Supreme Court overturns the 5th Amendment. - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 03:49 PM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
Supreme Court overturns the 5th Amendment.

You know that little amendment to the US Constitution. The one that says the government cannot take your property unless it's for the public good. It was intended to keep the government from taking your home unless there was a really good reason. Those reasons used to be new roads, bridges, schools. Things we actually friggin needed. People still got compensated for their homes but it truely was for the greater good.

Well today the Supreme Court said the government can pretty much take your home for any damn reason they want. If you have a house and they figure they can make more tax revenue from letting someone else build a bigger house, well you're screwed because higher tax revenue is now a legit excuse.

I guess Jerry Jones is happy. He now knows that all those folks that will be driven from there homes for his new stadium, pretty much have no choice in the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301067_pf.html

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 03:53 PM
Full tilt boogie !!
 
Txstang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: out yonder way
Posts: 10,208
thats some BS right there.

**SKAGG NASTY** Just another 9 second street car.


Txstang1 is offline  
post #3 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 03:53 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,577
unbelievable.

seems this very recently a lot of our rights are being tossed.

just today fed's seized medical marijuana patients crops after they got done telling them two weeks ago they have nothing to worry about.

what's next?

oh ya, flag burning is now a no-no.
communism here we come
dankstang is offline  
 
post #4 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 03:57 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
He [Justice John Paul Stevens] was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing _ David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
I didn't know that liberal stood for the rich and powerful, also for taking away people's stuff. I thought the liberal were for the little people. I guess they are really socialist and want government to have the power, not the peole.

I See..............
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #5 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:01 PM
American Badass
 
SMOKEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Grayson County
Posts: 4,474
Why that is fucked up? Hopefully they compensate you very well for the trouble, but who knows?

'90 LX fastback 5.0 White with porno red interior. (SLOW PONY)
Classic Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaithis
"Still angry? A post like that makes me think you tasted someones dick at some point in your life."
SMOKEY is offline  
post #6 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:03 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog
I didn't know that liberal stood for the rich and powerful, also for taking away people's stuff. I thought the liberal were for the little people. I guess they are really socialist and want government to have the power, not the peole.

I See..............
HOOOOOOORAY Socialism. The government can always use your property more efficiently than you can. The people who really won today are real estate developers. They go grease a few palms at city hall to get the land and make a mint. Then they don't give a rat's ass if the project fails or not.

The first time there is an armed stand off and someone guns down a few cops or construction workers it is going to be interesting to see public reaction.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #7 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:10 PM
gear jammer
 
bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: out west
Posts: 2,373
The rich get richer and the poor get....

I was wondering how long it would take someone to blame the liberals or Clinton

Live..ride..dream


1998 Suzuki TL1000
1983 HD FXSB
bucky is offline  
post #8 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:14 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,577
So far everybody i've talked to is pretty pissed.
How can something this fucked up pass?
dankstang is offline  
post #9 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:17 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky
The rich get richer and the poor get....

I was wondering how long it would take someone to blame the liberals or Clinton
Did you read the story? 5 justices agreed. 4 of them are liberals. Maybe we should blame George Bush??
AL P is offline  
post #10 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:18 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
I see both sides of the issue; there is a reason to have eminent domain laws.

But the current use of the law has veered away from what I believe was the original intent, and that is troubling. The law now stands as a way for the wealthy to take any property that they desire under the guise of "more taxes for the city" which somehow translates into "public use" We see that going on in arlington right now with the new stadium.

The other problem with eminent domain as used with private business is that the landowner is most likely going to get stuck with a lowball offer. Those people in the article that are being moved away from the water's edge would suddenly be sitting on very valuable property if the developer couldn't use eminent domain and had to purchase the property at market rates. So, the eminent domain law is a way for the developer to lower his initial investment and make more profit, while the ex-homeowners are packing up their chit and moving.

It is an unfortunate fact that currently in our country wealth = control of the government and lawmaking, and screw the little people.
mikeb is offline  
post #11 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:22 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I see both sides of the issue; there is a reason to have eminent domain laws.

But the current use of the law has veered away from what I believe was the original intent, and that is troubling. The law now stands as a way for the wealthy to take any property that they desire under the guise of "more taxes for the city" which somehow translates into "public use" We see that going on in arlington right now with the new stadium.

