Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,750 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 92,877
Pageviews Today: 131,904Threads Today: 42Posts Today: 718
01:09 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Emminent domain turned against judge

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57767
United States
01/21/2006 12:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Emminent domain turned against judge
This is too funny. A guy has developed a hotel and pavillion project to put next to pfizer...and has a petition with the city (to be voted on) to take justice Souter's home for the development.

Since the supreme court ruled that a city can take property away from a citizen if a case is presented that the new development is more advantageous to the city, this guy decided to turn the tables and let Souter live with it for a while.

I don't think he's trying to get revenge or to punish Souter, I think he just wants the judge to experience what's wrong with the decision and how easily it can get misused. Experience is indeed the best teacher. (but really, how often have we seen officials change their minds?...their EGOs are huge)

Local officials scoff and say that the public can tell the difference...but when you get down to the average joe's home, can they? It's just a plain, slightly run down home. They'll pay him for it...no..not the appreciated value so he won't be able to relocate to the "better" neighborhoods,(maybe not at all in that city) but dang, "we need that new freeway/bypass!"

Anyway...here's the link.
[link to news.yahoo.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 57767
United States
01/21/2006 12:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
Here's a case in Scottsdale AZ. After 10 years the eminent domain plan finally got repealed. (this snip is from 2002, it just got officially repealed now) A developer had tried to declare part of the city a slum, but it was quite upscale at the time. But after 10 years of the seizure cloud hanging over them, people were afriad to invest in their properties and couldn't sell them. So...can emminent domain be allowed to drag on long enough to create the very condition you're declaring it to be?

-------------
"Phoenix, Ariz.—More than 100 property and business owners filed today a Citizens’ Petition with the Scottsdale City Council asking the City to repeal the downtown and waterfront redevelopment designations and thereby remove the threat of eminent domain, the government’s power to condemn land for “public use.”

Redevelopment has been an unmitigated disaster for the downtown area, insisted Judy Peters, property owner, petitioner and member of the Castle Coalition, a nationwide network of citizen activists formed by the Institute for Justice to fight eminent domain abuse. ?We have watched as developers buy up surrounding properties, purposefully degrade the landscaping, and then ask the Council to take our land to remove blight.

Under current state law, the redevelopment designation gives cities the power to take private property, bulldoze it and sell it to private developers who covet the land for private profit rather than public use. But the practice raises serious constitutional questions.

Arizona’s Constitution mandates protection for private property, declaring, “Private property shall not be taken for private use.” Yet in recent years, cities such as Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Phoenix and others have been taking property and transferring it to private owners under the guise of “redevelopment.” This practice often serves to create the very conditions it purports to alleviate because businesses cannot thrive under the cloud of eminent domain.

“For nearly a decade, businesses in downtown Scottsdale have languished under the City’s redevelopment designation,” declared Tim Keller, a staff attorney at the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter, which helped the Scottsdale citizens file the petition. “It should not be surprising that property owners who are subject to arbitrary takings hesitate to invest capital in their businesses.”

In 1996, the City Council voted to designate Scottsdale’s downtown a “Redevelopment Area.” At the time, the City Council actually had to declare the downtown area a slum to justify the vote. That finding would shock any person familiar with the upscale shops and fine dining located in the area. In fact, just a few years earlier the U.S. Conference of Mayors had crowned Scottsdale as the “most livable city.” The City Council will meet September 9 to discuss the issue.

“Eminent domain should be limited to public purposes rather than used for corporate welfare,” said Keller. “This petition offers the City Council an opportunity to harmonize City practices with our state constitution and to vindicate the rights enshrined in our state constitution.”
phoenix

User ID: 61866
United States
01/21/2006 01:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
Emminent domain should not be allowed when it is for a corporations/private benefit. I'd go the the "hotel" that replaced the judge's house....sounds like a good business investment to me...I'm sure lots of people feel the same way
True Story
User ID: 19959
United States
01/21/2006 01:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
In 1969, our 200-acre family farm in Michigan (a centennial farm, by the way) was taken through emminent domain. (I was ten at the time.) After receiving "fair market value" and ultimately paying the capital gains taxes, there was only about $50,000 left.

