OH yeah, wetlands is a good one. Any standing water for more than 4 or 6 mos out the year is wetlands, I think. But hey, they canal all the time might constitute wetands and that would make the lands useless for the present owner. Not good. It will help feed a stream? Nah, don`t go that route. Ever shoot yourself in the foot. Hurts. I know that runnoff from new construction cannot affect someone else`s property. Thats the hook I`d be looking at. ever drove a tractor?
They are using the angle that the water already runs there. Truth is some of it does. But more will when there are more houses because less will soak into the ground.
And yes, I've driven a tractor, what does that have to do with it??
We are trying to avoid the habitat thing for obvious reasons.
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.
So if someone's house is out in the middle of no where, then it's OK for them to be kicked out?
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.
And I don't think I would like the idea of the "community" telling me I need to sell my house, because the majority of the "community" are probably people that don't even live anywhere near me.
They are using the angle that the water already runs there. Truth is some of it does. But more will when there are more houses because less will soak into the ground.
And yes, I've driven a tractor, what does that have to do with it??
We are trying to avoid the habitat thing for obvious reasons.
Take care of existing runoff with your tractor on your property right now. Wait and it`ll be too late.
They are using the angle that the water already runs there. Truth is some of it does. But more will when there are more houses because less will soak into the ground.
And yes, I've driven a tractor, what does that have to do with it??
We are trying to avoid the habitat thing for obvious reasons.
Do yourself a favor and sell it while it's value is thru the roof. Sit on the cash and wait.
BWAHAHAHAHA take that dickhead!!!!! :hammerhea
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
This guy has the right Idea, start taking judges homes for private developement and see how fast this can get overturned...
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.............................................. ............................
CDog, I've sold two properties to a City agency through eminent domain process. There is a State law that allows the property owner to transfer their Prop 13 base year value to the replacement property. There are some stipulations and conditions, but my new property will have the basis of the old one transferred to it. The brochure they, the San Diego County Tax Assessor, gave me is called Property Taken by Governmental Action -Proposition 3-
exception to your statement:
2 automotive-related business's in Oakland (niether are related) but are in
the same block............ both of these have been labeled "holdouts" for
ED reason's.............. the city has been after both seperate business owners
for years to sell... neither wish to sell. both are functioning/operating business's currently. neither are considered "blight"..................
but, since this just past, both have ALREADY been put on notice. vacate
IMMEDIATELY.................... they have just this weekend to vacate......
for both business owners it's over.............. One is running a tire shop that
has been in his family since 1947. the other I'm not sure but it's been quite
a long time in that family as well..............
seem's the first city official onsite should receive a BMG round to aleviate some cranial pressure from, oh say 1000 yards out-?
--not a good thing to happen with OUR government....................
I can see the city coming after a few properties that would be considered
"holdouts" to raise city revenue..............
--Sherpa
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.
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 all fine and good Seadog, if you happen to be a member of the majority who are not being evicted/FORCED to sell.
This country set up a constitution (slowly being destroyed piece by piece by certain factions of our society (restraining from using the "L"-word)) to protect the minority from abuse at the hands of the majority, even though the majority rules. Emmenent Domain was put in the constitution purely because the founders were sick and tired of good ole King George taking whatever he decided he wanted, after all, HE WAS KING.
My home happens to be in the middle of a group of farm fields, 1/4 mile from the nearest home, 1/2 mile from the next nearest, 2 1/2 miles from the nearest commercial business (in a VERY smalll town nearby). My home is in the middle of nothing and I have no desire to sell it, to anyone, for any purpose.
Yes, immenent domain has been going on a long time ... ONLY for "Public Use" items. Freeways, schools, property to be flooded by a reservoir to be built, public GOVERNMENT buildings, stadiums, concert halls, libraries, parks, power lines, aqueducts, bridges, etc. "Public Use" facilities, not so some developer can build a hotel, apartments, or a shoe-store (or any other COMMERCIAL property). This country was founded on the fact that your private property is sacred to you, sacrosanct, and not touchable unless an overiding use BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE is determined to weigh heavily enough to quash your rights of ownership. A new shopping center is neither a public facility nor is it a place for use by the public at large, unless they wish to make purchases. Just going to the mall to "hang out as a member of the public would be considered "loitering" and the shop owner can throw you out (or have you thrown out).
If it had been going prior there would hardly have been any reason for it to reach the supreme court and have them rule on it.
As said above in the past it's been for "public use", not commercial use. The gov has crossed a line here imo that is in dangerous territory of infringing on the freedoms the constitution guarantees every US citizen. This new ruling will only encourage corruption in the taking of property for "commercial use and interest" that otherwise before would not and could not have been touched. To build a privately owned apartment building (as in the Oakland tire store case) is not what ED was designed for. You can bend the intent (which you will now see happen) to construe most any "commercial" use as a benefit for the public if there is a monatary reward (corrupt) reason for doing so. This will now take place within the coffiers of the higher ups of cities around the country. Keep in mind many rich successful businessmen and women also occupy the seats on city counsils. To think they are all on the up and up or won't make decisions in their own personal best interests would be a little naive. This is the precise reason we had the protective ED law put in place by this country's founders incorporating the public use provision.
Again. It's all about money, nothing more or less. And to hell with peoples freedoms or right to own property if it conflicts with those "with the gold's" interests. That is what this supreme court's ruling is all about. Make the rich richer, and fock the average Joe trying to make a living with a small business. I have no problem with the rich being rich as long as it doesn't adversely affect everyone else. This ED thing crosses that line IMO.
I'm really disappointed with many things and trends I see going on in this country. The republican congress and the Bush admin are showing me little. They have no balls it seems to do what's right, only to do what will produce the most money short term so they look good economically. And don't misinterpret that message. I like the democrats and their give away agenda even less. I have not voted for a president of this country since the 1980's (Reagan) that I truly believed was a great choice at the time I voted. It has always been the lesser of two or three that basically suck the least and to try and keep the most suckee from winning.
GW says alot of right things, but then does nothing in many cases to back it up. (Illegal immigration, this ED subject, China, and others). This open border thing is gonna bite us in the ass real hard (from the terrorist angle), only a matter of time (not even to mention the "it's illegal" angle). That is if we're not already farming rice when they start blowin shit up.
I'm stopping now, just getting pissed again. :smile:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote