# The United States Has Fallen...



## Cryozombie (Jun 23, 2005)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

This officially makes my mind up.

I no longer live in the United States of America.  

I live in the American Corporate States.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 23, 2005)

Eminent domain has been around for a while. Its even mentioned in the Constitution. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain



> In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public purpose" of the property be demonstrated. Over the years the definition of "public purpose" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. Critics contend (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/public_use_corporate_abuse.php) this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights.
> 
> In 1981, in Michigan, the Supreme Court of Michigan, building on the precedent set by Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) [1] (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=348&invol=26), permitted the neighborhood of Poletown to be taken in order to build a General Motors plant. Courts in other states relied on this decision, which was overturned in 2004 [2] (http://michiganimc.org/feature/display/6334/index.php), as precedent. This expansion of the definition was argued before the United States Supreme Court in February of 2005 [3] (http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/092904-a_new_take_on_eminen.php), in Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. [4] (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-108.htm). In June of 2005, the Supreme Court issued their decision in favor of New London, making eminent domain applicable for private economic development.
> 
> In other cases eminent domain has been used by communities to take control of planning and development. Such is the case of the Dudley Street Initiative [5] (http://www.dsni.org/), a community group in Boston which attained the right to eminent domain and have used it to reclaim vacant properties in the purpose of positive community development.


Funny you should bring this up. My Town is facing an "eminent domain" issue. There is a development in town that was built back during WWII as housing for war factory workers. It was supposed to be torn down after the war but was kept as rental property and mixed private homes. Its one of the more "crime ridden" areas currently. A developer wants to buy the whole neighborhood out, level it, and build a mix of brownstones, condos, apartments and commercial property in its place. The results have been mixed and the Town is facing a decision....


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 23, 2005)

The article actually mentions the consitituition:



> At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."


 The issue here is that this is for Private development (An office building) not public use.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 23, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The issue here is that this is for Private development (An office building) not public use.


Exactly.  Specifically when they talked about this on the radio they said it was for the betterment of commercial development...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 23, 2005)

Yes. But Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) set precedent. Which this decision clarified. Personally I dont like it. However at some point the jobs and revenue provided by business have an effect on the "public good". I wonder if that was part of the decision.....


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 23, 2005)

So can I tear down MS headquarters and put up a small tent?  It's for the "public good"


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 23, 2005)

"....to create new jobs and tax revenue"?!?!?!
  Don't they have enough frikken taxes already?!
  Ya know what.....
 They can have my home,my corpse and all my spent shells to go with it!


----------



## Tgace (Jun 23, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> "....to create new jobs and tax revenue"?!?!?!
> Don't they have enough frikken taxes already?!
> Ya know what.....
> They can have my home,my corpse and all my spent shells to go with it!


The municipality taxes the business.....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 23, 2005)

So, why should I buy a home, spend years of my life, and a good amount of my earnings keeping it up, improving it maybe, and making it truely a home, just so someone who wants to put a shopping center up can evict me, give me 40% of it's value?  With that ruling, it is not legal for any big corporation to declare"eminent domain" cite some $$ and kick me and mine off.

Sucks.  I don't think enriching corporate fat-cats was what was intended in the Constitution.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 23, 2005)

Well..cant blame it "entirely" on "big business". The guys we elect are the ones that let it happen. And go to court to see that it does indeed happen......Eminent domain is a governmental decision .


----------



## rutherford (Jun 23, 2005)

Hmm.  I thought it was pretty interesting how the judges split the decision.  Not the typical set of judges I side with.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 23, 2005)

Tom, You know as well as I do the current condition of our own local goverments.  Would you honestly trust these twits to decide anything?  Theres a reason Buffalo and soon Erie County will be run by control boards...because they can't do anything right for the people, just themselves and their buddies.  If it ever came down to the government stealing my grandfathers home so Benderson or some other strip mall company could build another empty box eye sore, I can guarentee you I'd be in the news.  "Gladiator WebMaster holds off Developer with Sword of Maximus" would be the Snoozes headline.  Hey, wasn't there a movie a few years back about something like this?  Harrys War or something?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 23, 2005)

