Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Supreme Court Court Rules That Cities Can Seize Private Property
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
BadBadNeil
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: CT, USA!

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.


___________________

Old Post Jun-24-2005 23:56  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for BadBadNeil Click here to Send BadBadNeil a Private Message Add BadBadNeil to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
ogvh5150
Formula 1 Addict



Registered: Aug 2003
Location: F1 2008 Red Bull Racing/BMW Sauber

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.


___________________

Old Post Jun-25-2005 00:18 
Click Here to See the Profile for ogvh5150 Click here to Send ogvh5150 a Private Message Add ogvh5150 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
djkoolaide
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Jul 2004
Location:

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.

Old Post Jun-25-2005 00:31  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for djkoolaide Click here to Send djkoolaide a Private Message Add djkoolaide to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
BadBadNeil
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: CT, USA!

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.


___________________

Old Post Jun-25-2005 03:22  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for BadBadNeil Click here to Send BadBadNeil a Private Message Add BadBadNeil to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
occrider
Traveladdict



Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York

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.


___________________
Retro ...

Old Post Jun-25-2005 06:28  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for occrider Click here to Send occrider a Private Message Add occrider to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Fir3start3r
Armin Acolyte



Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada

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<<



___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Old Post Jun-25-2005 13:41  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for Fir3start3r Click here to Send Fir3start3r a Private Message Add Fir3start3r to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
squirrelly
The Phun Nun



Registered: Oct 2003
Location: In the Shower

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.


___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

Old Post Jun-27-2005 18:06  Poland
Click Here to See the Profile for squirrelly Click here to Send squirrelly a Private Message Add squirrelly to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Shakka
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Feb 2003
Location:

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.

Old Post Jun-27-2005 18:07  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Shakka Click here to Send Shakka a Private Message Add Shakka to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
squirrelly
The Phun Nun



Registered: Oct 2003
Location: In the Shower

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.


___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

Old Post Jun-27-2005 18:14  Poland
Click Here to See the Profile for squirrelly Click here to Send squirrelly a Private Message Add squirrelly to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
smokeape
Lowland Trance Addict



Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Heart of Dixie

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]]]

Old Post Jun-28-2005 00:05 
Click Here to See the Profile for smokeape Click here to Send smokeape a Private Message Add smokeape to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
smokeape
Lowland Trance Addict



Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Heart of Dixie

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]]]

Old Post Jun-28-2005 00:11 
Click Here to See the Profile for smokeape Click here to Send smokeape a Private Message Add smokeape to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis



Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala

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

Old Post Jun-28-2005 05:21  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Trancer-X Click here to Send Trancer-X a Private Message Visit Trancer-X's homepage! Add Trancer-X to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Supreme Court Court Rules That Cities Can Seize Private Property
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackUnknown Track [2004] [0]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackBinary Finary - "1998" (Paul van Dyk Mix) [2004]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 21:48.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!