My father passed away shortly after that, and we ended up in a trailer park, where my mother ultimately passed, too.

So much for the land of liberty.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 61820
United States
01/21/2006 01:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
Seizures are happening all across the US. There's one case now where a neighborhood in Ohio (a nice neighborhood) was seized and all the residents kicked out of their homes so they could build a shopping center.

It's a really sad state of affairs. They didn't even do that in the former Soviet Union.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 65248
United States
01/21/2006 02:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
In June of 2005, this was posted. All GLPers championed the cause that someone would take a Supreme Court justice's home in the right of Eminent Domain. Haha!

June_2005

Private Developer starts paperwork to build ´Lost Liberty Hotel´ where Supreme Court Souter´s House is located

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.

[link to www.freestarmedia.com]

I have wondered what ever happened to this grand idea!
.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 57767
United States
01/21/2006 03:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
It really does seem outta control. I guess the rich folks are desperate for ways to try to get richer...but really, who needs more shopping? We swamped with shopping. Junk surrounds us in oceans of shopping aisles. Why in the world do we need more?

What's really sad is many people in this country think the home owners get fairly compensated. But that's just not the case. The rich person/developer gets the land at a firesale price. The fact that the city has plans or that the developer wants to make huge profits means the land has much higher value than what the owner is paid. I could see that it's quite possible that the original owner wouldn't get paid enough to even be able to buy another house in the same city ...whoops!, you wanted to keep that job of yours?! I guess you'll be commuting farther now...if you can afford it.

I'm so sorry for the person who posted who's family lost their land when he was a kid. I really think that this country has gotten so absurd and cruel in it's actions toward the average citizen, that people will start waking up. Most people are so averse to getting involved in "someone elses fight", but looking the other way has allowed things to escalate to this point. Eventually even they'll realize that it could happen to them.

If it happens in your neighborhood/city. Rise up and sign petitions! Get a lawyer for a group who plans to fight it, help those who are affected. Don't just think that it's someone elses problem. Stop the madness!
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 57767
United States
01/21/2006 03:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
AC 65248,

That case is the same one I posted in the OP. Apparently he's made some progress and it's not officially petitioned..or what ever legal folks call it. He's taking this seriously.

Hell, I'd stay at his hotel...the city could recieve quite a boon in tourism. I say they should take the land.

KD
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1488
Australia
01/21/2006 03:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
damned
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 65249
United States
01/21/2006 03:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
Eminem just recently remarried his wife. what an ass.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 65248
United States
01/21/2006 03:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
57767: "That case is the same one I posted in the OP."

I know, and I'm glad you did that because I have wondered what happened to the grand idea of taking Souter's home for the "betterment of the city", of course. I am happy to hear that it didn't die. Now it's Judge Souter's turn to hire an expensive attorney and appear before a judge to fight it. That is very amusing.

I think all of us would book a room at the Lost Liberty Hotel. Sons and daughters of Freedom. What a gathering!
.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 57767
United States
01/21/2006 03:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Emminent domain turned against judge
I don't want to come off as wanting revenge, because I don't. But I do think that all of members of our governmental branches have amassed enough personal wealth to feel that they're exempt from the consequences of their decisons. As if saying, "The little peons will figure it out and take care of things themselves". I find it intensely troubling that people who live in an eschelon so removed from the experiences of the average citizen (and who therefore have no comprehension of the decisions said citizen has to make daily just to pay the bills) are able to make sweeping laws that take action on a group of people that they themselves have no association with nor comprehesion of.

It's like how it's easier to kill if you're given a smart bomb and never have to see the face of your "enemy". Well, these guys make laws for and about people that they never have to see...thus they're insulated from the effects of their decisions. Apparently they're lacking in empathy. Perhaps they grew up in wealth and really don't understand that poverty and injustice is real. Maybe to them these are purely concepts...an intellectual consideration only.

Nevertheless, I find it very satisfying that at least one person may have to feel the consequences of his decisions. He wasn't as immune as he thought. Maybe (if he can get past his ego), he can realize now, since he's the recipient of it, that many of this country's laws are misused to enable the rich to get what they want.

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob