On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:23:58 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

In the town of New London, the infrastructure was decaying badly
in this old working class town. Then the navy handed back some real
estate, and an industrial outfit decided to build a research park
style development. The town commissioned a careful plan to
rejuvenate the town, as a worthy public purpose. The Supreme Court
held that this purpose was worthy of applying eminent domain - in the
face of a few property holders, on 1/10 acre plots who had a
sentimental attachment to them - having lived there like their
parents, even grand-parents had, and despite strong financial
incentives to sell.

The Supreme Court also held that this decision was open to misuse
by public authorities, and their manipulation by wealthy developers
They knew this - and warned that each case must be examined on its
merits. In this case, the benefit to the many outweighed the
great discomfort to the few, and their real property rights, they
held.

So that how the government can take your house - the same way
it could before - for a public purpose of sufficient merit.

Glad they weren't endorsing the take-over of my place, all the same.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Brian Whatcott wrote in
:

wealthy developers

Step one will be if we QUIT ELECTING THE SOBs INTO OFFICE!

NOONE in real estate needs to be an elected official regulating real
estate....duh...

Stupid voters....did it to themselves.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

Me wrote in news:Me-
:

If you say "No", they will just point the "Big Guns" at you and ask
again......

Me



Oh, I thought that was the IRS....(c;

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

In article ,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!
Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......


Me a rightwinger, just left of Nazi........a bit.....

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0400,
Larry W4CSC wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in news:ZtWdnZnDb-
:

Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.


I think it very appropriate for r.b.c. because when they start confiscating
the houses, we'll ALL be living on boats like the rest of the
refugees...(c;



then they'll decide to steal the boats too.

"Eminent domain, it's latin for steal..."

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I'd explain it all to you, but your brain would explode.

"Me" wrote
"Jim Carter" wrote:
Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your
house
for a private development?"

Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......

Where does the Constitution forbid or limit Eminent Domain? Not saying it's
fair but unless there is some prohibition in the Constitution or in
underlying common law then "real Constitutional judges" would have to rule
as the majority just did.

Brian Whatcott wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:23:58 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:


Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield


In the town of New London, the infrastructure was decaying badly
in this old working class town. Then the navy handed back some real
estate, and an industrial outfit decided to build a research park
style development. The town commissioned a careful plan to
rejuvenate the town, as a worthy public purpose. The Supreme Court
held that this purpose was worthy of applying eminent domain - in the
face of a few property holders, on 1/10 acre plots who had a
sentimental attachment to them - having lived there like their
parents, even grand-parents had, and despite strong financial
incentives to sell.

The Supreme Court also held that this decision was open to misuse
by public authorities, and their manipulation by wealthy developers
They knew this - and warned that each case must be examined on its
merits. In this case, the benefit to the many outweighed the
great discomfort to the few, and their real property rights, they
held.

So that how the government can take your house - the same way
it could before - for a public purpose of sufficient merit.

Glad they weren't endorsing the take-over of my place, all the same.

And don't forget, they have to *pay* for the property, usually more than
it's worth.

Some of you should try living in some other countries so you can learn
how good the one you're in is.

Stephen

Dave,

Actually, to be precise, what they are doing is forcing you to sell it
whether you want to or not. If you don't agree that the price is fair
value, then you can take that up in the courts as well.

However, I agree that the change to the commonly accepted meaning of
"public use" is a really bad precedent, and should be re-adressed by congress.
Don't forget that even our constitution can be amended by congress and
the state legislatures if there is enough popular pressure. Our problem
as a society is getting people to turn off the TV long enough to get involved
(sigh).

Did you see the thread about the bills introduced recently that would force
the NWS to limit free access to weather information? Talk about a bad
precedent!! In addition to reading about it here, I also read about it in
my local (Austin) newspaper yesterday.

Don W.

Dave wrote:

Wrong premise, Vito. Until this ruling there was no common understanding
that taking one man's property and giving it to another private individual
because you prefer the use he intends to make of it has not been regarded as
equivalent to "public use."

Did you see the thread about the bills introduced recently that would force
the NWS to limit free access to weather information? Talk about a bad
precedent!!


Dave wrote:
Frankly I can't get too worked up about it. I don't feel any more entitled
to feed at the public trough than the next guy just because I've got a boat.
Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not at
all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

???

But you are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it. The proposal
is not private funding of the weather services, but to continue to use
tax money for weather services, which will then be given *only* to
for-profit weather advisors, and sold to you... in other words, everyone
will pay for it, those who use it will pay twice, and those who are
smiled on by our benevolent gov't are guaranteed a profit.

Want to re-think your above statement?

Fresh Breezes (your tax dollars at work)- Doug King

"Dave" wrote in message

Nope. First, the money spent by those purchasing the service from the
guvmint doesn't just go poof and evaporate. (Though what does happen to it
is another story.) Second, nobody's "guaranteed a profit." Like anything
bought and sold, the data may result in a profit, and it may result in a
loss to the purchaser. "Guaranteed a profit" is simply empty-headed
populist
rhetoric.

I don't think you get it yet. The commercial services WILL NOT BE PAYING
ANYTHING for the data that we the tax payers have paid to have gathered.
That means it is FREE to the commerical services. They will NOT BE BUYING
ANYTHING. The "guvmint" will JUST GIVE IT TO THEM!

It will not save or earn the government one thin dime. We will still be
paying for the weather satellites, the observation stations, sounding
balloons, weather radars, hurricane hunters and people to compile and
analyse the data. We just have to pay for it again in order to see it.

It stands to reason that if a company gets an almost 100% finished product
for free from the government and is then given a virtual monopoly to resell
it back to us (including the government) at very little expense with no
liability for its accuracy, that is about as close to a "Guaranteed Profit"
as it gets.

That is pretty simple. Now what part do you not understand?

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com