Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes

[dhines]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

For those who don't want to read the story, the Supreme Court today ruled that local governments can take private property away from citizens and redistribute it as they see fit. Think I'm joking? - read the story.

So as of today, if your home town thinks your land would be much more valuable with a gas station on it instead of your house, farm or whatever, all they have to do is give you what they determine is "just compensation," sign the land over to its new owner, and then bring in the bulldozers.

What - you don't like it? Your family has been on that land for generations? Tough !@#$! - get out or the cops will come in a drag you and your family out by force. There's absolutely no one in the world you can go to and argue your point. The highest court in the land just declared that it is A-OK! Welcome to the new Socialist States of America!

Can you tell I'm hot over this?!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Tommy 17]

:huh wtf

[Quadman250R]

:huh thats f******* rediculous

if they came to my house id grab a chair and sit on the porch next to my quad and say im not moving

[Cody_300ex]

Man this countrys going to ****, can't live in your home not knowing if your city is gunna come tear your house down tommrow, economy sucks, and many many many moore problems just dont feel like listing them.

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by Lil_300Ex_Kid
Man this countrys going to ****, can't live in your home not knowing if your city is gunna come tear your house down tommrow, economy sucks, and many many many moore problems just dont feel like listing them.

Yea this country is starting to suck, Im moving.

[450r51]

if u all hate this country y dont u all move, the US is the best country in the world. u guys r really ridiculous

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by 450r51
if u all hate this country y dont u all move, the US is the best country in the world. u guys r really ridiculous

Cool so when they take your land and put a mini mall up you can still stay.:D

[Cody_300ex]

Originally posted by Robin Hood
Cool so when they take your land and put a mini mall up you can still stay.:D


Word, Lets go to canada!! haha

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by Lil_300Ex_Kid
Word, Lets go to canada!! haha

I'm down!

[derekhonda]

Think about how rare this problem will really be. No they will not be tearing houses for gas stations, that would be rediculous. And honestly, I think they have always had this power. If they want to build an interstate through your town somethings might have to be moved, but I think they have to give fair market value for everything. I don't know, I don't know that facts just like you don't, but I wouldn't fear for your house or land.

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by derekhonda
Think about how rare this problem will really be. No they will not be tearing houses for gas stations, that would be rediculous. And honestly, I think they have always had this power. If they want to build an interstate through your town somethings might have to be moved, but I think they have to give fair market value for everything. I don't know, I don't know that facts just like you don't, but I wouldn't fear for your house or land.

Ya I doubt theyll abuse it, but its still kinda scary. Plus people will definately argue it.

[thomps6s]

That's really nothing new. The Government has been doing things like that for years. Say they are putting in a new highway and they want to go through your land, you have two choices, take what they say they will pay, or sit on your porch while they doze it over and you get nothing.

[HondaEXrider22]

And they call this a free country....

Reminds me of that song by 3 doors down -duck and run it goes


Why do they call this a free country when it costs so much to live..

[450r51]

ok well where i live there not going to put a mini mall or any highway. and robin i can tell u hate the us cuz u ride a craptor

[Punk'd]

Thats stupid..

[dhines]

Originally posted by thomps6s
That's really nothing new. The Government has been doing things like that for years. Say they are putting in a new highway and they want to go through your land, you have two choices, take what they say they will pay, or sit on your porch while they doze it over and you get nothing.

This in fact is a DRAMATICALLY different situation. The "Takings Clause" of the 5th amendment does indeed grant government the right to take property for PUBLIC USE. As you stated, land can be taken for projects such as roads, schools, etc. This ruling however, takes the takings clause substantially further by stipulating that private land can be taken from one private citizen and given to another if the government thinks that it will bring some benefit to the community.

As Justice O'Connor stated:

"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent. "

and

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."



Don't think it will happen much? Wrong again. From the AP story:

"Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years."

[wilkin250r]

Oh, please. Let's not make it all this dramatic.

The only thing this new law does is give the city more flexibility. Now, instead of just freeways and roads, the land can be used for private development (like a shopping mall or business district), because it is still ultimately for public use, and for the good of the community and city as a whole for economic growth.

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by 450r51
ok well where i live there not going to put a mini mall or any highway. and robin i can tell u hate the us cuz u ride a craptor

Yup. I guess Ill go round up my US hating Raptor group and skip the country.:rolleyes:

[450r51]

good and i hope the gov does take ur land cuz we dont need u in the us if u hate it so much

[parkers30]

it not like it doesn't say "just compensation" in the clause either

the compensation is up to debate/trial also. you'll get what it is worth

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by parkers30
it not like it doesn't say "just compensation" in the clause either

the compensation is up to debate/trial also. you'll get what it is worth

Or at least what the Gov't says its worth.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Robin Hood
Or at least what the Gov't says its worth.

Contrary to popular opinion, the government isn't out to screw every last penny from you. The land and house are appraised at market value by a qualified appraiser. They don't just come in and say "Your house is worth twenty bucks, here you go, now get out".

In most cases, they actually give slightly higher than market value, because they are FORCING people to relocate against their will.

[thomps6s]

exactly

Originally posted by wilkin250r
Oh, please. Let's not make it all this dramatic.

The only thing this new law does is give the city more flexibility. Now, instead of just freeways and roads, the land can be used for private development (like a shopping mall or business district), because it is still ultimately for public use, and for the good of the community and city as a whole for economic growth.

OK, so some jackass mall owner can get rich off of land that was taken from you by the government for him to make money off of and you dont think anything is wrong with that?

[dhines]

Sorry Slick, but to me this ruling delivers one of the most significant blows to personal liberty that I can recall. "More flexibility" is certainly one way of looking at it, but when it is your neighborhood that is being detroyed so that some realestate developer can get rich, that flexibility feels a lot more like a stiff ball bat up the wazoo.

Think of all of the realestate that this now opens up for developers. He!!, every community has that farm, or old building, or home, that sits right next to a developed area - you know the place where those folks just decided to stay - refused to move out. Everyone of those and more are now in jepardy. All a developer has to do is convince a local government that they can generate more "public good" from the property, and BANG, those folks are out on their *****!

This goes way beyond any 10 Commandments ruling...it goes way beyond anything with healthcare...it goes way beyond any tax increases. Our right to property is one of those fundamental principals that is founded deep in our bones. Land, property, a home of your own - those are longstanding goals for every American. To me, this ruling has damaged the American dream.

[thomps6s]

So now you are backing up what I said when you quoted me and called me a child. My response was directly to what the original poster wrote, not what the article read. Thanks Daddy.

Originally posted by dhines
This goes way beyond any 10 Commandments ruling...it goes way beyond anything with healthcare...it goes way beyond any tax increases. Our right to property is one of those fundamental principals that is founded deep in our bones. Land, property, a home of your own - those are longstanding goals for every American. To me, this ruling has damaged the American dream.
Well said, I really couldnt agree more. This ruling truly goes against the fundamental values this country was created upon.

