ruled Kelo turns any redevelopment zone into a Constitution-free zone for property owners confronted by politically connected developers,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Didden and argued on behalf of the Kelo property owners. “We want the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution does not permit governments or citizens acting on their behalf to demand money in exchange for allowing property owners to keep what is rightfully theirs. The very fact that we have to ask the highest court in the land for such a ruling underscores how precarious and threatening things are getting for ordinary American landowners.”


“My case is about extortion through the abuse of eminent domain; it is about payoffs and government run amok,” said Didden. “It took me years of hard work to buy that property, pay off my mortgages and really feel like I own it. How dare the Village of Port Chester and this developer threaten me in this way. I want to see integrity restored to the governmental process of exercising eminent domain. There is no integrity here. Unless the Supreme Court takes up my case, I fear for anyone else who owns a piece of property not just in Port Chester, but anywhere a politically connected developer is eyeing it.”

For now, the property remains vacant.

Didden expressed universal disappointment with the government officials who are charged with the duty of protecting his rights. “What really surprised me about this whole ordeal was the total lack of concern my situation earned from the Village politicians, to the County District Attorney’s office, all the way into the federal courts. A private citizen using the government’s power is extorting me. And the government that was supposed to protect my rights is nowhere to be found. If anything, it is making this extortion possible. It is an outrage.”


****


Government owns you.

This is a really poorly written article. I'd like to see how it was reported by someone without an emotional stake in the case.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
punkdavid wrote:
This is a really poorly written article. I'd like to see how it was reported by someone without an emotional stake in the case.



http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/story.php?id=626

http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/Didden%20Brief_FinalSubmittedVersion.pdf

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
This is a really poorly written article. I'd like to see how it was reported by someone without an emotional stake in the case.



http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/story.php?id=626

http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/Didden%20Brief_FinalSubmittedVersion.pdf

Thank you.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Against Eminent Domain
PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 36326.html

Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town
Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab.

The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.

The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.

That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that.

Kelo's silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London.

If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:42 pm