eminent domain
- Started
- Last post
- 25 Responses
- JazX0
Yeah, I've been to Cabrini Green..tough place. They moved those residents out to those townhomes off 94 right next door to people who paid 200k-250k for their townhouse.
Mimio
(Jun 23 05, 12:37)give it about 5 years and it will be destroyed, much like prisoners who are released and unrehabilitatable. what a joke.
- JazX0
straight up Mimio. Such utter BS. Ruins good cities in a heartbeat
- Mimio0
Yeah, I've been to Cabrini Green..tough place. They moved those residents out to those townhomes off 94 right next door to people who paid 200k-250k for their townhouse.
- todelete__20
carbeene green (sp?) would be your case in point.
s8 housing years later turned into an area not many people dared drive through. eventually with people throwing things, and babies out of the windows and shooting out of them they installed i shit you not industrial strength chicken wire over the windows and around the balconies. a few years ago they started tearing them down. fuckin a about time.
- Mimio0
I hear you Jazx,
Don't even get me started on S8 housing. Probably the most abused subsidy out there.
- JazX0
I saw they should destroy all Section 8 housing.
Get out and get a f*cking job and while your at it pay attention in school.
- todelete__20
wait wait wait.... they're putting up a gym!?! is it a globo gym cause if it is i'll go to those houses myself with a sledgehammer and tear the fuckers down.
- TheTick0
For all intents and purposes this is a conservative court - I think all the judges where appointed under Republican administrations - please correct me if I'm wrong..
- blaw0
good point, zombiewoof. i wasn't expecting prick rulings for another couple of years.
- tonx0
well who should decide what is best for the public? I guess the laws are okay it is the people adminsistrating them that need to go...
across the board...
- zombiewoof0
Holy shit, I just read this and it makes me sick. And this is the *current* Supreme Court, imagine when some of those geezers start dropping and the ™Shrub starts placing real conservatives in their place..."honey, git me mah shotgun..the dozers from golds gym are-a comin'"
- TheTick0
tonx - the ability for government to seize property for the public good has always been around. But now you have shopping malls, office complex's etc.. doing it with the local gov't say it ads to the tax base - which is totally bulls**t.
Happened in my hometown - seized houses, put up an entertainment complex (movie theater, arcade, hokey rink and three theme restuarants - whoopie...) - and they gave the developer a 25 year property tax moratorium. Great, so we don't get any tax revenue from the owner...and there isn't much shopping there to generate sales tax revenue..oh but MY property taxes have to go to the upkeep of the parking lot and the police force used to police it...we got screwed...
- -ryan_harrell-0
we need more gyms
- arthur0
to build a highway or airport... sure.
to build a gym or an office complex... give me a fuckin' break.
blaw
(Jun 23 05, 11:32)Exactly. It's supposed to be for public benefit, not private.
- blaw0
to build a highway or airport... sure.
to build a gym or an office complex... give me a fuckin' break.
- tonx0
eminent domain is not a new concept.
'condemnation law' has been around since the louisana purchase. You as the owner have a right to be compensated for whatever you can prove your land to be worth.
Usually the landowner makes out big time. It is how most airports and stadium land aquisition take place.
Why this made it into the press now is stupid, the US and state gov't have always had this ability.
- todelete__20
"...to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls..."
bill proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. a woman. go figure. she wants more shopping malls.
no offense to women of course.
- TheTick0
i just can't believe the supreme court would be like, "yep, it's cool to take someone's house if it generates additional tax revenue."
blaw
(Jun 23 05, 11:21)-----------
Shocked that a right leaning SCOTUS agrees with the principle to take property from small citizens and give it to monied interests?
Yeah. Me too. Totally shocked.
- blaw0
i just can't believe the supreme court would be like, "yep, it's cool to take someone's house if it generates additional tax revenue."
- anzelina0
oh crap, new london is in my state.
i'm doomed!