Reply With Quote[QUOTE=Rexone]Yep. Again it's all about money. . [QUOTE=Rexone]
Hey, that's my line!!!
Well, didn`t the sign say, " Uncle Sam Wants You!"?
[QUOTE=Rexone]Yep. Again it's all about money. . [QUOTE=Rexone]
Hey, that's my line!!!
Yep. It's called socialism. US is traveling down the wrong road. Our freedoms (this only being one of many) are being eroded away monthly / yearly. When's the last time you can think of when government gave you "more" of any type of freedom or relaxed standards on one previously infringed upon?
I can't think of any.
Again it's all about money. This whole property ED issue is all money driven. Yes the town might have gone defunct. That's what things do with they're not viable in a capitialist society. To erode the freedoms of a nation to keep an otherwise no longer viable town viable is a big mistake. No one will bail out your small business if it becomes non-viable because you didn't keep up with changing enviornment (unless you're GM or an airline, oil co. etc). Should be no different with a town. Developers will now run amock with this ruling in jurisdictions where they know the local officials are sympathetic to their cause (local officials many times being part of their cause via ownership of benefiting businesses). The supreme court just opened the door for untold levels of corruption and collusion on the part of developers grabbing private property for profit.
While they grease the politico's for initiating the ED in the first place.
Have you noticed out here in Taxifornia, all cities large and small have gigantic, palatial, new city halls and cop shops etc. The folks w/the best jobs, retirement benefiets, medical etc are now the buracrats not the working citizens/small business people & property owners who pay for all this excess w/their tax money. Now the Supreme Court has just allowed the buracrats to stick the tube in further as they ED their way to a larger tax base to draw from and add to the buracratic insanity
Yep. It's called socialism. US is traveling down the wrong road. Our freedoms (this only being one of many) are being eroded away monthly / yearly. When's the last time you can think of when government gave you "more" of any type of freedom or relaxed standards on one previously infringed upon?
I can't think of any.
Again it's all about money. This whole property ED issue is all money driven. Yes the town might have gone defunct. That's what things do with they're not viable in a capitialist society. To erode the freedoms of a nation to keep an otherwise no longer viable town viable is a big mistake. No one will bail out your small business if it becomes non-viable because you didn't keep up with changing enviornment (unless you're GM or an airline, oil co. etc). Should be no different with a town. Developers will now run amock with this ruling in jurisdictions where they know the local officials are sympathetic to their cause (local officials many times being part of their cause via ownership of benefiting businesses). The supreme court just opened the door for untold levels of corruption and collusion on the part of developers grabbing private property for profit.
I've been saying this for years! With all the new laws that are constantly coming out that seem to "protect us from ourselves". Where will it stop? It seems there isn't much you can do now days that won't land you in jail or get you a ticket. I'm not talking about putting other people in harms way, cause that deserves to be repremanded. And with all the video cameras in Hollywood and in intersections, you have to start agreeing with the people we used to think were paranoid because big brother really is watching.
The media has made a big deal out of this and they make it sound so bad. In truth, this has been done for centuries. All this does is establish a ruling about a particular aspect of the situation.
Media: Dozens of families forced to leave their homes.
Truth: Most of the property owners sold willingly.
Media: Government taking people's property.
Truth: Government paying well above value for almost every piece of property.
Of those who didn't want to sell, one was an absentee landowner. Only one family has been fighting this on the grounds they did not want to leave their home, but their home is in the middle of nothing. All the property around them has been demolished. This may not been popular with a few, but the entire community was backing this action.
This is true. BUT and I do say but, the government is forcing them to leave for a private land sale. Thats just phucin` wrong and against the law. Straight law not twisted. This is not for government usage. This is to create a tax base. Now don`t forget private industry will profit from rent/sales. Bottom line is the Constitution was/is suppose to protect this family and isn`t. Thats the law!
This ruling just makes me sick to my stomach.
We are dealing with this exact same issue on our property and were watching the case very closely.
Our property has been in my husbands family since the 50s and during wet years has a seasonal stream that eventually flows to Canyon Lake, CA. There are 3 developers (so far) who have talked the county into letting them build a storm drain on our property. It will feed from about 1500 homes and all of their run off will now come through our land. It will be wet there all year long, cutting of a large portion of our property and ruining the value of that parcel. It will endanger natural habitats and create a mosquito haven. We also have a nice Eucalyptus grove that creates privacy, fuels our home in the winter with firewood, provides a wind break and cools the air that will be nearly wiped out.
We have told them to find another route (like up their a$$!!). So they are working with the county for an eminent domain proceeding. We consulted with an attorney and have been in discussion with the county Flood Control, but this ruling really knocked us for a loop. We were hoping to use the "it's for a developer, not for public interest" card, but that will not work now.
It's people like us that the Constitution used to protect. The few who refused to sell their family home for a buck. I think I'll go throw up now.
BWAHAHAHAHA take that dickhead!!!!! :hammerhea
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
What some of you are forgeting about is the fact that you may have inhearited land or a house that the tax rate is say $2000 a year since it was bought say in the 60's. Ya mabey the gov. will give you 1.2 mil for that land now but if you were to take that cash and replace it with a like property, do you now eat a $12,000 tax bill every year. Intresting, i'm an agent studing for my broker lic. and have never seen this brought up in any of my study's. If it happened to me i'd demand some sort of tax relief when I repurchased.
On the flip side what better way to get rid of the lower tax base properties than to get people off of their lots, built tax revenue buisness and the previous land owner goes out and has to buy a lesser property with a higher property tax bill that's assesed at todays purchase price. The state wins on both ends.............................................. ............................
As far as Mrs SW goes, try the environmental impact route to stop them. If you have water flowing through your property part of the time, then it is a wetland. A constant flow will destroy that wetland. Of course, it means that the land will be limited in use forever, but that is one way to counter the situation. Without knowing particulars, I would think that your best bet would be to make them install the drainage underground. There are a lot of EPA rules that would probably effect any open drainage proposed. The catch is to find a lawyer that is conversant with MS4 restrictions.
The case before the court was what is the limit of eminent domain. If a city wants to build a road to take children to school, most will support it. But what if it is to provide access to a business district? What the court decided was that it was up to the local community to decide what is and is not a public need. I really doubt if the outcome had gone any other way, that it would have a beneficial result for the SWs.
Posting Permissions