"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"*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.



So you have *standards*. Glad to hear it.

However I would have to side with the construction union
trades....electrical, plumbing, masonry, laborers and heavy equipment
operators unions. I have the deepest respect to the folks belonging to
those unions.....at least in the construction phase. I have no pity for
the union electricians and plumbers responding to ordinary household
problems.

I also have a problem with the other slackers in the food workers, teachers
and UAW unions, to name only a few.

*All* unions are not bad................*All* unions are not good. *All*
unions are not bad.

I admit that. Krause and some others here do not.

Call me when you can justify a high school drop out making a better starting
wage (UAW) than a teacher.

Go figure.

"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.

This "ruling" by a 5-4 majority of the court means that there is no such
thing as personal property in the US.

wrote in message
oups.com...
And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

There is no more private property in the US. You just get to occupy it until
someone else wants it.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

There is no more private property in the US. You just get to occupy it
until someone else wants it.

Buy near a dump...then noone will want it.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:30:20 GMT, "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.

The interesting thing about this case is that ANY town, city or state
can now take your property and assign any value they wish to the
property - everybody seems to have missed that little clause in the
decision. The case in New London is not only about individual
property rights, but also included is the value assigned to the
property. Implicit in the ruling is that if you want, and the market
demands, that your property is worth $100,000, the city can take it
for $70000 and you can't do anything about it.

Even more interesting is that the New London City Council is largely
Democrat, the region votes Democrat (with one notable exception).

And consider this - the "city" can take over other business properties
for "improvement" which is going to create all sorts of interesting
problems.

The people have to wake up and understand that this constant
legislating from the bench had got to stop.

NOYB wrote:

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.

While I'm not Kevin, do tell, NOYB, where did you get this information?
I'd love to see some proof of your wild nonsense.

*JimH* wrote:
"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.

I'm not Kevin, but, alas, I lived in Naples for a year building a
shopping center there. NOYB is a transplant, so he's certainly not
lived there all his life, either.

NOYB wrote:
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".

It would be Naples Park, then. And if you'd buy one of those houses
there for $400k and up, good luck....

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"*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.



So you have *standards*. Glad to hear it.

However I would have to side with the construction union
trades....electrical, plumbing, masonry, laborers and heavy equipment
operators unions. I have the deepest respect to the folks belonging to
those unions.....at least in the construction phase.

Being involved in the construction industry....I don't. Not when you see
the petty squabbles over who's job is who's, and then the resulting sabotage
by the losing union.


I have no pity for
the union electricians and plumbers responding to ordinary household
problems.

I also have a problem with the other slackers in the food workers,
teachers
and UAW unions, to name only a few.

*All* unions are not bad................*All* unions are not good.
*All*
unions are not bad.

I admit that. Krause and some others here do not.

Call me when you can justify a high school drop out making a better
starting
wage (UAW) than a teacher.

Go figure.

NYOB,
He lived with the swampbillies so he could grow some of the best homegrown
this side of Hawaii.


wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:

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.

While I'm not Kevin, do tell, NOYB, where did you get this information?
I'd love to see some proof of your wild nonsense.