It doesn't surprise me that NH is on the list that passed a constitutional amendment, given the souter situation (which failed, btw), and the richer than rich fuckers living oceanside. These people have unbelievable amounts of land an LARGE LARGE LARGE homes sitting grandly overlooking the ocean. One of these places could be taken and at least 30 high priced condos could be put up instead - that's a hell of a lot of tax revenue, especially to a rinky-dink town like Rye, NH (gorgeous homes, nothing else). But, and this is a big but here, these people are loaded. Absolutely stinking loaded. Funny, these are never the people losing land. It's always the average joe. At least that's what I've seen.



Here's a house from that town, and not even a big one. It's selling for $2.5 million. The picture doesn't show the ridiculous amount of land that comes with it. Why not take this property and put up 10 row houses that would each sell for $700k? Because this guy is rich.

No, because stealing people's property so your government can have more income is fucking wrong, and utterly unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether the government has fanciful idea's of buying that place and artificially displacing a rich family in NH, or whether a mayor in Florida wants to displace a block of low income housing to build a condo. Taking peoples property is wrong.

What? You're rich, and have a lot of land, so you're a legitimate target? Just because you're rich?

I think you missed my point entirely - and I said it, not GH. My point was that when this 'law' is used, it is generally not used against wealthy people because they have the connections to make sure it doesn't happen to them. I think this taking of homes for an increase in property tax is obscene and I am dead against it. I wasn't supporting taking rich people's homes, I was commenting that it is the little guy that tends to get screwed by this law even though it is the rich people that have the most land to 'benefit the public'.

Here's another one - $2.2 million if you want it.

Again, this person will never lose their home because they are wealthy. To me, that's wrong. Taking anyone's home to redevelop new homes or a new strip mall is wrong, but why do they never actually take the best land for this? Probably because the developer wants to buy this house with the money he/she is making from stealing average homes with the help of the government.

I used to take out four green houses at a time to put up my ugly, red hotels. It is the single greatest regret of my life.

I miss Republicans. They weren't always on the ball....but you could count on them to stand up against overwhelming governmental power.

Sorry about the quote PJ_Doll.

Anyhow, I think you're approaching this the wrong. I think you'd be better of to come out and say that taking middle class or low income folks property is just plain old wrong. Especially when you're building stip malls and condo's on top of it.

It's all wrong, and you agree, so why show aimless angst against the rich? It's needless, and I don't think it get's the message across.

Yay for those liberal judges in the Supreme Court that this board actually thought would stand up to eminent domain. Shame on those conservative judges that actually did it...

Again, missed the point. Taking middle or low income folks property is wrong. Taking rich folks property is wrong. Taking property so that someone else can profit is wrong no matter what the income level of the wronged party is.

I was merely pointing out that this law is unfairly used against predominantly lower class people that can't fight 'the power' themselves.

I have no problem whatsoever with rich people. I have liked almost every one of them that I have met, and I hope to be one one day

Friday I had a meeting at a small town which has grown exponentially over the last decade because of the housing boom. Repeatedly, the town staff said we need to continue to grow otherwise we will implode financially. This is happening all over the US. Towns and cities only have a limited amount of land to develop. Its not infinite. So don't act like it is. The poplulation keeps growing and people need places to live and shop.

Eminent domain isn't about taking poor or wealth land, its about taking land that's re-developable to increase the tax base.

Once again, the question is: where do you draw the line?
If the standard is merely "increasing the tax base" (which the supreme court seemed to agree with) then it's hard to imagine who's not at risk.

Private property rights are one of the cornerstones of this country, your callous attitude is a bit disappointing.
(I realize you're going to unleash some platitude about how we can't do it without government, don't bother)

Disappointing...the fact is you really have no idea how these local governments work or the state of emergency some are in.

Here was the headline on the front page of Boulder's paper yesterday.