The other problem with eminent domain as used with private business is that the landowner is most likely going to get stuck with a lowball offer. Those people in the article that are being moved away from the water's edge would suddenly be sitting on very valuable property if the developer couldn't use eminent domain and had to purchase the property at market rates. So, the eminent domain law is a way for the developer to lower his initial investment and make more profit, while the ex-homeowners are packing up their chit and moving.

It is an unfortunate fact that currently in our country wealth = control of the government and lawmaking, and screw the little people.
Exactly.

Furthermore, has anyone investigated what goes on down at city hall?? These people aren't geniuses by any means. Has anyone read the feasibility study in regards to the new stadium?? It looks like something a 10 year old could come up with. A bunch of numbers thrown together with no real explanation of how they are arrived at. As a person who does nothing but evaluate million dollar commercial deals, I found it fucking hilarious.

So basically, in short, any developer can come in, grease a few city council palms, have a consultant blow a bunch of smoke up the city's ass about economic development and then get some property from the city at deep discounts. The whole thing is amazing.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #12 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:46 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Y'all are acting like this is something brand new. It's not.

The Supremes basically said, it's up to you, States, to determine what can be taken and for what purpose.

The way it should be.

Here in Texas, municipalities must follow Texas Government Code 251.001. Which says municipalities can take land for the purpose of:

the providing, enlarging, or improving of a city
hall; police station; jail or other law enforcement detention
facility; fire station; library; school or other educational
facility; academy; auditorium; hospital; sanatorium; market
house; slaughterhouse; warehouse; elevator; railroad terminal;
airport; ferry; ferry landing; pier; wharf; dock or other
shipping facility; loading or unloading facility; alley, street,
or other roadway; park, playground, or other recreational
facility; square; water works system, including reservoirs, other
water supply sources, watersheds, and water storage, drainage,
treatment, distribution, transmission, and emptying facilities;
sewage system including sewage collection, drainage, treatment,
disposal, and emptying facilities; electric or gas power system;
cemetery; and crematory;


If you want to limit it farther, call your state rep.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #13 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 04:53 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Y'all are acting like this is something brand new. It's not.

The Supremes basically said, it's up to you, States, to determine what can be taken and for what purpose.

The way it should be.

Here in Texas, municipalities must follow Texas Government Code 251.001. Which says municipalities can take land for the purpose of:

the providing, enlarging, or improving of a city
hall; police station; jail or other law enforcement detention
facility; fire station; library; school or other educational
facility; academy; auditorium; hospital; sanatorium; market
house; slaughterhouse; warehouse; elevator; railroad terminal;
airport; ferry; ferry landing; pier; wharf; dock or other
shipping facility; loading or unloading facility; alley, street,
or other roadway; park, playground, or other recreational
facility; square; water works system, including reservoirs, other
water supply sources, watersheds, and water storage, drainage,
treatment, distribution, transmission, and emptying facilities;
sewage system including sewage collection, drainage, treatment,
disposal, and emptying facilities; electric or gas power system;
cemetery; and crematory;


If you want to limit it farther, call your state rep.
I don't see football stadium on there....

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #14 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:01 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Y'all are acting like this is something brand new. It's not.

The Supremes basically said, it's up to you, States, to determine what can be taken and for what purpose.

The way it should be.

Here in Texas, municipalities must follow Texas Government Code 251.001. Which says municipalities can take land for the purpose of:

the providing, enlarging, or improving of a city
hall; police station; jail or other law enforcement detention
facility; fire station; library; school or other educational
facility; academy; auditorium; hospital; sanatorium; market
house; slaughterhouse; warehouse; elevator; railroad terminal;
airport; ferry; ferry landing; pier; wharf; dock or other
shipping facility; loading or unloading facility; alley, street,
or other roadway; park, playground, or other recreational
facility; square; water works system, including reservoirs, other
water supply sources, watersheds, and water storage, drainage,
treatment, distribution, transmission, and emptying facilities;
sewage system including sewage collection, drainage, treatment,
disposal, and emptying facilities; electric or gas power system;
cemetery; and crematory;


If you want to limit it farther, call your state rep.
I don't see football stadium either.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #15 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:03 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog
I don't see football stadium either.
I'd have to say they'll make the argument for "recreational facility" or something.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #16 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:06 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Eminant domain is not new, but from what i've seen the new uses for it sure seem to be questionable.

