The rich keeping getting richer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dandelion_Wine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Maranatha:
I understand that it’s your elected local officials that can seize your land and not Mr. Trump. If you don’t like your local law your should work to change it.
Click to expand...
That’s true, but Mr. Trump merely convinces your local government that he needs your land. He’s done it before, and this Supreme Court decision sets a dangerous precedent that allows him to do it even more easily. Federal law is now on his side.

If Trump wants to build a casino on your property, all he has to do is go to your city council and tell them about all the tax revenue the city will get. Do you really think the city officials will care about you owning your own property when they can get a windfall of tax revenue? Now all they have to do is cry eminent domain, and bingo! Trump owns your land.

And if you think you’ll be paid what your property is actually worth, remember what happened in Boston. The city wanted to build a new freeway. It seized the property and houses that were on the proposed site, paid their owners the grand total of $1apiece, and said, “If you don’t like it, sue us.” They knew, of course, that the people could not afford lawyers.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Perhaps to you, but there were no comments on the decision nor anything in the decision itself with political references.
Click to expand...
My friend, you are an ostrich. 😦
 
40.png
jlw:
My friend, you are an ostrich. 😦
Click to expand...
Then describe to ignorant me the parts of the decision that have a political reference. Given that the usual bunch of rightist and leftist commentators haven’t put a political spin on the decision, I’m curious how you do.
 
Kay Cee:
Do you really think the city officials will care about you owning your own property when they can get a windfall of tax revenue?
Click to expand...
They would if they were relatively certain of being turned out in the next election. Unfortunately most Americans are too self centered and easily distracted to bother uniting to use their ballot box power to do it.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Then describe to ignorant me the parts of the decision that have a political reference. Given that the usual bunch of rightist and leftist commentators haven’t put a political spin on the decision, I’m curious how you do.
Click to expand...
LEFT:
Ginsberg
Souter
Stevens
Breyer

MIDDLE:
O’Connor
Kennedy

RIGHT:
Scalia
Thomas
Rhenquist
 
40.png
ChrisR246:
They would if they were relatively certain of being turned out in the next election. Unfortunately most Americans are too self centered and easily distracted to bother uniting to use their ballot box power to do it.
Click to expand...
And what if they don’t plan on running for office again?

We recently had some disasterous mudslides due to the city allowing over-development of land. The officials who allowed it are all out of office, not because they were voted out but because they either retired or decided not to run again.
 
Kay Cee:
And what if they don’t plan on running for office again?

We recently had some disasterous mudslides due to the city allowing over-development of land. The officials who allowed it are all out of office, not because they were voted out but because they either retired or decided not to run again.
Click to expand...
I’d say your anecdote is a rare occurence. Usually on a City Council there are enough who are either going to run for reelection or for another office that they could vote against developers.
Not that I think this expansion of eminent domain is coorect. It’s a travesty. But if the American voters would get informed and start voting their interests, this stuff would be a lot less frequent.
 
This decision stinks. It’s one thing to take private land to build infrastructure for the common good – but just to make an already wealthy developer even wealthier? I don’t think so. :mad:
Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
 
40.png
ChrisR246:
I’d say your anecdote is a rare occurence. Usually on a City Council there are enough who are either going to run for reelection or for another office that they could vote against developers.
Not that I think this expansion of eminent domain is coorect. It’s a travesty. But if the American voters would get informed and start voting their interests, this stuff would be a lot less frequent.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it is not all that rare. Did Boston City Council members care about re-election when they paid people $1 apiece for their property?

I agree that we need to be better informed. United, the American people are a force to be reckoned with, and the internet allows us communication with each other like never before.

I just don’t see it happening, sad to say. The majority of the people don’t want abortion, but here it is. We decry sex and violence on TV, but here it is.

Imagine what would happen if we as a nation decided to boycott every business that advertises in Playboy magazine.