[HondaEXrider22]

Originally posted by dhines
Sorry Slick, but to me this ruling delivers one of the most significant blows to personal liberty that I can recall. "More flexibility" is certainly one way of looking at it, but when it is your neighborhood that is being detroyed so that some realestate developer can get rich, that flexibility feels a lot more like a stiff ball bat up the wazoo.

Think of all of the realestate that this now opens up for developers. He!!, every community has that farm, or old building, or home, that sits right next to a developed area - you know the place where those folks just decided to stay - refused to move out. Everyone of those and more are now in jepardy. All a developer has to do is convince a local government that they can generate more "public good" from the property, and BANG, those folks are out on their *****!

This goes way beyond any 10 Commandments ruling...it goes way beyond anything with healthcare...it goes way beyond any tax increases. Our right to property is one of those fundamental principals that is founded deep in our bones. Land, property, a home of your own - those are longstanding goals for every American. To me, this ruling has damaged the American dream.


Very,very well said. I agree 105%

[dhines]

Originally posted by thomps6s
So now you are backing up what I said when you quoted me and called me a child. My response was directly to what the original poster wrote, not what the article read. Thanks Daddy.

Sorry, Thomps - I'm pretty agitated about this and that comment was out of line. My apologies.

[thomps6s]

It's no biggie, I am not worked up about it. It is a pretty funked up situation though. Allot of things suck, But as chitty as it is, I wouldn't want to live in any other country.

[Smoker]

I'm sure the local politicians will be getting healthy kickbacks from these business' to toss people off of prime real estate. Just another way for these pigs to grease each other up and stick up it the working man's rear. I understand the necessity for justified government use but for the private sector to have any kind of say so in this area is completely wrong. They put it under the guise of "economic growth" and what, that growth won't happen if the business is a mile down the road? Join the NRA boys, the government wants gun control so they can eventually eliminate the legal private ownership of guns, so the government can do as they please and never fear a revolution. (Look at the countries that have had there guns taken away) That's why the right to bear arms is written into the constitution, so if the government ever becomes corrupt, we have the right to protect the American way, that's why they keep chipping away at the constitution and our civil rights. I know I may seem unpatriotic, but so did they guys who fought to escape English rule, I love this country and served for it, but do you think our government is the way the constitution intended? I think not...

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by dhines
Our right to property is one of those fundamental principals that is founded deep in our bones. Land, property, a home of your own - those are longstanding goals for every American. To me, this ruling has damaged the American dream. But you didn't truly have that "right". Whether it is a freeway or a shopping mall, what is the difference to you?

I said it before, I'll say it again. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. They didn't create or change the law to give more money to wealthy landowners, that's not the purpose or intent. The purpose is to allow development FOR PUBLIC GOOD AND ECONOMIC GROWTH. Whether the property is for a school, freeway, or private business district, it is still ultimately going towards public use and the good of the community.

[dhines]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
But you didn't truly have that "right". Whether it is a freeway or a shopping mall, what is the difference to you?

I said it before, I'll say it again. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. They didn't create or change the law to give more money to wealthy landowners, that's not the purpose or intent. The purpose is to allow development FOR PUBLIC GOOD AND ECONOMIC GROWTH. Whether the property is for a school, freeway, or private business district, it is still ultimately going towards public use and the good of the community.

Sorry partner, but that dog won't hunt. We DO in fact a have a right to property , however, as with most rights, there are some limitations to that right that we WILLINGLY accede to the government. Heck, all forms of government and most every law is, in one way or another, a limitation on our natural rights.

The issue here is that the court has extended those limitations beyond what I, and I believe most folks, find acceptable. Allowing one private party to take property from another based on a subjective definition of "the good of the community" is a horrid overextension of the powers intended in the Takings Clause. You may be fine with that. I am not.

[Rdhanded2]

and if it is used "FOR PUBLIC GOOD AND ECONOMIC GROWTH" then that is great, and it is a just law. But, as we all know, mankind is a foulable and greedy creature. The potential for abuse of the working man is there if the greedy politicians get their way. We do have courts though, and I am sure most, if not all of these dealings are done through the court system. Maybe they can keep it fair and just....... atleast until they are bought off.

[dhines]

I'll let one of the gentlemen who wrote the constitution (its "Father" no less!) have his say on the matter:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."

John Adams

[wilkin250r]

You know, you people are the one's electing these evil, greedy, manipulative politicians. If it's so bad, why not vote them out of office?

As I see it, this is just and extension from freeways to shopping malls. If y'all want to believe the goverment is conspiring against you to kick you out of your homes and leave you poor and homeless, go ahead and think that, but it simply isn't the case.

The government isn't going to come out to the middle of Nebraska and start demolishing perfectly good farms and homes to allow room for Bill Gates to build his summer home.

What this law may do is allow development on a few acres of prime land smack in the middle of downtown that some crochety old man refuses to sell because he doesn't trust the government, but he doesn't live on anyways. In return, they'll give than man 50 times what he paid for it, and build a theme park to attract tourism and dollars, and raise property values all around.

Or possibly to build a retail center and shopping mall in place of a run-down neighborhood. So instead of a crime area and and ugly eyesore for the entire city, it is now a commerce area enjoyed by thousands, CREATING revenue instead of draining it.

The government isn't going to come take a bulldozer to your home because they don't like you, or because they'll get rich off it. They aren't going to single you out of your entire residential community to build a gas station. One, the gas station is illegal because it zoned as residential, and two, the governement just doesn't do things like that. They're not coming to rip apart your neighborhood to build a golf course, trust me.

[dhines]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
... , trust me.

If anything before the comma above had been based on logic or facts, I'd consider trusting you.

"They aren't going to single you out of your entire residential community to build a gas station."

Probably true, but what about a new auto plant?

In 1981 Michigan Supreme Court decision that allowed the city of Detroit to take private property from 4200 citizens (1,300 homes, 140 businesses, six churches and one hospital were demolished) so a General Motors assembly plant could be built on the site.

Poletown (http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=18&category=business)

And that was BEFORE the US Supreme Court OKayed the practice! If you don't think more events like Poletown will happen now that the highest legal authority in the nation has blessed it, you're delusional. If instead your reasoning, probably correctly, that the chances are low that you personally will be affected, so why get upset - then shame on you.

Nothing new to me, at least most examples given in this thread is unused farmland.

Try having them tell you they gonna build a highway 3 inches from your front door and you can keep the house if you dont take what we offer you for it.

This is in Port St. Lucy Florida. Brand spanking new house of $240K and was offered $175K to put a highway thru the area.

[dhines]

Originally posted by DierWolf
Nothing new to me, at least most examples given in this thread is unused farmland.

Try having them tell you they gonna build a highway 3 inches from your front door and you can keep the house if you dont take what we offer you for it.

This is in Port St. Lucy Florida. Brand spanking new house of $240K and was offered $175K to put a highway thru the area.

DierWolf,

Your example is a painful reminder of just how much we should limit the powers of the takings clause. I think most people agree that communities need schools, and roads and generally speaking, most folks want the private property impacted by those developments to be as minor as possible. As you remind us though, real people are still affected. Today's ruling exponentially increases the opportunity for such siezures - and for, in my opinion, much more questionable purposes.

It's easy to say "f'-it its happening already", but I think we all know that isn't the answer.

[Rico]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
But you didn't truly have that "right". Whether it is a freeway or a shopping mall, what is the difference to you?

I said it before, I'll say it again. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. They didn't create or change the law to give more money to wealthy landowners, that's not the purpose or intent. The purpose is to allow development FOR PUBLIC GOOD AND ECONOMIC GROWTH. Whether the property is for a school, freeway, or private business district, it is still ultimately going towards public use and the good of the community.

Are you and uncle sam lovers?????


Don't tell me you still think our government looks out for OUR best interest....:eek2:

Originally posted by Rico
Are you and uncle sam lovers?????


Don't tell me you still think our government looks out for OUR best interest....:eek2:

Lots of americans have been brainwashed :)

In my example there was nothing to gain but a wider highway, of which if you ever been to port st. lucy florida did not need it what so ever because 3 blocks down there was already a main road which was not even congested.

Wasnt there once this old lady in las vegas someplace that refused to sell her house and they built the highway over and around her house??

[Pappy]

If they ever try and take my home, they better show up with some body bags. this is one american that would rather my blood spill onto my ground fighting for what is mine:macho



I swear to god I wish I could be president. There would be a few public azzkickings on capitol hill:mad:

[400exrules]

WTF, im startin to hate this bullsh^t country.........when im older ima move to Australia :mad:

and for those of you saying the gov. will be paying you alot of money for your land ,(a lot more then u payed)........well money isnt everything to some people, heritage and land, that has gone through the family might mean more to some people then a large amount of money.

[Striker49]

Im pretty sure there aint anyone out there that aint scared of a 12guage.

And yes, if that ever happened (happens) I would stand my ground so dont tell me otherwise.

Goverment < Me

Nuff said.

[400exrules]

Originally posted by Pappy
If they ever try and take my home, they better show up with some body bags. this is one american that would rather my blood spill onto my ground fighting for what is mine:macho



I swear to god I wish I could be president. There would be a few public azzkickings on capitol hill:mad:

I vote for Pappy, maybe he can get rid of all these greedy tofu fartin fairy politicians:grr:

[TheX1992]

What is happening to us? One minute people WORK for their money. Next, lawsuits left and right. We have the Darwin awards and have to put everything into fine print for people to follow. Now the government wants to do this? I think I would of had to draw the line a while ago. We have so many waterheads ruling this country that we are turning communist. I am just three weeks out of high school working 60 hours a week (5 12's) in a semi and still live paycheck to paycheck. I follow my parents way of life and earn my way through everything. But every time I turn around some person has discovered a new loop hole around the justice system to sue somebody and get rich quick.

I think pretty soon we will have barcodes tattooed on the back of our necks and have to wear uniforms. Most jobs have been destroyed in my area because a few WALMARTS have come in. Will they win the lawsuit because they offer more jobs? Yes. But in reality (no offense to anybody working at Walmart), but the jobs we had were much better than the ones there. Walmart treats their employees like garbage and doesn't pay them what they need. I won't even mention the fact that their employees are so easy to find because of everyone else looking for a job when their old one went bankrupt due to their "low prices".

I think we are all going downhill in a quick hurry unless something drastic happens. Picture us in ten or twenty years. What will we be like?

[Rico]

Originally posted by Pappy
If they ever try and take my home, they better show up with some body bags. this is one american that would rather my blood spill onto my ground fighting for what is mine:macho



I swear to god I wish I could be president. There would be a few public azzkickings on capitol hill:mad:


I got yo back brotha.....:mad:

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Rico
I got yo back brotha.....:mad:

oh im sure we could get the entire internet on fire with a thread about the country right now. love it or leave it is still my motto, but i do believe its time for a big change. the sad part is it will be our kids paying for the mistakes. vote, and get involved is all i gotta say.


and yes, there would be a kickazz mx compound and freestyle ramp at the white house, screw the rose garden:devil:

[DeerNuts]

Originally posted by Rico
Are you and uncle sam lovers?????


Maybe not, Wilkin is most likely a Democrat.

This is an issue that will be split fairly evenly between rural areas and urban areas (Red and blue areas).

As dhines said, this ruling increases the oppurtunity for government to excert more influence in this matter. This sets a precendent. It will not affect today or tomorrow very much; however, it may affect the future substantially.

I find the issue a bit unsettling, yet I would have to agree with Pappy/dhines/and others on this. This sets a bad PRECEDENT for future govts. to follow. I know this doesnt seem to be a big deal initially, because it really isnt, that's what Wilkin's getting at. He just extended that reasoning and believes that government will not continue to increase the times they do this in following years/decades. I dont agree with that. I agree with Rico, the government is not out for our best interest anymore, just the way it is.

It will be interesting to see how the country responds to this ruling. Im intrigued to say the least.

[DeerNuts]

Originally posted by Pappy
. love it or leave it is still my motto, but i do believe its time for a big change. the sad part is it will be our kids paying for the mistakes. vote, and get involved is all i gotta say.


Amen.

What it will be like in 10-20 years? All you gotta do is read your Patriot act and you will see how it will be like.

I moved from the US because of all the crap, free country my Arse, I'll just sit back here on my white sand blue water beaches and sip on my Corona with lime and watch the cruise vessels full of americans "getting away from it all" and watch the cruise missles fly by :)

I left 3 days after bush went into office, coz i just know how the economy goes when a bush is in office.

ON another note, just love how Bush "wants to close cuba base" then all of a sudden 3 days later Halliburton has the 30 million dollar contract to rebuild it..

ARE WE SO FRIKKEN DUMB NOT TO SEE THROUGH THIS IDIOT!?

Originally posted by Pappy
oh im sure we could get the entire internet on fire with a thread about the country right now. love it or leave it is still my motto, but i do believe its time for a big change. the sad part is it will be our kids paying for the mistakes. vote, and get involved is all i gotta say.


and yes, there would be a kickazz mx compound and freestyle ramp at the white house, screw the rose garden:devil:

i Believe is because all the non voting christans that went to vote is the reason we are in the position were in right now :)

The kids can suffer, they were "supposed" to vote but didnt..

[Pappy]

first off, bush cant just hand anyone a contract. ALL of them are guilty. in defense of haliburton, there is not many choices in the fields they are in so i would not be hasty in hanging them by the neck yet...maybe soon but not now.

if you left this country then sianara. dont come back. infact, id drop a cruise missle on your beach chair on my way to where ever i was being sent. your opinion and voice serve ziltch since you decided to abandon your country. you are scum. (sorry, nothing personal just the way i see it)

we are Americans! not American'ts


More alarming then the political diatribe is the fact that we have government officials spouting vile comments about this country in a time of war.

Qoute from Abraham Lincoln
"Any United States elected official that speaks against the United States in a time of war is committing Treason and deserves to be hung!"

[thomps6s]

Originally posted by 400exrules
WTF, im startin to hate this bullsh^t country.........when im older ima move to Australia :mad:

Congratulations, PM me when you turn 18 and move there, I will give you a big pat on the back for holding to your word.
I am sure Australia is much better than the U.S.
You always hear how so many people want to migrate to Australia because it is the land of oppurtunity.

Every Government has it's it's flaws. Ours definately has it's share. This country is still the greatest country to live in and as you grow up in the next 5-10 years you will begin to realise that.

I didn't vote for Bush and I don't like his ways but I am not going to cry about it and move to Canada.

[z400roosteR]

For all who bash on America or say it's turning to ****...If you don't like then get the **** out, You think you have it bad here in the U.S. you have no idea. Go right on up to canada you little commies or you can just chicken out like all the hollywood pussies who did when bush was elected.

[Rdhanded2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wilkin250r
[B]You know, you people are the one's electing these evil, greedy, manipulative politicians. If it's so bad, why not vote them out of office?

That is exactly what I try to do every time I vote. I never miss a time for my voice to be heard, and take pride in my right to vote and who I vote for. I don't see how anyone on here could possibly not see a potential for disaster in this. Some of you seeem like you blindly follow the government like they can do no wrong. You have the outlook that they always have our best interests in mind. I feel sad for you. This comes down to the local governments who can often be corrupt, like it or not. That is why I go to my local township and board meetings. I make sure I know what is going on around me, and how it effects me.

[MOFO]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
But you didn't truly have that "right". Whether it is a freeway or a shopping mall, what is the difference to you?

I said it before, I'll say it again. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


So you believe in taking from the have's and giving to the have nots????

Come on... I usually agree with you, but your logic is WAY OFF here!

So if I had a piece of land that was given to me and has been in my family since day 1, then all of the sudden the community thinks they need it to build a freakin mall, its ok for them to FORCE me to sell it????

NO WAY IN HELL is that right!

Not everything in life is for sale...no matter who is buying or how much they offer!!!

[Rdhanded2]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is what I am trying to say!

Originally posted by thomps6s
Congratulations, PM me when you turn 18 and move there, I will give you a big pat on the back for holding to your word.
I am sure Australia is much better than the U.S.
You always hear how so many people want to migrate to Australia because it is the land of oppurtunity.

Every Government has it's it's flaws. Ours definately has it's share. This country is still the greatest country to live in and as you grow up in the next 5-10 years you will begin to realise that.

I didn't vote for Bush and I don't like his ways but I am not going to cry about it and move to Canada.

Bedel te verschillen..... De manier u Amerikanen spreekt (ik ben geen Amerikaan maar ging voor de zogenaamde "Amerikaanse droom" u over) spreekt is alsof de rest van de wereld in holen leeft.

Ik heb in de V.S. 18 jaar van mijn leven geleefd, en ik vind NUL verschil levend daar dan hier levend in de Caraïben of nergens anders heb ik geleefd.

Ik heb altijd een baan gehad, geen probleem betalend rekeningen enz. welke enz., ik in de V.S. had die I dont hier heeft en nergens anders ik ging was racisme heb, ziend mensen levend onder bruggen, drugdealers op de hoeken, mensen die zich in lijnwerklozen bevinden, voedselzegels, afschuin doe dit afschuin doe dat.

De hel die u heeft zelfs geslacht met uw open vensters: hebt afgeschuind) Droevig maar I dont roepen dat het "land van kans" en van de "Vrijheid" slechts ding dat ik u nog vrij hebben "Vrije Speach" heb gezien bent en op me vertrouwd die vrij snel schijn weg te gaan ook. Roep me zo allen van het Schuim u wilt, "persoonlijk niets" maar I eerder is schuim en vrij van schuld dan brainwashed of vertelde im denkend op de verkeerde manier ben (die btw aan brainwash iemand probeert)

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by DeerNuts
Maybe not, Wilkin is most likely a Democrat.


Not hardly.

I believe in personal freedoms, and personal rights. But I also believe that one a-hole doesn't get to dictate economic progress, or force changes in a multi-million dollar project that is in the best intrest of the community as a whole.

If they want to build a freeway where your house is, then that's it. They buy you out, and that's the end. You don't get to change the entire plan and force the entire rest of society to shove it simply because you feel like being stubborn. We have hundreds of thousands of people and millions of dollars waiting on you. Take your check and get out of the way.

Sure, there are going to be protests, there are going to be people that don't agree. But where do you draw the line? There can't be a compromise, either the government has the right to buy you out or it doesn't. Things are going to get a lot more complicated and expensive if we have to move and wind our developments and freeways around every dilapidated farmhouse and woodshed.

The only thing this does is give the government more flexibility. It extends the power from freeways and schools to OTHER types of developments vital to our economy and society, like shopping areas, and manufacturing plants.

Why are you okay with a freeway, but no okay with a shopping mall?

[Rdhanded2]

Qoute from Abraham Lincoln
"Any United States elected official that speaks against the United States in a time of war is committing Treason and deserves to be hung!" [/B][/QUOTE]

Amen.... lets take all the pompous delagates, politicians, celebrities, and the F*@king Dixie Chicks, shove them in a plane and land that b%tch right on top of all the terrorists and anti-American protestors. They should all suffer the same fate, and feel what we as a nation had to go through. If it wasn't for America they would all be eating sour kraut and speaking German anyway.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by MOFO
So if I had a piece of land that was given to me and has been in my family since day 1 then all of the sudden the community thinks they need it to build a freakin mall, its ok for them to FORCE me to sell it????

NO WAY IN HELL is that right!

Sometimes things just are NOT for sale...no matter who is buying or how much they offer!!!

But if they need it to build a freeway, are you okay with that? Because they already have that right, regardless of HOW many generations that land has been in your family.

I'm not taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots". What I'm doing is not allowing one person to to dictate the needs and growth of the society as a whole.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by DierWolf
Bedel te verschillen..... De manier u Amerikanen spreekt (ik ben geen Amerikaan maar ging voor de zogenaamde "Amerikaanse droom" u over) spreekt is alsof de rest van de wereld in holen leeft.

Ik heb in de V.S. 18 jaar van mijn leven geleefd, en ik vind NUL verschil levend daar dan hier levend in de Caraïben of nergens anders heb ik geleefd.

Ik heb altijd een baan gehad, geen probleem betalend rekeningen enz. welke enz., ik in de V.S. had die I dont hier heeft en nergens anders ik ging was racisme heb, ziend mensen levend onder bruggen, drugdealers op de hoeken, mensen die zich in lijnwerklozen bevinden, voedselzegels, afschuin doe dit afschuin doe dat.

