TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Supreme Court Court Rules That Cities Can Seize Private Property
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid GO TO HELL I AM TRYING TO GET MY NAME ON ALL THE THREADS JUST FOR A MIN AND BE PROUD OF SOMETHING!

carry it on and you will be suspended!

NO I WILL STOP I ACHIEVED MY GOALS. BUT THANKS FOR THE CONCERN

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid NO I WILL STOP I ACHIEVED MY GOALS. BUT THANKS FOR THE CONCERN

If i see one more post from you in this forum in the next 24 hours, you are banned.

If you spam any of the other forums like you have spammed this one, you are banned.

now i think i have achieved my goals, thanks for the concern

quote:

Originally posted by Wicked Neo If i see one more post from you in this forum in the next 24 hours, you are banned. If you spam any of the other forums like you have spammed this one, you are banned. now i think i have achieved my goals, thanks for the concern

Succinct and to the point as always

All spam posts by metalgear are now deleted

i may even take off another 50 from his total as punishment lol

Good job Wicked Neo

perhaps you should even extend those 24hours to like forever?

This "rule" totally sux.. Especially for those people living on the water ways. I've heard its already taking place in the West coast??

But its not like they will give you the expected value of what your house is worth anyways.

I'm sorry but if i worked to get a house on the beach and then have the goverment tell me they are going to purchase it, because some developer wants to build a resort or something where i live, i'd be pissed

quote:

Originally posted by Wicked Neo All spam posts by metalgear are now deleted i may even take off another 50 from his total as punishment lol

Holy crap...

I thought this was the like, the last forum in the bin to be checked from admins on this site...

do you actually read the posts too Neo?
(hi btw...)

i dont read every topic posted in here, only ones that take my interest, the whole palistine / arab / saddam stuff is over my head and i think the best idea is to let those that have knowledge on the subject just get on and post lol

if anything is too abusive or racist then of course it gets my attention

quote:

Originally posted by Wicked Neo All spam posts by metalgear are now deleted i may even take off another 50 from his total as punishment lol

Demote him permanently to a tranceaddict in training

Back on topic:

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Wow...hope you don't own any land in a shithole somewhere...

What makes you so sure that the "depressed" areas weren't artificially induced to be "depresed"? Want to buy some land then bring drugs and crime. That will get people out and drop property values.

Besides there is a housing bubble that many fear is about to burst.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil I'm glad this wasn't around 2 years ago, a company tried to force my grandmother and her neighbors out of their homes to build a dunkin donuts, strip mall, and some storage units. They were forced to build around them because they wouldn't sell. I can't imagine what Could have happened...especially living in a home comfortably for 50+ years that you would like to live the rest of your life in.

Good for you. But sad thing is no one knows what exactly is going on in New London. Did those in that town own the land outright or are they paying a mortgage or leasing? If so that property is not theirs until they pay for it in full. Even then I'm sure there is some town law that will favor the owner more than the renter/borrowee.

Occrider could probably understand what I am trying to say since he's the economic guru around these here parts.

I think New London is especially hard hit because it used to be an industrial city and when the manufacturing ceased so did the economy and tax revenue. In this case this city was more desperate to get some income generated, hence going to these extreme measures. I don't know if the people lived there as permanent residences or leased, in either case I'd hate to be forced to move just for some commercial property to go up.

New London shouldn't be in a bubble market. The entire US isn't really in a bubble state, only the cities where residential properties have vastley outpaced income growth or realistic market values. There are areas in CT that classify as such but they are more towards NYC and are much wealthier.

I don't know if they would want to artificially depress an area either because then the new owners of the land would want reduced rates for being in a depressed area.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil There are areas in CT that classify as such but they are more towards NYC and are much wealthier.

You're talking about the Gold Coast. Of which Ron Howard (passed by him on the street of Greenwich) and others live in.

quote:

I don't know if they would want to artificially depress an area either because then the new owners of the land would want reduced rates for being in a depressed area.

It's simple, look at parts of NYC. Funny how where there were some of the drug and crime hot spots are now the "in" spots to live in. The property values there are very high.

I can not believe that they can get away with this. This is just another key step towards Facism. You may call me a psycho right now, but if we don't start doing something about this, they will just keep on taking away more of our rights. [Most of] the politicians are simply thugs. They are thugs in suits and robes, fueled by corporate interests.

How is this for public use? Unless I can walk my ass straight into Pfizer's research labs (and we all know that won't happen), this is NOT a building for public use.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 It's simple, look at parts of NYC. Funny how where there were some of the drug and crime hot spots are now the "in" spots to live in. The property values there are very high.

You can take Harlem for an example, but Harlem wasn't an intentionally depressed area. It is only getting the attention of upper middle income America now because middle and lower Manhattan are out of land and real estate is through the roof. Those upper Manhattan areas will slowly turn better as higher classes of people buy into the area. Also the old Brownstones can be remodeled to be quite lovely once you sink a few hundred thousand into them. I would also imagine that as property values increase in the poor areas there will be a much higher foreclosure rate so that wealthier individuals can scoop up the property.

I don't know if this law would have much affect on those areas though because they are largely residential at this time. I believe laws were in place on the west side of Manhattan to keep the old brownstones but correct me if I am wrong. I don't know if this new law would override that. I know that lately they have been raising lots of buildings in NYC because you can fit a hell of a lot more buy building up than by building out.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil I think New London is especially hard hit because it used to be an industrial city and when the manufacturing ceased so did the economy and tax revenue. In this case this city was more desperate to get some income generated, hence going to these extreme measures. I don't know if the people lived there as permanent residences or leased, in either case I'd hate to be forced to move just for some commercial property to go up. New London shouldn't be in a bubble market. The entire US isn't really in a bubble state, only the cities where residential properties have vastley outpaced income growth or realistic market values. There are areas in CT that classify as such but they are more towards NYC and are much wealthier. I don't know if they would want to artificially depress an area either because then the new owners of the land would want reduced rates for being in a depressed area.

From my understanding after reading the disenting opinions of the conservative justices, this legal case had nothing to do with blight, which has been a justifiable excuse to sieze land. Instead, the justices based their decision on the fact that the private transfer of land ownership may result in some increased public good (even if the property in question was economically well off) and therefore, local govnerments have almost absolute authority when it comes to determing what constitutes a public good. There is almost no recourse to landowners unfairly targeted by local governments. Basically ANY property owner (regardless of wealth) is victim to this law so long as seizure of their property serves some greater good. Such shit.

quote:

New York City Invokes Eminent Domain to Acquire New Jersey Buoyed by the Supreme Court's decision to expand cities' power of eminent domain, New York City filed today to acquire the state of New Jersey for commercial development. "New York has been facing some very difficult economic decisions," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "Building viable economic development strategies for the city has been our number one priority. We think that the Supreme Court decision really opens a door for us, and will allow New York City to finally resolve some of these intractable issues." The Constitution says government may take private property "for public use" if it pays the owners "just compensation." Originally, public use meant the land was used for roads, canals or military bases, or to clear blighted areas. In today's decision, the court went a step further and said officials need not claim they were condemning blighted properties or clearing slums. Now, as long as officials hope to create jobs or raise tax collections, they can seize the homes of unwilling sellers, the court said. This "public purpose" is a "public use" of the land, the court said in Kelo vs. New London. "The Supreme Court decision makes it easier for us to justify this course of action in the name of economic development," said Bloomberg, "although actually we could easily have made the case that taking over New Jersey would be analogous to condemning a blighted property. I mean, come on. Have you been there lately?" New York will compensate the current residents of New Jersey with "fair market value" for their property, a total amount estimated to be well within Bloomberg's ability to pay out of his own pocket. After evicting all current residents from New Jersey, New York plans to add a new Olympic stadium, a Trump apartment complex, international airport, and, most critically, a 4,000 square mile landfill. "I have mixed feelings about this," said Newark resident Franklin Comstock. "On the one hand, I am not thrilled to be kicked out of my home and be paid pennies on the dollar for the privilege. On the other hand, New York is evicting our state government as well, every last official and bureaucrat. That is an immensely appealing concept." Others are more concerned about the Supreme Court decision and New York's plans. "The Supreme Court has really started down a slippery slope by expanding the definition of "benefit to society" which can be used to justify eminent domain ," said economics professor Brad Turkelson, of Cornell University. "Making way for an interstate or a military base is one thing. Making way for a new golf course is something entirely different. Where is this going to stop? What if they decide that eminent domain could be invoked for the moral benefit of society? Do we want to go there?" If New York is successful, it would mark the first time that eminent domain was used to take over an entire state. Other states are reportedly watching New York closely, and may be considering takeover efforts of their own. "Dibs on Nevada," said California Governor Schwarzenegger.

>>Source<<

Did you hear that there was a law passed on Real Estate? You now no lnoger have a choice as to how much you want to sell your property for. I was having coffee at my usual place with my usual coffee buddy when this came up. Now this is something to become infuriated about. Supposedly, if someone bought property a long time ago for investment purposes and a Wal Mart comes along and wants to buy the property off of them, but they don't want to sell that particular piece of land, so they deny Wal Mart the land unless it's some certain sum of money. Now, Wal Mart can say "I'm going to fuck you in the ass right about NOW. You really don't have a choice in how much you sell it to me for anymore." I'm going to do a little search and find out if this is true.

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly Did you hear that there was a law passed on Real Estate? You now no lnoger have a choice as to how much you want to sell your property for. I was having coffee at my usual place with my usual coffee buddy when this came up. Now this is something to become infuriated about. Supposedly, if someone bought property a long time ago for investment purposes and a Wal Mart comes along and wants to buy the property off of them, but they don't want to sell that particular piece of land, so they deny Wal Mart the land unless it's some certain sum of money. Now, Wal Mart can say "I'm going to fuck you in the ass right about NOW. You really don't have a choice in how much you sell it to me for anymore." I'm going to do a little search and find out if this is true.

I don't think that's a law that was passed, rather the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision we are speaking of--though I could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't think that's a law that was passed, rather the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision we are speaking of--though I could be wrong.

I don't know if it was either. I have a few friends who invested in property, so they were going out the roof about this rumour... again, not sure if it's true.

Well, fuck. Just got a letter in the mail. Seems I gotta move so they can put a Jiffy Lube on my property.

Seems I'm the only one getting the lube job though...


[[[smoke]]]

Oh, sorry, the city changed their mind. Now I gotta move so they can put a Gay Bookstore on my property. Gotta love that eminent domain...


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I did mention that expropriation of land is NOT NEW...(granted it doesn't happen all the time).

Nothing new at all.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/727370/posts

http://espn.go.com/gen/bush/saturday.html

quote:

In October 1994, he told members of the Texas Association of Business, "I understand full well the value of private property, and its importance not only in our state but in capitalism in general, and I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state." http://www.texasobserver.org/showMi...e=970509_f1.htm

THis will affect South Florida, and its been happening for a while, now though it will happen in full force. For those that have gone to Club Space and WMC.. will notice next year with all the high rises ... its rediculous...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.