|
Nice job screwing up a perfectly fine thread Kevin. BTW: Didn't you reprimand another member here for doing exactly what you did in this thread? Idiot. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good The Associated Press Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Yep, and it's horrendous. I guess there goes Naples Village by the Ritz Carlton. What is Naples Village? An area of older homes adjacent to the Ritz Carlton. The homes immediately adjacent to the Ritz Carlton start at about 5 million. The ones just down the road a half mile from there are part of a community called Beach Walk. Those homes sell for half a million and up. The other two areas around the Ritz are Vanderbilt Beach and Naples Park. Vanderbilt starts at about one and quarter million. Naples Park runs in the high $400's and up. Of course, there are condos that run anywhere from a half millon in Vanderbilt on the bayside, to $15 million for the ones right next to the Ritz. But there's no "Naples Village". Why does this idiot who lives some 600 miles north of you think he knows more about your city than you do? Kevin continues to amaze me. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... Good heavens! Could it be that the current government thinks that individual liberties, personal and property rights, and even constitutional rights like due process can and should be suppressed in favor of the "public good"? Could it be that 4 of the 5 justices who supported this opinion are liberals who supported Gore in in 2000? Could it be that liberals don't believe in private property, and the rights of the individual? Of course, that's what happens in a socialistic society...so this ruling makes sense considering who voted for it. It comes down to the morons on the court that think guvmint knows best.....not the market place. Could it be that private developers who own enough politicians (or select politicians) can pressure the government to condemn your house, land, or business and turn the property over to their development cartel so they can put up a shopping mall or build some condos? That's awful. We should look into this, and repudiate any politicians so blatantly pro-business. Thanks for posting this. I always suspected you were a patriot. :-) And thanks for falling into my trap. ;-) I knew I could count on the lefties on the forum to be the first ones condemning the ruling. And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it! |
"*JimH*" wrote in message
... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message .. . "Kubez" wrote in message ... HarryKrause wrote in : No, what we would have is a payoff to Bush's wall street contributors. Today, if you die the day after you retire, your family gets an insignificant death benefit. With the Bush plan, your family gets EVERY PENNY YOU CONTRIBUTED to your private plan. That's the way SS is SUPPOSED to work. Actually that is the way it was supposed to work in the past. Bush is offering an alternative that offers real value. It is not life insurance, it is retirement for the worker. When a retiree dies just after retiring it balances out the retiree who collects benefits til he is 100 years old. That's exactly how it is supposed to work. So who says it has to work that way now? The "who says" argument is at the 4th grade level and using it is a pretty sure indicator of feeble intelligence and poor education. If you have any intelligent counters to my argument let's hear them. If you don't maybe you ought to keep your opinions to yourself. -- Peter Aitken |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good The Associated Press Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Yep, and it's horrendous. I guess there goes Naples Village by the Ritz Carlton. What is Naples Village? An area of older homes adjacent to the Ritz Carlton. The homes immediately adjacent to the Ritz Carlton start at about 5 million. The ones just down the road a half mile from there are part of a community called Beach Walk. Those homes sell for half a million and up. The other two areas around the Ritz are Vanderbilt Beach and Naples Park. Vanderbilt starts at about one and quarter million. Naples Park runs in the high $400's and up. Of course, there are condos that run anywhere from a half millon in Vanderbilt on the bayside, to $15 million for the ones right next to the Ritz. But there's no "Naples Village". Why does this idiot who lives some 600 miles north of you think he knows more about your city than you do? Kevin continues to amaze me. Kevin worked nights as a rent-a-cop guarding a Naples Wal-Mart construction site when it was built a decade and a half ago. Even though housing was pretty cheap on the west side (Gulf side) of US 41, his $4 hour forced him to live among the swampbillies much further to the east. |
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message . .. "*JimH*" wrote in message ... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message .. . "Kubez" wrote in message ... HarryKrause wrote in : No, what we would have is a payoff to Bush's wall street contributors. Today, if you die the day after you retire, your family gets an insignificant death benefit. With the Bush plan, your family gets EVERY PENNY YOU CONTRIBUTED to your private plan. That's the way SS is SUPPOSED to work. Actually that is the way it was supposed to work in the past. Bush is offering an alternative that offers real value. It is not life insurance, it is retirement for the worker. When a retiree dies just after retiring it balances out the retiree who collects benefits til he is 100 years old. That's exactly how it is supposed to work. So who says it has to work that way now? The "who says" argument is at the 4th grade level and using it is a pretty sure indicator of feeble intelligence and poor education. If you have any intelligent counters to my argument let's hear them. If you don't maybe you ought to keep your opinions to yourself. -- Peter Aitken Now that was quite a juvenile and easy way to dismiss a compelling argument Peter. Obviously you had no choice but to offer a rebuttal with insults and name calling. And you have the gall to accuse others of 4th grade level debating. LOL. Checkmate my friend. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "*JimH*" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good The Associated Press Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Yep, and it's horrendous. I guess there goes Naples Village by the Ritz Carlton. What is Naples Village? An area of older homes adjacent to the Ritz Carlton. The homes immediately adjacent to the Ritz Carlton start at about 5 million. The ones just down the road a half mile from there are part of a community called Beach Walk. Those homes sell for half a million and up. The other two areas around the Ritz are Vanderbilt Beach and Naples Park. Vanderbilt starts at about one and quarter million. Naples Park runs in the high $400's and up. Of course, there are condos that run anywhere from a half millon in Vanderbilt on the bayside, to $15 million for the ones right next to the Ritz. But there's no "Naples Village". Why does this idiot who lives some 600 miles north of you think he knows more about your city than you do? Kevin continues to amaze me. Kevin worked nights as a rent-a-cop guarding a Naples Wal-Mart construction site when it was built a decade and a half ago. Even though housing was pretty cheap on the west side (Gulf side) of US 41, his $4 hour forced him to live among the swampbillies much further to the east. I bet he was union also. Do you think Krause was his supervisor at the time? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good The Associated Press Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Been that way for years. Eminent Domain. But they have to pay the market value. And you can even bring in your own appraiser. And then the government and the appraiser have hammer out an agreement. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good The Associated Press Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Been that way for years. Eminent Domain. Nope. Read the ruling once again. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "*JimH*" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good The Associated Press Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Yep, and it's horrendous. I guess there goes Naples Village by the Ritz Carlton. What is Naples Village? An area of older homes adjacent to the Ritz Carlton. The homes immediately adjacent to the Ritz Carlton start at about 5 million. The ones just down the road a half mile from there are part of a community called Beach Walk. Those homes sell for half a million and up. The other two areas around the Ritz are Vanderbilt Beach and Naples Park. Vanderbilt starts at about one and quarter million. Naples Park runs in the high $400's and up. Of course, there are condos that run anywhere from a half millon in Vanderbilt on the bayside, to $15 million for the ones right next to the Ritz. But there's no "Naples Village". Why does this idiot who lives some 600 miles north of you think he knows more about your city than you do? Kevin continues to amaze me. Kevin worked nights as a rent-a-cop guarding a Naples Wal-Mart construction site when it was built a decade and a half ago. Even though housing was pretty cheap on the west side (Gulf side) of US 41, his $4 hour forced him to live among the swampbillies much further to the east. I bet he was union also. Do you think Krause was his supervisor at the time? We don't allow unions down here. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com