Oh absolutely...like I said Im against making eminent domain "easy" by any standard. I guess Im just saying Im not surprised.....Then again Id be lying to say I wouldnt be happy to see Ceadergrove Heights go byebye.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 23, 2005)

I thought "eminant domain" was a federal act only?
  Like housing troops in time of war.
 Not some federal judge,I did not and would NEVER vote for,have his "Haliburton fishin buddy" take my home and my familys' legacy just so they can go on bigger fishin trips.
  Did they put it to a public vote?! I bet not.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 23, 2005)

ok.....
 for some reason,this thing tried to post the same thing twice I had just said.
 so ignore this one


----------



## arnisador (Jun 23, 2005)

Eminent domain is a necessity. But, this extends it a bit farther than I'm happy to see--for econmoic development. It may be necessary some of the time, but only rarely I hope.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> However at some point the jobs and revenue provided by business have an effect on the "public good".



To hell with the "public good." The idea that a group of twits knows best for the rest of us galls the hell out of me.

I do not care if it is a corporation trying to open up a site, or a bunch of goverment officials trying to set up a community according to their own vision. No one should be able to take from one to give to another.

No one should impose their own vision of what society should be by force like this. We need to respect every individual in society and respect their rights. This example of not respecting the right of the private land owner for "the greater good" is unacceptable.

I just hope some of the judges that made this decision step down in the next three years. But maybe the damage is already irreversable.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2005)

While I agree with the conclusion of your post, Don, I'm not quite sure if I can subscribe to all of your points.

Are you suggesting that, for example, Social Security is wrong?? It most assuredly "takes" from one and "gives" to another...

As for myself, I believe in the idea of "social contract". But, its important not to take this thinking too far into authoritarianism.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 23, 2005)

I think it is a bad ruling. I believe it will further the gap between the haves and have-nots in our society. I imagine that in another 30 or 40 years, the deal will be undone.


Perhaps there will someday soon be a 'class war' ... in which the poor rise up and take over ... kill the men, roast them on a spit, and feed them to the women.

That's the way they did it in the 13th century.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Jun 23, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> "....to create new jobs and tax revenue"?!?!?!
> Don't they have enough frikken taxes already?!
> Ya know what.....
> They can have my home,my corpse and all my spent shells to go with it!


Careful where you say that.. Limiting how we can talk & think is next.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 23, 2005)

Yeah..It does suck. But even the founding fathers apparently knew there would be a point where the government would have to "take" from an individual for the "public good". I agree that that definition is a sticking point. My problem lies with the government paying out a fraction of the property value when they claim "domain". Those homeowners should be getting twice the value of their property for the inconvienence IMO.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 23, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> Careful where you say that.. Limiting how we can talk & think is next.


I guess that only leaves actions


----------



## Bester (Jun 24, 2005)

Right.  We can all band together, mad martial arts masters that we are and try our emptyhand on a M1 Abrams.  Tell me, how does one do an open hand disarm on a main battle tank?

I would say vote the sobs out, but, the vote is compromised.
We could stage a huge protest, but we would be arrested for "unpatriotic disobedience", and I for one don't speak spanish.
We lost, they won, and to be honest, we earned the loss.  We were so happy to keep giving them "a little more". Now, they want a piece of property it's theirs.

I pause now for our Corporate anthem....
"Money Money Money, Everyones got their price."

Kaith, save me a gladius. We may go down, but we can go down fighting.  Butch and Sundance baby, Butch and Sundance!


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 24, 2005)

Hey, this has already happened in Minnesota.  They have just legalized it so less would be able to fight it.

We have friends who built a log cabin type ranch house, rather large.  Their dream house.  It was on a good size property in the country.  Well, along comes a development of new housing.  Huge development.  Well, they needed a road to get to it, didn't they?  So they pulled the eminent domain and cut a road right next to our friends property.  But that wasn't enough they needed more space on either side of the road. Our friends were distraught about losing their home and fought it with their neighbors for years.  Spent tons of money in court costs.  They still got only a percentage of what it was worth in the end.  