I believe that eminant domain was once seen as a big hammer to be used in extreme circumstances; now is it just another planning tool to be casually used whenever someone wants to develop property and promises jobs and tax revenue. It is going to be interesting once the new stadium gets going to see how well the promises of new tax revenue and jobs hold up.

City hall has become a profit center.
mikeb is offline  
post #17 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:10 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Eminant domain is not new, but from what i've seen the new uses for it sure seem to be questionable.

I believe that eminant domain was once seen as a big hammer to be used in extreme circumstances; now is it just another planning tool to be casually used whenever someone wants to develop property and promises jobs and tax revenue. It is going to be interesting once the new stadium gets going to see how well the promises of new tax revenue and jobs hold up.

City hall has become a profit center.
Mike, seriously, when is the last time you attended a city council meeting? Looked through the budget of your local city during the budget processs.

Texas has the best open government laws in the country. If you are feeling screwed it's all available to you for the asking.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #18 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:11 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Eminant domain is not new, but from what i've seen the new uses for it sure seem to be questionable.

I believe that eminant domain was once seen as a big hammer to be used in extreme circumstances; now is it just another planning tool to be casually used whenever someone wants to develop property and promises jobs and tax revenue. It is going to be interesting once the new stadium gets going to see how well the promises of new tax revenue and jobs hold up.

City hall has become a profit center.
No one cares. It's a profit center (not for the city anyway LOL). Except to the councilman who gets the grease on his palm. And no one ever goes back and compares it to the underwriting/consultant report either.
AL P is offline  
post #19 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:20 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Mike, seriously, when is the last time you attended a city council meeting? Looked through the budget of your local city during the budget processs.

Texas has the best open government laws in the country. If you are feeling screwed it's all available to you for the asking.
Actually, I was feeling kind of sorry for the people quoted in the article. My supposition is that they got kicked off some now prime land at what is probably a lowball price.

Occasionally I watch the city council meeting here on the local TV channel and I personally know some of the council members. I haven't seen any of that chicanery going on here in my city as of yet; our council seems to be pretty even keel. Most of the council issues seem to have to do with construction ordinance variances.

Still, the law apparently does allow for land to be taken for private business, and that seems like a lot of power to give to a city government. There is the potential for abuse, and the law is vague enough to be applicable to almost any situation.
mikeb is offline  
post #20 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:25 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Actually, I was feeling kind of sorry for the people quoted in the article. My supposition is that they got kicked off some now prime land at what is probably a lowball price.

Occasionally I watch the city council meeting here on the local TV channel and I personally know some of the council members. I haven't seen any of that chicanery going on here in my city as of yet; our council seems to be pretty even keel. Most of the council issues seem to have to do with construction ordinance variances.

Still, the law apparently does allow for land to be taken for private business, and that seems like a lot of power to give to a city government. There is the potential for abuse, and the law is vague enough to be applicable to almost any situation.
Of course its vague. :-)

I guess my point is this isn't a fight for the Supremes. It's a fight at the state level. In the case of the "Jones Tax" it was voted on and passed by the majority of Arlington.

Of course, that doesn't mean poop, since the average voter is, well, poop.

In 91 when Bush Jr and team went to Arlington, Arlington low-balled alot of people and got called on it many time. Including one court case that changed the payment of 800,000 to 5,000,000 (ouch). Of course, it was the City that paid the overage not the Rangers!

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #21 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:27 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
I had to go over and read the Arlington stadium shit again, just for laughs.

City sells bonds to raise a maximum of $325,000,000 to build a stadium to lease to the cowboys for 30 years. They also provide the land. And they get no concessions income, no parking income, no nothing.

Most they can get in any given year for that 30 years is $2.5 million. Let's say the tax free muni bonds return 5%. That leaves a gap of $13.75 million a year that the stadium has to generate just to service the debt.

Of course they hiked the sales tax .5% to pay the debt service didn't they?

This sounds like a WONDERFUL idea!! Sign me up!! LMAO
AL P is offline  
post #22 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:32 PM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
I had to go over and read the Arlington stadium shit again, just for laughs.

City sells bonds to raise a maximum of $325,000,000 to build a stadium to lease to the cowboys for 30 years. They also provide the land. And they get no concessions income, no parking income, no nothing.

Most they can get in any given year for that 30 years is $2.5 million. Let's say the tax free muni bonds return 5%. That leaves a gap of $13.75 million a year that the stadium has to generate just to service the debt.

Of course they hiked the sales tax .5% to pay the debt service didn't they?