De hel die u heeft zelfs geslacht met uw open vensters: hebt afgeschuind) Droevig maar I dont roepen dat het "land van kans" en van de "Vrijheid" slechts ding dat ik u nog vrij hebben "Vrije Speach" heb gezien bent en op me vertrouwd die vrij snel schijn weg te gaan ook. Roep me zo allen van het Schuim u wilt, "persoonlijk niets" maar I eerder is schuim en vrij van schuld dan brainwashed of vertelde im denkend op de verkeerde manier ben (die btw aan brainwash iemand probeert)

in english....

we got spanked hard and would like more:devil:

[MOFO]

Originally posted by Wilkins
But if they need it to build a freeway, are you Kay with that? Because they already have that right, regardless of HOW many generations that land has been in your family.


...and I have a problem with that as well...which is why I am also very fired up about this. All this does is give them more tools to take away property if seen fit by the majority.

Again, this whole idea is taking away from the haves and giving to the have nots. This is one of the very basic liberal/socialist values.

[thomps6s]

In case anyone wants a free translation, here it is. The translator didn't do very well but got a general idea of what he is trying to say.

Beg to verschillen.... The manner you Americas speaks speaks is (I am no American only went for the so-called "American dream" you over) as if lives the rest of the world in holes.

I have in the V. S. 18 year of my life lived, and I find ZERO differ living that then here lived in the Cara&#239;ben or nowhere else have I lived.

I have always a job had, no problem paying bills etc, which enz., I in the V. S. had that I dont here has, and nowhere else I went was racism have, seeing men living under bridges, drugdealers on the corners, men that self in line unemployed person was found of food stamp, afschuin do this afschuin do that.

The shrill that you have even slaughtered with your open windows: have afgeschuind) Sad only I dont call that the "country of chance" and of the "Freedom" only compete that I yourself yet free have "Going out Made a speech" saw are and on me trusted that freely fast appearances way to go also. Me call wants so all of the Foam you, am am "personal nothing" only I before foam and free of debt then brainwashed or told im thinking on the wrong manner (that btw at brainwash someone tries)

[wilkin250r]

We trust our government to maintain a military and defend our intrests. They levy taxes, set economic policy, and create law to defend the little guy from big, evil corporations. We trust the goverment with SO much in our lives, but suddenly we can't trust them with a little civil planning? They are all out to backstab and bleed the little man?

[Rdhanded2]

wilkin250r, the protest wasn't that the government can take our land for development of roadways and such, it was that they can take it and give it to another private citizen if they see so fit. That is scary because of the possibility of corruption and greed. Lets say I am a rich oil tycoon. I want the land next to me so I can drill, but the land belongs to a family, and has for generations, so they won't sell. All I do is go see my politician friends that I have helped get into office with nice kick backs and such, and tell them I want the land to start a charitable organization for kids/strip mall/etc. Now I have your land, and oops, we found oil. I will get right on the mall as soon as I rape this land of the oil for a healthy check. Even if the original land owners get residuals from the oil, they still feel cheated because that was the land they bought and earned for themselves.

Originally posted by Pappy
in english....

we got spanked hard and would like more:devil:

Haha,,,,

never spanked my country thank you... no reason too, no oil here ;)

[Pappy]

We trust our government to maintain a military and defend our intrests.

Have you talked with many of our soldiers about the equipment and its failures?

They levy taxes, set economic policy, and create law to defend the little guy from big, evil corporations.

They take too much tax, misspend what they take. Economic policy that is so bad the only way many companies make an honest living is to cheat and lie and hire illegals:huh The majority of large corporations owe more then they claimed they made..lol[/B]

suddenly we can't trust them with a little civil planning?
I refer you to the government designed and managed public housing, welfare, health care etc[/B]

They are all out to backstab and bleed the little man?
Not until they are done working him to death!


Sorry wilkin i had too:devil:

[Pappy]

Originally posted by DierWolf
Haha,,,,

never spanked my country thank you... no reason too, no oil here ;)

then post in english like you should. and if we havent spanked "your" counrty..give it a year:blah:

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Rdhanded2
wilkin250r, the protest wasn't that the government can take our land for development of roadways and such, it was that they can take it and give it to another private citizen if they see so fit.

If you want to live your life around conspiracy and corruption, go ahead. If we dictated ALL public policy around conspiracy theories, nothing would ever get done.

To me, the "private citizen" or "private organization" arguement doesn't hold water.

If the goverment can sieze you land for a freeway, and most of us are okay with that, then why can't the goverment sieze your land for a power plant, or some other establishement vital to the economic well-being of the community? Regardless if the builder and owner of the power plant is a private company or not, the ultimate goal is for the good and use of the public.

[Pappy]

i think its a crying shame when the citizens of this counrty fear what could happen based on what has happened.

[wilkin250r]

Let me paint a scenario.

Your electric bill has doubled in the past year, and is still climbing. There is a power shortage in your state, and rolling blackouts. Employment drops because businesses can't function well with the blackouts, the local economy begins to plummet. You lose your job, your father loses his job. Income is cut in half, but bills are increasing.

They can build a hydroelectric power plant at a nearby river, and it would solve the power issue. However, there is a problem. One person refuses to sell, because he has owned that land since 1920. It's three acres of swampland.

Are you seriously going to say that one man can nix the entire project, financially ruin thousands of families, force people out of their homes due to foreclosure, and ruin the economy of the state for years? All because the power company is a "private corporation"?

Heck no. Write that man a check, get him out, and solve the problem.

[Bad Habit]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
To me, the "private citizen" or "private organization" arguement doesn't hold water.


and create law to defend the little guy from big, evil corporations
I'll give an example.

In my community of around 6000, there is an old family that at one time owned all the land on the main corridor through town. This is your classic Farmer Brown and Wife situation. Over the years they have sold pieces off to large groups for economic development, Wal-mart, McDonolds, grocery stores etc etc, literally hundreds of acres of land. For decades their house has been perched right on this main road that has developed around them, and it is right next to the entrance to the new Wal-Mart. They were down to their last bit land surrounding their house, approx 80 acres. With it being situated where it is, is has become a local landmark. They sell pumpkins every Halloween, have hayrides for kids, decorate like crazy during all the holidays, it's like a picture from Norman Rockwell of traditional Americana.

A large development group approached them to buy their last piece of land and a deal was made with one exception, they would keep 10 acres that immediately surrounds their house as they intended to live out their final years there. Since this would only entail about 500 feet of road frontage, everyone agreed to the deal, contracts were signed and money was exchanged.
Now the development group has it's first client, Lowe's Home Improvement, but they have deemed that the house situated where it is does not fit their idea of what they see as "curb appeal" for their potential new store. The solution? Kick Farmer Brown out of his house in spite of the legal and binding contract that was agreed upon by all parties.

I know this is just one example, but honestly, how does this fit with your views on saving the little guy from big corporations or not using this ruling to disregard a legal document to appease a private organization?

[Pappy]

i dont think our founding fathers had this in mind when they set up our governement.

the problem with the above scenario.....


they attempt to purchase the property at fair market value, owner refuses. even after offering more then market value, owner still refuses. under the new law the goverment takes the property regardless.

sorry, i can build a fire and hunt and grow my food. a mans home is is castle, and he has the right to defend it be it from our own government.

[Pappy]

and yes this hits close to home, my family once owned a large portion of land that was taken by the TVA and is now under water. the price paid was far far FAR less then what it could have sold for and they did not have a choice.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Bad Habit
Now the development group has it's first client, Lowe's Home Improvement, but they have deemed that the house situated where it is does not fit their idea of what they see as "curb appeal" for their potential new store. The solution? Kick Farmer Brown out of his house in spite of the legal and binding contract that was agreed upon by all parties.

Well, then you hope your local politicians uphold the original contract, or come to a fair compromise. Lowes can't force them out, they can only appeal to the local goverment to force them out. In that situation, Lowes would have to make a very strong arguement why Farmer Brown shouldn't have his house, and trust the local politicians to make the right choice.

If the politicians are crooked and corrupt, who's fault is that? The people that elected them, including Farmer Brown. I can't support or oppose a law simply because some politician "might" abuse it.

[Bad Habit]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
Well, then you hope your local politicians uphold the original contract, or come to a fair compromise. Lowes can't force them out, they can only appeal to the local goverment to force them out. In that situation, Lowes would have to make a very strong arguement why Farmer Brown shouldn't have his house, and trust the local politicians to make the right choice.

If the politicians are crooked and corrupt, who's fault is that? The people that elected them, including Farmer Brown. I can't support or oppose a law simply because some politician "might" abuse it.
I'll disagree with the point that Lowe's can't force them out. They can, or at least their "economic contributions to the community" can. Money talks, this is reality. Just like is the reality that we elect what is available, not necessarily what is the best. Maybe the politician pool is deeper where you are, but I doubt it. This is an unfortunate reality that we are in with our politicians, and rulings like this make matters worse.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Pappy
the price paid was far far FAR less then what it could have sold for and they did not have a choice.

So if they had gotten a "fair" price, would you still oppose the law?

[Pappy]

in the above situation, even if the local politicians want to help i doubt many rural communities have the funds and legal team needed to fight some of these large companies.

its about the money plain and simple. you can vote in an honest person, but there are no honest politicians:scary:

[Pappy]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
So if they had gotten a "fair" price, would you still oppose the law?

if the family had decided it was in thier best interests to sell at any price then they still had a choice. faced with take it or get nothing is not a choice.

[Smoker]

EXRIDERS REVOLUTION!!!!

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Smoker
EXRIDERS REVOLUTION!!!!

are you kidding, you cant have a thread anymore without a bunch of fighting:devil: hang that mofo! lol

[MOFO]

So Wilkins... answer me this.


There is a small neighborhood, heck a large one...does not matter. There is a family that is VERY wealthy - will never work a day in their life. There is another family on the other side of the town...actually several...you could call them the majority...they are barely getting by. They are not living a great life. Would it be right to ask....ahem...I mean demand the wealthy family help support the other ones? I guess the gov't should step in and re-distribute their wealth.

Remember, its for the good of the majority. The rest of the neighborhood will benefit. Housing could improve, the town will get a better image - heck it could even stimulate the local economy...

... but would it be RIGHT?

[MOFO]

True story.

A very elderly lady lives in NY, near NYC I believe. She has owed the local gov't back taxes for several years to the sum of around $50,000 or so. They take her house and sell it...I believe around $150,000 - $200,000. She has nothing, no income, no house, no family - get the picture? What does the gov't do with the extra money they made from her house? (remember, she only owed $50,000 TOTAL) They took the excess money and redistributed it into local gov't programs such has public transportation. When a local politician was interview about this situation, his response was, "The money was better spent on public programs such has transportation".

...and you want to give these types of people MORE power to take personal property without even thinking twice?

[wilkin250r]

You are bringing up individual scenarios, and absurd ones at that. I can easily think of many such odd scenarios to support my point of view.

Rather than oddities and unfortunate circumstances, let's look at the BIGGER picture. Let's paint it in black and white.

We need roads, and we need public infrastructure. We need freeways, highways, courthouses, schools, you name it. We NEED these things.

How do we get these things? We build them. And who funds them? The taxpayers. It would be widely considered a "right" to be able to keep the money you earned, but that's not entirely true. You pay taxes, it's not debateable.

So now we have money to build our roads and courthouses, but where do we build them? The answer is very simple, we build them where we NEED them. We build them where they will be most beneficial to ALL of society. If we need a road between San Fransico and Sacramento, we build that road between San Fransico and Sacramento. We don't build that road through Utah because somebody near Sacramento refuses to sell.

For the NEEDS of society as a whole, we grant the government power to sieze property to develop our needed infrastructure. We can't force a freeway around every farmhouse or barren cornfield in between. Nor is it reasonable to ask our goverment to pay any wild, crazy, outlandish asking price. This would open the doors for people to rape the government, and ultimately the taxpayers, for millions upon millions of dollars.

I'm open to suggestions on better methods. Forget this last law concerning private organizations, YOU, Mofo, are also upset about the thought of eminent domain as a whole. I ask you, what are the alternatives?

[400exrules]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
Let me paint a scenario.

Your electric bill has doubled in the past year, and is still climbing. There is a power shortage in your state, and rolling blackouts. Employment drops because businesses can't function well with the blackouts, the local economy begins to plummet. You lose your job, your father loses his job. Income is cut in half, but bills are increasing.

They can build a hydroelectric power plant at a nearby river, and it would solve the power issue. However, there is a problem. One person refuses to sell, because he has owned that land since 1920. It's three acres of swampland.

Are you seriously going to say that one man can nix the entire project, financially ruin thousands of families, force people out of their homes due to foreclosure, and ruin the economy of the state for years? All because the power company is a "private corporation"?

Heck no. Write that man a check, get him out, and solve the problem.

but thats different, thats needed to save the economy and for all the citizens. A shopping mall, highway, or some dumb industries and stores are not necessities in most places.

[Guy400]

Wilkin, I'm shocked at your thinking on this issue. Your example of an entire town going under because one guy with 3 acres won't sell to a power company is on the extreme side. One of the issues that originally got this rolling was some beachfront property in New Jersey. There is a small string of homes along the Jersey shoreline. These are middle-class homes and local businesses, not run down Section 8 houses. These families do not owe back taxes and have lived in these homes for decades. A developer came to the city with a plan to build condos where these houses currently stand. The city offers to buy the homeowners out and they say "No thanks." Now this just went to the Supreme Court and they ruled in the favor of municipalities. It boils down to tax revenue. Why should cities put up with 10 honest, tax-paying families when they can kick them out in favor of 400 condos? That's 40 times the potential income tax revenue. While I agree there are times where eminent domain is necessary, I don't think condominiums and strip malls fall into this category. Really, look around you, is there a shortage of Wal-Mart's, Sam's Club's, McDonald's and outlet malls wherever you go?