So, everyone look around your property.  Are you near the outskirts of town for a shopping center, or near an airport--they do require more space all the time.  Or maybe your town is just growing and needs a bigger road down the middle.  This decision is going to cause alot of heartache. TW


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 24, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> I pause now for our Corporate anthem....
> "Money Money Money, Everyones got their price."



_And I always thought this would be
The land of milk and honey
Oh but I come to find out that its all hate and money
And there's a canopy of greed holding me down_

Blind Melon, Tones of Home


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 24, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> Right. We can all band together, mad martial arts masters that we are and try our emptyhand on a M1 Abrams. Tell me, how does one do an open hand disarm on a main battle tank?
> 
> I would say vote the sobs out, but, the vote is compromised.
> We could stage a huge protest, but we would be arrested for "unpatriotic disobedience", and I for one don't speak spanish.
> ...


so whats your idea then?
Do nothing?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 24, 2005)

Heres mine:
In November, vote for the 3rd partys.  
Be in constant contact with those in office telling them to change course.
Armed resistance would be a costly, and difficult action considering the unequal levels of firepower and training. It should be a last resort only. 
Organized protest in several cities at the same time will get attention, where a couple of people waving signs in a small town won't.
Oh, and be sure to inform the alternative media.  The regular are little more than mouthpieces at times.


----------



## ginshun (Jun 24, 2005)

I honestly wanted to punch 5/9ths of the Supreme Court when I heard this.  What a bunch of BS.

 Like someone else mentioned, they might get my land, but they better expect to get a few bullets along with it.


----------



## Kane (Jun 24, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
> 
> This officially makes my mind up.
> 
> ...


  Oh no they didn't.

 I agree with Technopunk, such a law would make me believe the US and everything it stands for is falling. No way can they take my property, and if those government ***** try to I will turn redneck, buy a shotgun, and defend my turf till the end. The government has no right to do this.

  I really hope our country won't turn communist. I really hope it doesn't happen.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 24, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Oh no they didn't.
> 
> I agree with Technopunk, such a law would make me believe the US and everything it stands for is falling. No way can they take my property, and if those government ***** try to I will turn redneck, buy a shotgun, and defend my turf till the end. The government has no right to do this.
> 
> I really hope our country won't turn communist. I really hope it doesn't happen.


It wont turn communist, the corporations are paying to much to control it to lose that controll thru communism.


----------



## Kane (Jun 24, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> It wont turn communist, the corporations are paying to much to control it to lose that controll thru communism.


 Yea that maybe true but with the government having the right to seize our land, that makes it more communist.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 24, 2005)

They've always had that right. This just broadens the list of allowable reasons for doing it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 24, 2005)

Yes.  Now rather than because they need to build a road, they can take it to build a McDonalds or Walmart.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 24, 2005)

In CO, Gov Owens recently vetoed a bill that would've prevented private companies building private roll roads from being able to condem land as they saw fit along the path of the proposed road.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 24, 2005)

Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?
Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond
June 24, 2005: 3:20 PM EDT
By Parija Bhatnagar, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.

Retailers such as Target (Research), Home Depot (Research) and Bed, Bath & Beyond (Research) have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found. 
(Full Story: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm?cnn=yes


----------



## arnisador (Jun 24, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Yes. Now rather than because they need to build a road, they can take it to build a McDonalds or Walmart.


 Or a strip club, hopefully.

 I see the benefits of economic development to a community. But, I don't see this as taking something for _public_ use--it's taking it for _private_ use. That bothers me.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 24, 2005)

If you take the homes of the people who live there... pay them less than they owe on the homes, you create a Homeless person... 

Is a homeless person really gonna buy goods from Home Depo or Bed Bath and Beyond?  I doubt that.


