| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT--Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097 Except for Kennedy, it's the same 4 idiots who sided with Gore in 2000. "It Takes a Village" to steal your home. |
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 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. :-) |
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. 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! |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 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. 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! The vote was 5-4. The liberals do not have a 5-4 majority. Kennedy jumped ship and joined the rest of the rats. Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Conner dissented. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... 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. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097 Except for Kennedy, it's the same 4 idiots who sided with Gore in 2000. "It Takes a Village" to steal your home. Yep. They decided to rewrite the Constitution. Too bad we can't vote they clowns out of office. |
"Ignoramus26555" wrote in message ... Remember that the power of federal government is limited. It is not allowed, for example, to pass laws restricting the freedom of speech, and it is not granted any powers beyond the powers specifically enumerated. It also is not allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. In this instance, the federal government has no power to intervene in such state matters as the use of the eminent domain (takings) power. What this means is that if we do not like these laws that permit taking private property to benefit private businesses, we should take the matter with the state governments, not the federal government. i The US Supreme Court ruled on a States case |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... 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. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097 Except for Kennedy, it's the same 4 idiots who sided with Gore in 2000. "It Takes a Village" to steal your home. Yep. They decided to rewrite the Constitution. Too bad we can't vote they clowns out of office. Sure you can. Continue voting for Republican Presidents. Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens can't live forever. |
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." This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society during the last several years. Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he justices that supported it. Carried to extremes, every time the Repubs lose power, some Democratic developer can roll into Naples and get the government to condemn properties belonging to local Republicans, (thereby weakening the opposition's political base). You'd have to wait until the R's got back in power again before you could pressure the new government to yank property back from the usurping D's. Very, very bad system. Eisenhower looks smarter all the time- "Beware the military/industrial complex." I think of those words every time I read something more about Haliburton and Iraq. He should also have said, "Beware the rapacious government, private developer complex." FUBAR government is FUBAR government, regardless of the party at fault. |
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." But for the sake of 4 liberal justices and 1 conservative justice the *issue* would be moot. So it *is* about how these justices voted. This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society during the last several years. Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he justices that supported it. Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away from us. |
wrote in message oups.com... 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." Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists? This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society during the last several years. No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals from harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to collect more in property taxes. Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he justices that supported it. I agree. And if you and I agree on a topic, then passing a bipartisan bill in Congress should be easy as pie. |
"*JimH*" 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." But for the sake of 4 liberal justices and 1 conservative justice the *issue* would be moot. So it *is* about how these justices voted. This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society during the last several years. Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he justices that supported it. Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away from us. MSNBC poll has people voting 98% opposed to the ruling, and 2% supporting it. The political party that jumps on this ruling first can sure stand to gain a lot in the next election. I think I'll send an email to Karl Rove. |
Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?
********** I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing folks without trial. ************ This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society during the last several years. No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals from harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to collect more in property taxes. ******* In the long run, there is no greater "harm" than the abridgement of rights. "People who will trade freedom for security deserve to be neither secure nor free." |
wrote: I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing folks without trial. Pathetic..... I thought your #2 democratic leader just apologized for making such idiotic uneducated statements. ________ Anyway the liberals screwed up this one big time. With a new supreme justice being named soon, people will be less sympathetic about the screams coming from the left when Bush nominates his choice for SC judge. No one wants a judge that is going to just ignore the constitution and take his or her property rights away |
wrote in message oups.com... Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists? ********** I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing folks without trial. ************ This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society during the last several years. No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals from harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to collect more in property taxes. ******* In the long run, there is no greater "harm" than the abridgement of rights. "People who will trade freedom for security deserve to be neither secure nor free." In Mr. Franklin's time, there was not much concern about people smuggling nukes into major US cities. |
"Mule" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing folks without trial. Pathetic..... I thought your #2 democratic leader just apologized for making such idiotic uneducated statements. I was actually glad Durbin said it. I really believe he and Dean are deep-cover operatives for the Republican party. ________ Anyway the liberals screwed up this one big time. With a new supreme justice being named soon, people will be less sympathetic about the screams coming from the left when Bush nominates his choice for SC judge. No one wants a judge that is going to just ignore the constitution and take his or her property rights away This is a terrific political issue to be seized upon. I hope the Republicans are first to the punch. |
NOYB wrote: Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists? Kind of like we went to war with Iraq for public good? We formed Homeland Security for public good. This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society during the last several years. No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals from harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to collect more in property taxes. Have to agree with that! The actions we are talking about are nothing but another way to make revenue. Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he justices that supported it. I agree. And if you and I agree on a topic, then passing a bipartisan bill in Congress should be easy as pie. Nah, politicians are a different lot. |
wrote: NOYB wrote: Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists? Kind of like we went to war with Iraq for public good? We formed Homeland Security for public good. Again pathetic... This sounds like... If all else fails just blame bush or the republicans for something! Please don't confuse public good with public safety. They are two very different things. One is nice to have and the other is needed to live. Chris |
*JimH* wrote: Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away from us. The biggest liar and hypocrite in rec.boats has spoken. |
"Kubez" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in link.net: This is a terrific political issue to be seized upon. I hope the Republicans are first to the punch. Yeah, especially since they've been SO effective in reforming Social Security and reining in the scope and cost of government. Perhaps if the Democrats cooperated we would have reform in place by now. |
wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away from us. The biggest liar and hypocrite in rec.boats has spoken. The village idiot has spoken. |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away from us. The biggest liar and hypocrite in rec.boats has spoken. The village idiot has spoken. Awe, how cute... |
wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away from us. The biggest liar and hypocrite in rec.boats has spoken. The village idiot has spoken. Awe, how cute... Actually the saying is "*Aw*, how cute". Idiot. |
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. |
"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. 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. -- Peter Aitken |
"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? |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ps.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away from us. The biggest liar and hypocrite in rec.boats has spoken. The village idiot has spoken. Awe, how cute... Actually the saying is "*Aw*, how cute". Idiot. That's quite nice, Jim. Let's see, you, in another thread read something someone wrote about DECALS, and your addled brain somehow read that as PLACARDS, yet you have the audacity to call someone else an idiot....priceless. But, you're still a hypocrite and a liar, which makes you not credible, so coming from you, it means nothing. |
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". |
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 04:33 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com