Louisville studies service cuts
By Eric Schmidt, Camera Staff Writer
June 28, 2006

LOUISVILLE — Faced with an estimated $525,000 shortfall in sales-tax revenues this year, the City Council on Tuesday began work on a 2007 budget that could include cuts in city services and staff.

Council members said they hope to craft a balanced budget by trimming expenses that aren't vital to public safety or quality of life, such as conference attendance and trade publications for staff members.

But some said residents may have to approve a tax increase if they don't want to see reduced hours at public buildings, fewer issues of the city newsletter and cutbacks in special events such as the upcoming July 4 picnic.

"This is not a choice of what else do we do to improve your life," Mayor Pro Tem Don Brown said. "This is a choice of what do we keep out of what we have. It's going to come down to making choices about programs, and people need to understand that."

Sales tax collections have decreased $226,000 so far this year compared with the same period of 2005, according to the city. Home improvement stores — Louisville's biggest revenue generators — are off 31 percent in 2006, due in part to the opening of a Home Depot store in Boulder, city officials said.

If present trends continue, the city expects its general-fund expenses to exceed revenues by $386,000 this year.

"We're in a really scary situation, and we just can't have it," city finance director Patty Leslie said, pointing to a chart showing revenues falling below expenditures after years of growth. "We have to raise that gap again. I think that's what this meeting is all about."

A tentative budget for 2007 predicts general-fund revenues of $12.6 million and expenses of $13.2 million. The city expects sales tax receipts to slip further in 2007 as large retailers take root in communities nearby, contributing to a general-fund shortfall of about $466,000.

Shifting a few more portions of revenues from capital expenses into the general fund could make up for several hundred thousand of those dollars, Mayor Chuck Sisk said. But he suggested the city could save money simply by changing how it manages and cleans public buildings.

"I just think it's time to shake up the cookie jar and be innovative here," Sisk said. "That's what it's going to take here. The same old same old isn't going to work."

The council also discussed generating new revenues by attracting businesses to Louisville or asking voters to approve a sales, property or use tax increase in November. While members made clear they were merely brainstorming, the board asked city staff to study the possibility of a ballot issue and gauge resident support after a similar use-tax proposal failed last year.

The council will discuss the budget at several meetings in the coming months and is scheduled to adopt a final version Nov. 21.

Councilman Ron Sackett said any cuts would be difficult, but the city's need to do more with less "is being done in every industry in the United States."

"This is not an easy process, but it's one that good companies do every year," he said. "From what I've heard, I think we can do it."

Contact Camera Staff Writer Eric Schmidt at (303) 473-1628 or schmidte@dailycamera.com.


First came the housing boom, now people need services. Make room folks, cause your local zoning map is gonna get revised to make room for more commercial services. Get ready.

You make good points Z.

I do wonder however if government could find ways to be more efficient before they start redistribution of property?


Maybe Americans should be less dependant or demanding on government for services?

Maybe the city should try to figure out why the large retailers aren't moving in there. They could try to land the big-box reatilers within it's taxable areas, by providing incentives to them. Increasing taxes will drive people away and thus lower thier revenues further.

Is this a joke? Town newsletters and a picnic? The way buildings are cleaned? This isn't a crisis, this is a map of how towns waste money. Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If there isn't enough money for the goverment to waste then the answer isn't to begin taking homes people worked years to acquire. The answer is to stop paying for picnics and sending out newsletters that almost noone reads.

I have yet to see any branch of government not waste money. Why? Because they didn't earn it.

Mr. Zut certainly views government in the best possible light, doesn't he? His approach is quite typical, though; rather than looking for ways to save money, the focus is on increasing "revenue".

I believe the US Patent and Trademark Office exists entirely on fees and not tax-payer dollars. Perhaps other agencies could learn from them.


Long document on eminent domain abuses that resulted from Kelo (so far)
http://www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/publications/floodgates-report-low.pdf

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.

You do understand that most of the people who run small town governments do it in their spare time and don't get paid, right?

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.