----------



## Ping898 (Jun 24, 2005)

I have a problem with the fact that they seem to always undervalue how much the homes they are taking are worth and doesn't in anyway take into account intangibles, like that you may live in walking distance of your mother who you help out daily and there is no housing anywhere near her that would allow you to do the same thing.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 24, 2005)

This country elected a government that consistently sides with big business to the detriment of the average citizen.  You can express your opinion in November.  This is exactly the type of issue voters should think about.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 24, 2005)

I think you guys are concentrating too much on the corporations and not on the goverments.

I doubt there will be any overt moves by big corporations to seize houses. Instead, you should worry about the local goverments taking property away from people in order to try to lure corporations and their tax dollars to them. Lets look at a passage from the original article.



> Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.



Ok, it looks like that is more than one business. The city is looking at more tax dollars than the existing properties can give them. More money for them to spend, more money in the budget for salaries..... The corporations are going to go where they can make the most money for the least cost, and goverments are right now competing for them. They don't have to bribe anyone. The goverments are doing all they can to make things attractive for them.

If I was in business, I would right now be getting some contacts and influence over local officials. I would not do it to seize property. As I have shown too many goverments would be competing for my business to worry about not finding a place to build my plant. But since goverments can determine that a future possible income is a excuse to take property, I would have to worry about them going after my business. All it would take is a few council members to draw up plans for a vacation resort that would (in theory) bring in more tax dollars and they could send in the wrecking crew. So a few politicians in my pocket is just a form of self defense. Don't bet that we will not see a few goverments put pressure on locals for contributions with plans like this.

Nor should we not expect a few vandettas to go on by local goverments. Unpopular businesses like strip clubs, tobacco stores, and even fur coat makers could have vacation resorts built on their land in the near future. You want to _prove_ that the pols decided to build where they did based on a hatred of the current owners? Take a look at what is happening in Zimbabwe right now. You back certain political rivals and your place is taken down for "The Greater Good."

Give me a corporation that is motivated by greed but with no political power over a bunch of proffesional politicians crying about the greater good any day.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 24, 2005)

It's this type of federal level court decisions and law making that makes conservatism look all the better.

These types of decisions should be deferred back to the local community for a decision.

When this comes to your town, you better get off you back sides and get to the town hall to vote and petition these types of decisions. The Supreme Court should never have heard this case.

Now we all have to deal with the precedent.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 24, 2005)

Yes, you are right eminent domain has been around for a very long time, but when you purchase a home, I mean that is probably the most expensive purchase you will ever make.  You are never or hardly ever going to get the market value for it, chances are that you are going to pay significantly more, if not the price the house sells for, the interest rate will get you.  And what this does, is it allows some guy with millions of dollars who wants to put up another apartment complex and make a few hundred million with it, to make you an offer, if you dont accept then he goes and bitches about it to the city, and then the city makes you take the offer regardless of how much you paid for the home, your memories, your dreams, and everything else that came with the house and made the house special to you (sorry for the run-on sentence), it was a terrible opinion.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 24, 2005)

The decision means that regardless of what you, or your neighbors want, your local government can basically give your property to whomever they think will put enough cash in their hands.  Don't want a Walmart in your town?  Too bad if your home is where they want to put the lube shop.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> It's this type of federal level court decisions and law making that makes conservatism look all the better.
> 
> These types of decisions should be deferred back to the local community for a decision.
> 
> ...


This ruling has its fundamental logic in 'conservatism'. 

These are all 'conservative' judges. 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees. It is a bit baffling that Justice Thomas is on the right side of this decision (the minority). However, I think Justice Thomas, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia are on the right side of the decision for all the wrong reasons.

The Majority, throughout their opinion, stated that the local authorities were best able to determine what is in the 'public interest' when taking property by eminent domain. They went out of their way to express their desire to not take sides on an issue of taking.



> "*The public end may be* as well or *better served* through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government."


Isn't this sentence, taken directly from the majority opinion, the very essence of modern day conservatism?

(And just the other day I referred to the US Supreme Court as an institution that believed in a Constitutional Republic).


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> These are all 'conservative' judges. 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees.



No, they are not all conservative. You have to remember that Reagan and Bush both tried to nominate judges along the line of Clarence Thomas, but had trouble and had to compromise on later judges.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 25, 2005)

In a way they are all conservative, this is a very conservative court, John Paul Stevens is the only true liberal of the court, and even he is not all that liberal.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 25, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> In a way they are all conservative, this is a very conservative court, John Paul Stevens is the only true liberal of the court, and even he is not all that liberal.



I do not know how you can think that unless you are just to the left of Lenin. Ginsburg is a conservative?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 25, 2005)

I find the reporting of this issue a bit sensational on the part of many media outlets.  Again, imminent domain is nothing new.  The issue was whether or not city governments could invoke imminent domain for commercial development purposes.  The statement that city governments can "Seize" property is not quite accurate.  

The process is one where the property that is taken is paid for at fair market value.  I have issues with some specifics of the concepts, but in general I believe city governments should be able to develop certain properties.  What I take exception with is how much private developers should have to pay for these properties.  

I think the standard should be that for public purposes, such as roads, the state or federal government should pay for property at "fair market value."  Private developing companies who wish to make a profit off of the property should be forced to pay double or triple "fair market value".  

Meaning if the fair market price of a given property is $150,000 they should have to pay $300,000 or $450,000 for the property.  This would be the only fair way to go and, while it would not make everyone happy, it would be at least equitable. 

That's just my take on the issue.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I do not know how you can think that unless you are just to the left of Lenin. Ginsburg is a conservative?


Justice Ginsburg certainly is conservative in this ruling, she signed the majority opinion, which included this statement.




> "The public end may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government."


 
Is there something in this statement that is *not* conservative?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 25, 2005)

Liberalism Triumphs in Court


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 25, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I do not know how you can think that unless you are just to the left of Lenin. Ginsburg is a conservative?


No, it comes from reading her opinions on cases.  How is she a liberal, what simply because she is a democrat please, go read her opinions first, say for abortion, they are all pretty conservative.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is there something in this statement that is *not* conservative?



The entire _idea_ that goverment should get involved in the way businesses are run is counter to capitalistic/ conservative ways of thinking. The written decision is misleading. The choice to take from one to give to another is by the local goverment.

Clarence Thomas and others have been hit for being against affermative action. It is not that they are for racism, but rather that they are against the idea of the goverment telling businesses what they need to do for the greater good. They have been nailed to the wall for that. But do you think these "conservatives" would be on the side of the goverment deciding that one use of property should be determined by the goverment when they don't back things like affermative action?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 25, 2005)

I'm amused at how this is deteriorating into a "liberal vs. conservative" argument - by all means, let's turn against each other with labels rather than talking about the issue at hand.

For example, I believe this may be the first time MisterMike and I are in agreement on an issue.  I'd say that was pretty uniting, wouldn't you?

Eminent domain has been around for a long time, as Tgace has mentioned, but the either collusion between or eagerness to please from local governments to big business is appalling.  

Ever since corporations were given the same rights as individual citizens (who often don't pay taxes and have ready $$ to suit their purposes), I think this nation has taken a wrong turn.  At some point we're going to have to reverse that decision.  

So now it's harder for individuals to file for bankruptcy, but your local government might decide to boot you out of your home to make a strip mall?

Yup, we sure aren't valuing our citizens very much, are we.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 25, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Ever since corporations were given the same rights as individual citizens (who often don't pay taxes and have ready $$ to suit their purposes), I think this nation has taken a wrong turn. At some point we're going to have to reverse that decision. [\QUOTE]
> 
> Well, I for one am in complete agreement with you here and especially foreign cartels and monopolies who claim not to be subject to our laws because they monopolized in a foreign country, but want all the benefits given to Corporations in the US.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 1, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'm amused at how this is deteriorating into a "liberal vs. conservative" argument - by all means, let's turn against each other with labels rather than talking about the issue at hand.



Yes, but if "conservatives" had been allowed to be more conservative this decision would not have gone through.

Anyone remember Bork? He was part of the right wing that beleived that the goverment should not be sticking it's nose into our private lives. He was called a racist because of his views on Affermative Action. Clarence Thomas feels the same. They are not for racists, but rather against the idea of the goverment overriding individual choice for what they own.

But Bork got trashed. Ed Kennedy even said that he wanted the courts to do the right thing and not the _far right_ thing. His nomination went down in flames and a more "reasonable" judge in the form of Justice Kennedy was nominated.

So the idea that the judges are conservative/ right wing/ capitalist because they were nominated by republicans is just wrong. If Bork felt the way he did about Affermative action like Thomas (who voted against this), I have no doubt he would have voted against this too. But he was rejected as being too right wing by the senate and Kennedy was put in instead. And Kennedy voted for it.

Here is an article on the matter.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id320.htm


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 2, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This ruling has its fundamental logic in 'conservatism'.
> 
> These are all 'conservative' judges. 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees. It is a bit baffling that Justice Thomas is on the right side of this decision (the minority). However, I think Justice Thomas, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia are on the right side of the decision for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> ...



I see your point about the positions of the Justices, but the sole idea of making rulings like this at a federal level, which affect everyone until something can be done at a local level is what I was getting at.

The taking of private property by another private entity for "public interest" is not conservative. Conservative is: What's mine is mine and you cannot have it unless I say so. To hell with public interest.   

This was not a conservative decision by any stretch.

Conservatism starts with "Congress shall make no law..." because just about every time they do, we get the shaft-a-roo. Now, people take their issues to the courts, who are just as damaging.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 5, 2005)

IMO, Feisty Mouse is dead on.  This is not about "liberalism" or "conservativism."  Follow the money!  This is about CORPORATISM.  

Tax base?  Seriously?  Most corporations pay no taxes.  

Jobs?  Like Wal-mart for instance?  Target?  Starbucks?  They pay a little bit over minimum wage, and keep the hours low so their workers don't even qualify for health insurance.  Wal-mart has more workers on Medicaid than any other corporation in the country.

Big corporations usually don't enhance the local economy...usually they destroy it.  Small businesses just can't compete, and more people are unemployed, or employed at far lower wages than they used to earn.

And who do you think pays for the roads, police, fire department that these big corporations need?  The local taxpayer. 

Meanwhile, the local politicians, who may be Dems or Repubs, reap the benefits of nice campaign contributions, sometimes trips and other perks.

This sort of thing has happened all over the midwest.

If you have any doubts, I'd suggest you read "What's The Matter With Kansas?"


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 6, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> IMO, Feisty Mouse is dead on. This is not about "liberalism" or "conservativism." Follow the money! This is about CORPORATISM.
> 
> Tax base? Seriously? Most corporations pay no taxes.
> 
> ...


 Actually sales tax pays for most of those departments in my state. Our police and fire departments get nothing from property and other taxes. Furthermore, our local "small businesses" produce very little sales tax. They also don't employ very many people. In addition, the small businesses that Wal-Mart displaces in our area don't pay anymore (and sometimes less) than Wal-Mart and employee far less people.  What usually happens is a local small businessman is the only one losing money, but they aren't representative of the largest bulk of the local population anyway.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 7, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> IMO, Feisty Mouse is dead on.  This is not about "liberalism" or "conservativism."  Follow the money!  This is about CORPORATISM.



Again, take a look at the orignal article about the case. The local goverment is taking this guys house for, "riverfront hotel, health club and office." There is no mention of Starbucks, Wal-Mart, or any other corportation.

No, the winner in this case is the idea that the group is more important than any individual parts.

The winner is the idea that the goverment is somehow responsible for all of us and can do with us as they will. The winner is the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few. Of course, the many get to determine their needs that the few will pay for. And the goverment will carry out the greedy desires of the majority.