The problem I see with this what do we define as "public use"? A highway, school, courthouse, etc. is most certainly for the greater public good. But, is building a Wal-Mart every 5 miles an acceptable reason to raze a neighborhood?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but what's next?

Originally posted by Pappy
then post in english like you should. and if we havent spanked "your" counrty..give it a year:blah:

I'll give it 20 years :) wount touch us, we good folk and US gains nothing by invading us...

Translation was horrible, but to sum it up.

I lived in the US for 18 years and i see absolutly NOTHING
different betwwen the US and where i am at right now, in fact
its 100 times better and i dont have all the rest of the crap that
goes along with living in the US.

But no worries, love the US and its people albeit they have very funny ways of thinking like i believe someone said "AmeriCANS" and even your last post to me about "give it a year" that mentality alone gets the US where it is, just because you can you do.

Feel the US has enough problems on the homefront they can spend the money on rather than messing with other peoples countries for no good reason. North Korea has been more of a threat to US than anyone, but ignore that right? go for the lil guy. But hey a Bush is in office so it was expected.

I'm just glad its his last term :)

[SRH]

thats bull****, were losing rights left and right, the govt has us trained, because were a bunch of push overs, they use us to benefit themsevles, its all motivated by money, americans are lazy and they know it, i know it, we all say this is bull, eventually we just let these things go and go then kaboom civil war

Originally posted by SRH
thats bull****, were losing rights left and right, the govt has us trained, because were a bunch of push overs, they use us to benefit themsevles, its all motivated by money, americans are lazy and they know it, i know it, we all say this is bull, eventually we just let these things go and go then kaboom civil war
Exactly, as sad as it is, I forsee a civil war this century. These rights that are being taken will be nearly impossible to gain back, and only more will be taken from now on.

The government has us wipped with this whole terrorist scare, and theyre using that to turn our rights against us, basically giving them all the power they could ever want. People watch TV and are worried about Michael Jackson, while bills like these are being passed under our noses and the media will never cover them because of ratings. Im willing to bet 99% of the populous has no idea this was even passed.

Wilkin, are you seriously willing to put the rights that this country was built upon in the hands of local corrupt governments? Pappy is right, our founding fathers did not have this in mind when they laid the brickwork for ourr country.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Atkins450
Im willing to bet 99% of the populous has no idea this was even passed.

Wilkin, are you seriously willing to put the rights that this country was built upon in the hands of local corrupt governments? Pappy is right, our founding fathers did not have this in mind when they laid the brickwork for ourr country.

Nothing was "passed", it was a ruling by the Supreme Court. This has been happening for quite some time, this was the Supreme Court making a decision that it is indeed legal.

And I am SO tired of hearing conspiracy theories. If you honestly believe your government is so corrupt, then do something about it.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Guy400
There is a small string of homes along the Jersey shoreline. These are middle-class homes and local businesses, not run down Section 8 houses. These families do not owe back taxes and have lived in these homes for decades. A developer came to the city with a plan to build condos where these houses currently stand.

The problem I see with this what do we define as "public use"? A highway, school, courthouse, etc. is most certainly for the greater public good. But, is building a Wal-Mart every 5 miles an acceptable reason to raze a neighborhood?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but what's next?

To be honest, I don't know how to respond, that is a tough scenario that you describe, and I realize those scenarios are entirely real and possible, and they WILL happen.

I'm in favor of eminent domain, I'll admit it. So your father worked that land with his bare hands, that's sweet and touching an all that, but there are a quarter million people waiting for a freeway. The needs of 150,000 jobs, and 80,000 children needing food, clothing, and education all total combined is a bit more important than your fond memories of riding your fathers tractor. We're not stealing the land, we are paying you for it, but you don't have a choice. We are not going to let you be a roadblock to the entire rest of society. They have needs, too, and collectively they outweigh yours.

You know what the Inuits did with members that couldn't keep up, and threatened the livelihood of the tribe because they slowed the entire pack down? That's right, they left them to die. Not only that, the slower members were expected to leave voluntarily.

One man, one person, or even one small group should NOT be able to hold up the progress of society. We're not killing him, or even depriving him of land and property, we are simply taking the land he is on, and paying him for what it is worth, and he can take that money and buy land someplace else. We are relocating him. I don't see a big problem with that.

Yes, unfortunately, I see a potential for abuse, but I also see a much greater potential for the good of society.

[WKY400EX]

Originally posted by Lil_300Ex_Kid
Man this countrys going to ****, can't live in your home not knowing if your city is gunna come tear your house down tommrow, economy sucks, and many many many moore problems just dont feel like listing them. I feel the same way. This country is slowly going down the toilet.:(

[Merriman]

I don't like it. Sounds alot like the mentality used to rid the country of the Native Americans, always stating "its what's best for the majority"...... And we (should) all know how much they were screwed.:(

The main thing I don't like is that now is the local governments now have the power to dictate and take land from one private person and give it to another. Atleast before when they took land it remained with the government (i.e. roadways, schools, courts...whatever....) and not in the hands of private a.k.a wealthy investors. I feel this is going to lead to more corruption beyond belief....that is until they try to force the wrong American out of their home and someone, or group, winds up shot.

And as far as "we should elect better officials" UM....Judges in the Supreme court are not elected. They are nominated by the President, approved by the Senate and serve FOR LIFE. One thing that does worry me is that 6 of the 9 Justices are over the age of 70, and are could possible retire during this adminitrations reign. If so the Bush will be able to pick judges with his ideology for the position and we'll face even more decisions like this until they retire, or die.

[duke416ex]

This arguement will go on and on mainly b/c no one will agree on politics, it's like religion. There have been many good points brought up in this whole arguement. To the guy who decided to just leave the country, you may know politics, and you may be happy wherever you are, but you will never escape a corrupt form of government. It might be perfect for a little while, but eventually corruption will set in.

Doing something about the corrupt politicians is easier said then done, we do not vote for them thinking they are corrupt. We vote on the basis of what little we know about them from their campains, the sad part is that even the good ones get corrupted easy whenever that handful of money if put down in front of them. Money is the root of all evil, it controls the world, it controls politics.

Wilkin, you say you are not looking at small scenarios but the big picture, you have to look at the little scenarios to get the big picture. It is beyond the possibility for abuse, it is happening every day. Much of what you say contradicts itself. I take it that you are not from an agriculture related background. You talk about the 80000 starving kids who need clothes. Where do you think the clothes come from, cotton?, which comes from fields, which they are paving so that you will have an easier trip across the us. What about the food they need, does it not come from the fields, then either to our or animals mouths that we get meat from?