It can work. I participated in a boycott of Carl’s Jr. when they had Hugh Hefner as their spokesperson. I knew we had won when those commercials disappeared and they went back to the old ones they’d had before. I boycotted again when they had the Hilton commercial. Now it’s gone too.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn’t think it has to answer to anybody, and that’s the problem. The Court has declared that the Constitution says what the Court says it says. In other words, they can twist the highest law of the land to say whatever they want. How they can twist eminent domain to mean this is beyond me.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
I agree that seizing anyone’s property, physical or financial, needs to be carefully considered before implemented. When physical land is seized for the “common good” the owner is usually more than adequately compensated based on market prices. The exception being an owner that puts a sentimental value on the land that’s higher then value that the market puts on the land.

I really have no problem with the article posted but the title of the thread.
Click to expand...
In most of the cases in Western PA the older persons who had homes SEIZED by the government were moved into public housing.
The homes that were taken were paid for with lots of years of hard work by someone in their family. Most of if not all were in poorer communities. The homes were not worth enough to buy another one. Most if not all had to move out of their area away from their friends and community.
When my husband and I purchased our home 27 years ago (it is paid for except for yearly taxes) My husband worked two jobs so we could purchase this place. We did so intending to live here till we depart this earth. Our DD and her husband and children live with us. We intend to “will” it to them. In our township the farmers are not selling land to be developed. Most land is still farmed.
The township next to us is almost out of land to build on. The houses they are building are selling over $250,000. Now it seems that if the large developer that has run out of farms to purchase in that township can just take ours from us. Sure we would get a “fair” price for it. But, not enough to replace it with all the additions we put into it.
This makes me angry and scared.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
The jealous keep getting more jealous.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Yes, I am SO jealous of people who have money that now have the right to take away what little someone else may have so that they can have even more money. I wish I was a big fat jerk.

Puh-lease! :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Richardols:
Sometimes, fighting a city or county appropriation of your property isn’t the same as being jealous of the wealth of the people who are going to benefit by seizure of your land.

I think it was a bad decision.
Click to expand...
I agree - what a horrible decision.
 
Of course they are.You have a Herbert Hoover Republican as President who is in the pockets of the Oil companies and the drug companies. He figures he can keep the American people scared they wont notice how bad their everyday life is.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt told Americans not to be afraid, to stand up for themselves. Thats the last thing President Bush wants.
The democratic party controled by the far left is almost useless against him.
 
This is hilarious and well deserved if true. Supposedly a lawsuit has been filed through the new eminent domain interpretation to build a 34 story hotel on Judge Sueters property. The city fathers need a majority of 3 to do it. The justification is that the land will be better used than the judges home and bring in more taxes.

This is the best way to defeat this garbage.
 
Hi Johnyj,

You speak as someone who has absolute knowledge of the situation. Could you be wrong?

And what exactly do you have against Herbert Hoover? He put his Quaker Christian principles into practice his whole life. Do you live by your principles?

Gene
 
40.png
JOHNYJ:
President who is in the pockets of the Oil companies
Click to expand...
Maybe you’d better check out Al Gore’s oil credentials – and those of his mentor and godfather, Armand Hammer. Gimme a break awredy. And as for the pickle and catsup queen and king – it’s laughable. Between the Soros and Heinz fortunes, they still couldn’t buy the Presidency.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Maybe you’d better check out Al Gore’s oil credentials – and those of his mentor and godfather, Armand Hammer. Gimme a break awredy. And as for the pickle and catsup queen and king – it’s laughable. Between the Soros and Heinz fortunes, they still couldn’t buy the Presidency.
Click to expand...
Bird of a feather. Don’t like big business or big government. Atleast Bush is a bit more pro-life.
 
40.png
jman507:
Bird of a feather. Don’t like big business or big government. Atleast Bush is a bit more pro-life.
Click to expand...
First, the kerrys do not own the Heinze company.Nor do they sit on the board of directors.
Second,President Bush made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate drug costs with the drug companies.He is also about to cut what drg benefits there are in Medicare and Medicaid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top