This sounds like a WONDERFUL idea!! Sign me up!! LMAO

Makes me happy I don't live there.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #23 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:38 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis
Makes me happy I don't live there.
No shit, and people wonder why Dallas wouldn't take the bait. Too many real estate fuckers in Dallas know what Jerry is trying to pull and wouldn't sit there and be OOOOed and AHHHHHed with his bullshit. Skeletor had to go over to Arlington and confuse them with his magic show.
AL P is offline  
post #24 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 05:41 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
I had to go over and read the Arlington stadium shit again, just for laughs.

City sells bonds to raise a maximum of $325,000,000 to build a stadium to lease to the cowboys for 30 years. They also provide the land. And they get no concessions income, no parking income, no nothing.

Most they can get in any given year for that 30 years is $2.5 million. Let's say the tax free muni bonds return 5%. That leaves a gap of $13.75 million a year that the stadium has to generate just to service the debt.

Of course they hiked the sales tax .5% to pay the debt service didn't they?

This sounds like a WONDERFUL idea!! Sign me up!! LMAO
There was a study out that predicted the city of Arlington will lose as much as $290 million as a result of the stadium.

The other interesting thing that I doubt Arlington voters didn't understand that the master agreement they voted on wasn't set in stone and actually has a clause in it that says the City and the Cowboys could renegotiate terms at any time without have to put it to the vote of the voters.

It also assumes the 650MM estimate to build the stadium will hold until 2009. Seen the price of steel and concrete lately?

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #25 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 08:24 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
There was a study out that predicted the city of Arlington will lose as much as $290 million as a result of the stadium.

The other interesting thing that I doubt Arlington voters didn't understand that the master agreement they voted on wasn't set in stone and actually has a clause in it that says the City and the Cowboys could renegotiate terms at any time without have to put it to the vote of the voters.

It also assumes the 650MM estimate to build the stadium will hold until 2009. Seen the price of steel and concrete lately?
If you really want to see pork barrel, check out the four ten year extension options after the initial 30 year period. When the rents, thirty five years from now are going to be cut in half.

I'd believe the $290 million figure. All right from the good citizen's pockets.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #26 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 08:28 PM
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 783
"In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes"

At least O'Connor understands the implications of this..We do have checks and balances so can this decision be repealed and/or overturned?
MGDMike is offline  
post #27 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 08:42 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGDMike
"In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes"

At least O'Connor understands the implications of this..We do have checks and balances so can this decision be repealed and/or overturned?
Absolutely. Hopefully Bush will appoint another conservative judge in his second term and the next time this comes up it will be overturned. Of course that could be a decade from now.
AL P is offline  
post #28 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 08:54 PM
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
Absolutely. Hopefully Bush will appoint another conservative judge in his second term and the next time this comes up it will be overturned. Of course that could be a decade from now.
I hear ya man!
MGDMike is offline  
post #29 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 11:13 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGDMike
"In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes"

At least O'Connor understands the implications of this..We do have checks and balances so can this decision be repealed and/or overturned?
Why do people think the Supreme Court has taken anything away from them? It's a state's issues.

Basically the Supreme Court has said this is a STATES issue, not a federal issue. That is all. The Supreme Court said we aren't going to do anything about it but if the states want to impose furthere restrictions then let them.

If you believe a government coming and taking your shit is bad, CONTACT THE PEOPLE IN AUSTIN.

Personally, I'd much rather have a fight in Texas than one in Washington DC.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #30 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 07:06 AM
Meeeeooowww
 
ALLAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the MCO airport
Posts: 20,309
Wonder if another attack on the 2nd is coming??

ALLAN is offline  
post #31 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 08:05 AM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Why do people think the Supreme Court has taken anything away from them? It's a state's issues.

Basically the Supreme Court has said this is a STATES issue, not a federal issue. That is all. The Supreme Court said we aren't going to do anything about it but if the states want to impose furthere restrictions then let them.

If you believe a government coming and taking your shit is bad, CONTACT THE PEOPLE IN AUSTIN.

Personally, I'd much rather have a fight in Texas than one in Washington DC.
Ok, you do have a valid point that it is a state issue. However it is a Constitutional amendment and it is the courts job to properly interperate it. The eminent domain clause of the 5th amendment wasn't created to give the government (state of federal) the right to take private property for "public use" it was meant to RESTRICT that power. The Supreme Court has pretty much removed any restriction that was formerly in place.