This is about tax revenue- not anything like a road or a military base. The goverment can say that one business or property is not as valid as another and take that away if it raises more money. And lets face it- basic services are probably not in danger here. The higher tax base this things will raise probably will go for something like a day care center rather than police forces.

People want more. They vote for goverments that give them more. But when people go to the goverment with their hands outstretched chanting 'gimme, gimme, gimme' that money has to come from somewhere. Well, in this case it is coming from the jobs, tourist dollars and taxes this project will raise.

And the people are fine with it. It benifits them at the expense of this poor guy.

C'mon- think! The local goverment let this go to the highest court knowing that doing so would let the entire world know what they were doing, let alone the local voters. Obviously they are not worried about being voted out of office. I can tell you that the majority of voters in that area probably would say, "it is too bad about the guy, but we really need this....."

Put the rights of one individual in one hand, and the chances of jobs, tourist money and goodies from the local goverment in the other and concern for that guy's rights will drop faster than a prom dress at midnight.

Of course, people just can't admit that to themselves, so they have to have some sort of great need or justification for giving someone the shaft. Maybe they will say something about the children. If this tax money lets them send their kids to a new community college for free they can think that they are doing good for everyone and not just their own greedy desires.

Oh yeah, don't worry about the corporations. Think about the politicions and the voters that gave us the idea of pork barrel spending and worry about how they are going to look for small targets to pay off the voters. The founding fathers first ammended the constitution with a number of ammendments that said what the people by means of the goverment *can't* do just for this reason. America truely has fallen if the idea that the people can elect political hacks to take from one person to give to another. Because the people will always demand more. And in a world where the goverment is not just a passive protector of the rights of individuals, but rather an active judge of what is "best" for the group, you are either one of the predators or prey.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 7, 2005)

Yes eminent domain has been around since the inception of the USA, however, it is being abused.  Usually to line someone's pockets.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> It wont turn communist, the corporations are paying to much to control it to lose that controll thru communism.


 Actually the cabal that controls this country found that Communism was not productive enough. They found that free enterprise was better. They pretty much have secured the front row at the feeding trough throughout the world.


----------



## Xequat (Jul 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think the standard should be that for public purposes, such as roads, the state or federal government should pay for property at "fair market value." Private developing companies who wish to make a profit off of the property should be forced to pay double or triple "fair market value".
> 
> Meaning if the fair market price of a given property is $150,000 they should have to pay $300,000 or $450,000 for the property. This would be the only fair way to go and, while it would not make everyone happy, it would be at least equitable.
> 
> That's just my take on the issue.


Exactly what I was thinking.  I would suggest that a solution to this problem would be another Constitutional amendment declaring just that.  If it's for a road or something, maybe, but if it's for capitalist advancement, then that double/triple market value is just a part of the investment.  If the state or feds or even municipality wants to help the investors some way through tax relief or grants or whatever, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it, but I think it should be included as part of the company's investment.


----------



## Karushi (Jul 7, 2005)

I wouldn't say that the U.S. has fallen. Because without businesses we can not do anything. But don't take me the wrong way I am not saying it's okay to take people's property (unless they owe taxes... REPO!!) but I do not think that The U.S. has become as bad as you make it seem. But I also don't think it is the best place in the world. There are a lot of things wrong with the way our government is run by Republicans and Democrats alike. Even though I believe we should just drop the damn labels and become Americans. We need more nationalism is what we need. Hmm that was kinda' off track. But a good point any way.


----------



## andy (Jul 10, 2005)

the aggregate yearly taxrate is over 50%, the bill of rights are circumvented and held in abeyance at every opportunity. but hey whats another little babystep who needs that pesky fifth amendmant


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 10, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> the aggregate yearly taxrate is over 50%, the bill of rights are circumvented and held in abeyance at every opportunity. but hey whats another little babystep who needs that pesky fifth amendmant


 The fifth amendmant is the last nail holding the constitution on the wall.  They have been feverishly trying to pull that nail for years.


----------