Every year thousands of acres of farmland is taken up for developement, not just by roads and factories, but also largely by ppl in the cities wanting to move to the country. The world population is also growing at an alarming rate, how do these go together? Well, more ppl means we need more food, which means the world looks to farmers to produce more. But they also want to build roads, malls, homes, and everything else on the farmland. That means that farmers are expected to produce more food on less land each year. You are worried about progress to feed the starving ppl in the world, what are you going to do when demand surpasses supply and there isn't enough food for the working ppl? We are now getting to the point where urban land is being reclaimed for agriculture use, meaning we are trying to convert it back into farm ground.

Yes, I have memories of being on a tractor with my grandpa, and it means a lot to me. I will make memories of me teaching me kids how to run a tractor too, just like I teach them how to ride an atv. I know the govenrment pays for the land they take, but what do they do about the food it could produce in the years to come, do they make up for that, no they expect farmers to. There will be a point where they can't meet demand, wil the roads and condos and malls be worth it then, whenever America is having hard times getting enough food for itself, let alone all the countries around the world that deped on us to grow enough food for them too?

[Tommy 17]

sorry wilkin but i don't agree with u...

by the way i'm reading what ur saying u keep talkin about them putting in roads and schools and such... thats perfectly fine with 99.99% of us that if u have to build that road to better the people then go ahead and build it! we don't care...


but when u come in and take a persons house for PRIVATE use thats not acceptable... for the better off of the public i think its fine to take a house to build a road, school, courthouse, etc but to build someone a gas station, store, etc i won't agree...


bascially what ur sayin is that its ok for me to come to ur house... demand its mine now and then put a 711 up on ur property...:huh

[duke416ex]

After looking at my post, I probably came off wrong, I am fine with progress. There are many situations where it is needed, I understand that cities grow, and more ppl mean more jobs need and more goods produced. I just think there is a point where it becomes harmful. I don't have a problem building roads, or schools or what not, but when someone can convince a government that they can put the ground to better use than the current owner, and the government make the landowner sell it to the other guy, that is wrong to me.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by duke416ex
Every year thousands of acres of farmland is taken up for developement,

I don't quite see how one is necessarily related to the other. You are correct, population is increasing, while farmland is decreasing. However, NOT building freeways isn't the solution.

Food shortages and overpopulation may be a concern, but I don't see it as a reason or arguement for eliminating eminent domain laws.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Tommy 17
sorry wilkin but i don't agree with u...

by the way i'm reading what ur saying u keep talkin about them putting in roads and schools and such... thats perfectly fine with 99.99% of us that if u have to build that road to better the people then go ahead and build it! we don't care...


but when u come in and take a persons house for PRIVATE use thats not acceptable... for the better off of the public i think its fine to take a house to build a road, school, courthouse, etc but to build someone a gas station, store, etc i won't agree...


bascially what ur sayin is that its ok for me to come to ur house... demand its mine now and then put a 711 up on ur property...:huh

There are zoning laws that make it illegal for me to build an ugly, dirty manufacturing plant in your little rural neighborhood, increasing traffic through your quiet little streets. I can't open a giant casino next door to you, having people park illegally in your driveway, people stumbling out drunk at 2am yelling and keeping you awake all night.

We force these types of businesses into certain, central locations, they aren't allowed just anywhere. As such, because they are limited in locations, we need to have the flexibility to be able to PUT them in those locations, even if it means relocating people. Commerce and private business is just as important to society as freeways and schools.

[SGA]

Originally posted by thomps6s
That's really nothing new. The Government has been doing things like that for years. Say they are putting in a new highway and they want to go through your land, you have two choices, take what they say they will pay, or sit on your porch while they doze it over and you get nothing.
Thats true, nothing new at all. Thats been happening for the last 100 years at least.
Also the govt/states/towns are very careful doing that as to not stir up the pot too much. They generally pay very well for peoples land to put a new highway, or a water reservoir or whatever.

You only hear about it when someone totally refuses to sell even when they were offered above market value and they have to remove them by court order.

[SGA]

Originally posted by duke416ex
Money is the root of all evil, it controls the world, it controls politics.


"Money is the root of all evil"

That saying is a real pet peeve of mine!
Money is absolutely necessary in any civilized country.
Money is not evil, its just a tool. Greed for money is the real evil.

Im just being a stickler for details here.
Money is a great thing, it can buy us all of the other evils we want.

Ok,i'm off the soap box and going back to work so i can buy me some evil things:D

:chinese:

[darkstar]

I GOING TO CANADA, EVERY ONE IS HAPPY THERE.

[deathman53]

I see and understand both sides of the arguement, where I live in nj, there is a town called asbury park, a few years ago a music super star, who is quite famous recently, wanted to buy the whole area by the the beach and board walk and level almost all of it, rebuild the old amusement park and expand it, build luxury rental condo's, restuarants, hotels and bring the area back. Locals got word of this and screamed loud, it never took hold. Now the township is taking over where the guy wanted to start, they are one by one destroying the unfinsihed hotels and whore hotels, crack houses, the next step is the buy out the dumps(that people call home) out and demolish them, they are facing alot of resistance and the properties that are being built the local are breaking windows, and destroying them in reatlailation.
another example, Long Branch, along ocean ave was a bunch of dumps, whore hotels, crack houses, the township destoyed them and build two hotels, expensive houses, and a condo apartment building. and the town is expanding there plans and the residents are screaming, but take one look at the people they are building the property from poor white trash, poor blacks.
Its called revitalization,its good as it brings good business back to the area, but displaces the trash and the unfortunite few who aren't trash. But thats the cost of progress, a few good suffer and the trash will remain trash no matter where they live.
I'm on both sides of it, decent people shouldn't have their homes destroyed for a mall or factory, but at the same time when a town is trying to clean up a area of high crime and make it successfull, getting rid of the trash is a great way to accomplish this. If any of you guys are fimilar with Long Branch , Asbury Park, and Neptune you will know exactly what I am talking about. Those were once very successfull parts of town, Asbury Park and Long Branch started the downward swirl after the 3 amusement park piers burned down, then the trash moved in and the decent folks moved our. Neptune is between both of them towns and the trash overflowed into that causing a similar effect, Coney Island in new york is a similar story, but the new major of the town destroyed parts of the amusement park areas and the amusement area(good part of town) shunk from 20 blocks to 4 blocks over 30 years. Coney Island is undergoing a similar revitaliaztion.
Any action should remain to local officals with consideration of the class of people that live there, condition of homes, rate of crime, and future proserity of the area. This does not mean that destoying a middle class community for a mall, hotel, strip malls, factories is acceptable. Some may agree with me and others will be very much against me, but I'm between the issue, its good and bad, but in the end in the right circumstanses a few good will suffer for the better of the community.