If there is a silver lining, perhaps it is that some states will be motivated to change their laws regarding what cities can do with eminent domain.

If I were running for office, I certinly would make it an issue. Perhaps put up a bill board of a bulldozer tearing down someones house.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #32 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 08:10 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis
Ok, you do have a valid point that it is a state issue. However it is a Constitutional amendment and it is the courts job to properly interperate it. The eminent domain clause of the 5th amendment wasn't created to give the government (state of federal) the right to take private property for "public use" it was meant to RESTRICT that power. The Supreme Court has pretty much removed any restriction that was formerly in place.

If there is a silver lining, perhaps it is that some states will be motivated to change their laws regarding what cities can do with eminent domain.

If I were running for office, I certinly would make it an issue. Perhaps put up a bill board of a bulldozer tearing down someones house.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

It doesn't limit, nor restrict the taking of public land. It only says that you will be justly compensated.

The courts are interpretting correctly, for example, when Arlington was taking land for the Ranger stadium.

On one particular track of land, the city offered $800,000. The owner refused and took it to court. The court awarded the land owner just compensation, $5,000,000.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #33 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 08:11 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis
Ok, you do have a valid point that it is a state issue. However it is a Constitutional amendment and it is the courts job to properly interperate it. The eminent domain clause of the 5th amendment wasn't created to give the government (state of federal) the right to take private property for "public use" it was meant to RESTRICT that power. The Supreme Court has pretty much removed any restriction that was formerly in place.

If there is a silver lining, perhaps it is that some states will be motivated to change their laws regarding what cities can do with eminent domain.

If I were running for office, I certinly would make it an issue. Perhaps put up a bill board of a bulldozer tearing down someones house.
You'd never get elected because those riuch fucks who own the bulldozers are the ones who pay to get people elected!! The Ross Perot Jrs. and Lucy Crows of the world know where their bread is buttered.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #34 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 04:20 PM
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
 
jyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
or

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
I don't see football stadium on there....
a baseball stadium, I think they had to boot a few people for the Arlington stadium
parking lot.
jyro is offline  
post #35 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 05:45 PM
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 783
I'm trying to figure out how a "private company" that can potentionally generate more tax revenue for a city; and the city in question, can just up and take someones house and condemn it? Can't the company and the city find some other tract of land to build up on?

I'm sorry, but I will never buy the notion that this type of scenario is grounds for "eminent domain" !!!

As far as the Cowboy Stadium goes...I can't the team, the owners, and the governmental bodies that support this sh*t!
MGDMike is offline  
post #36 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 05:51 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Thornton, CO
Posts: 778
What is happening here is the Supreme Court is now MAKING laws, not just enforcing and interperating laws. No judge should EVER make a law!!! It should be up to you and me and our elected officials to MAKE laws!!!

fastfordfan1 is offline  
post #37 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 07:36 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfordfan1
What is happening here is the Supreme Court is now MAKING laws, not just enforcing and interperating laws. No judge should EVER make a law!!! It should be up to you and me and our elected officials to MAKE laws!!!
I'm sorry, I didn't see that ordinance come out of the Supreme Court.

Which one was it?

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #38 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-24-2005, 07:44 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Thornton, CO
Posts: 778
fastfordfan1 is offline  
post #39 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 12:17 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfordfan1
That isn't the Supreme Court making laws. That is the Supreme Court interpreting laws.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #40 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 12:18 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Lmao!

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.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #41 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 12:24 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
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.
Just Desserts, LOL!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #42 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 01:12 PM
Token Troll
 
GhostTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sherman
Posts: 4,101
That would be AWESOME, if the city voted for the hotel.
GhostTX is offline  
post #43 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 02:57 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Outer Heaven
Posts: 413
That situation in Arlington is pretty rough, but does anybody remember what happened to those folks out in Waxahachie when they wanted to build the Super-conducting Supercollider? Those people lost their houses to some phantom project that never materialized and then they were just SOL after the fact, and the state didn't have dick in the end to show for those people's misfortune.
liquid snake is offline  
post #44 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 08:21 PM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostTX
That would be AWESOME, if the city voted for the hotel.
Yep, brought a smile across my face

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #45 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-30-2005, 05:01 PM
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
 
jyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
jyro is offline  
post #46 of 46 (permalink) Old 06-30-2005, 05:37 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Very little. It would only matter in cases where federal funds were used.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome