Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

eminent domain hits hard to one of the federal judge the passed the ruling.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eminent domain hits hard to one of the federal judge the passed the ruling.

    One of the judge's involved in passing the eminent domain case has his private property on the chopping block.

    a developer has proposed building a hotel on the judge's private property. if it passes the developer would call the hotel the "lost liberty hotel".

    i hope the city accepts the developers proposal.
    my wish list:
    http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...tSignature.jpg

  • #2
    Oh man that would be great!
    Old plans out the window because of an accident .
    Have: M1-ATX, EPIA M10000, 256MB, 60GB 2.5", slim slot load DVD
    Need: Time, HU integration, ideas for Lilli

    Comment


    • #3
      This is the link from WizardPC's post that was made 9 minutes before yours

      http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
      I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding.

      Comment


      • #4
        As rushnrockt stated...REPOST

        http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53550
        "I'm a dick!"
        "I must seek knowledge and it's bastard son truth" - The State

        Comment


        • #5
          technically i posted 21 minutes before him. so he reposted.

          at least thats the times im seeing(mine compared to his)
          my wish list:
          http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...tSignature.jpg

          Comment


          • #6
            oh well, it's more fun in his thread anyway
            "I'm a dick!"
            "I must seek knowledge and it's bastard son truth" - The State

            Comment


            • #7
              yeah he has all the details.

              i only regurjitated what i heard.
              my wish list:
              http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...tSignature.jpg

              Comment


              • #8
                It will never happen. And it proves that not you, nor the developer, read the ruling.

                Michael
                ...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Wiredwrx
                  It will never happen. And it proves that not you, nor the developer, read the ruling.

                  Michael
                  I guess that is something that we will see. However, I'm not going to debate you on this topic...Just not worth the time or effort.
                  "I'm a dick!"
                  "I must seek knowledge and it's bastard son truth" - The State

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    hey wired how is the ruling read????

                    as i understand it, its a vague definition of what can and what can't happen. its pretty much left up to imagination. the judges said that if it can benefit the community then eminent domain should be used. the developers hotel will pay much much more taxes than the judge's house. more tax money = more money for city/ county whatever. more money=more money spent for the tax payers. thats in the benefit of the tax payers so i dont see why not?. i mean that how normal developers spin it to politicitions to take over private property.
                    my wish list:
                    http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...tSignature.jpg

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lominono
                      hey wired how is the ruling read????

                      as i understand it, its a vague definition of what can and what can't happen. its pretty much left up to imagination. the judges said that if it can benefit the community then eminent domain should be used. the developers hotel will pay much much more taxes than the judge's house. more tax money = more money for city/ county whatever. more money=more money spent for the tax payers. thats in the benefit of the tax payers so i dont see why not?. i mean that how normal developers spin it to politicitions to take over private property.

                      That is an incorrect reading of the decision.

                      First, the definition isn't vague, it is just expansive. Not sure what you mean by what can and can't happen is left to the imagination?

                      Also, the SC did not say that "if it can benefit the community then eminent domain SHOULD be used. THey said it can be used, and it has nothing to do with benefit, it has to do with Public Use. It always has been about Public Use, even before this decision.

                      Check out the other thread about this, but basically,

                      The Constitution allows the condemnation of property for Public Use. All the court did was "expand" the definition of Public Use. It did not extend it to mean, ANY TIME MORE MONEY IS MADE IN TAXES, THE PROPERTY CAN BE CONDEMNED. The facts/circumstances of the Kelo case must also be included in requirements. First of all, condemnation can only be instituted by a government entity. You and I, or a developer, can't just come to the court and say, I want to build a hotel on this land, I want it, it's mine by eminent domain. Next, in the Kelo case, the area in question was designated by the State as a "Distressed Municipality" in need of Revitilization. This is an official finding that must be passed through the city government. I doubt Suters house in a Distressed Municipality, or one that is subject to a plan of revitilization. Additionaly, the court did not base thier decisio on the single fact that more taxes and revenue would be brought it. It was just one of the factors they considered. They also express how the development, which will include parks, and a Marina, as well as a Hotel and stores, will be open to the public, for "public use." And lastly, and I am not 100 percent sure because it is not completely clear from the decision, but the "company" that want to develop the land, that everyone thinks is some sort of private entity, is actually a Non Profit Corp that was established by the City government, as a city agency. This is not a case of a private company coming in and saying, I want the land, this is a city agency, persuant to a valid plan of revitilization, accomplishing a plan of revitilization.

                      For some reason people want to hang on to the belief that Any company can do this, that it is for private use and profit (something that has never been dispositive before. In almost every eminent domain case, someone profits, and even sometimes after being condemned, the property is owned by an individual, or private corporation) and that somehow this is a result of Big Companies making more money at the expense of iundividuals. It just is not the case.

                      Really, everyone should read the decision (There is a link in the other thread) and also, read the dissent. The dissent is will show what the dissenting justices felt was incorrect about the decision. I have read it, and it has nothing to do with the fact that "A private company can now take land if taxes will be generated"

                      Michael
                      ...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Michael... I suggest you read what the 4 other judges, esp. O'Connor, had to say about the implications of the ruling. Maybe they know a bit more than you.

                        In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

                        "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
                        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html
                        PowerVoice v1 | NaviVoice Source
                        GammaControl v2.4
                        SKINbedder v3

                        1995 Lexus SC300

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 0l33l
                          Michael... I suggest you read what the 4 other judges, esp. O'Connor, had to say about the implications of the ruling. Maybe they know a bit more than you.

                          http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

                          Your referring me to FOX NEWS. OK, one of the most slanted news agencies out there, but that is o.k.

                          First of all, read the entire article. She has an opinion. Not one thing she said is a legal argument. Heck I have an opinion. But what she fears doesn't make the ruling ILLEGAL. As I said before, I disagree with the decision, but I believe that it is legal.

                          "The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.
                          Did you gloss over that statement. He knows more then I do as well.

                          Perhaps it is a problem with people and the internet. They read the first sentance or paragraph, and stop there. Read the whole damn thing. And read the decision and the dissent. Why would you rely on the media, and other people create your opinions. Certainly, creating opinions about something with out actually learning about it, is rediculous. It's like me saying that PEARL is a better programing language then C++. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I can listen to you, who says one thing, or another peoson, who says something different. But I can form no real opinions till I learn about both. Nothing in the dissent talks about the big bad rich people. It only talks about the legal aspects, and I assure you, none of them have been mentioned here. Even if they were, in the end, the court was split. There can be a difference of opinion. And welcome to the US, where the majority wins over the minority. 5-4 means it is still law.

                          Never in my statements did I say that the decision was fair, or unfair. I am only talking about the legality of the issue.

                          Michael
                          ...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Wiredwrx
                            Your referring me to FOX NEWS. OK, one of the most slanted news agencies out there, but that is o.k.

                            Never in my statements did I say that the decision was fair, or unfair. I am only talking about the legality of the issue.

                            Michael
                            I didn't read over that article, I just wanted to get the quote from that justice.

                            Yeh, anything the supreme court does is obviosly the law

                            BTW: I like fox news
                            PowerVoice v1 | NaviVoice Source
                            GammaControl v2.4
                            SKINbedder v3

                            1995 Lexus SC300

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Wiredwrx

                              The Constitution allows the condemnation of property for Public Use. All the court did was "expand" the definition of Public Use. It did not extend it to mean, ANY TIME MORE MONEY IS MADE IN TAXES, THE PROPERTY CAN BE CONDEMNED. The facts/circumstances of the Kelo case must also be included in requirements. First of all, condemnation can only be instituted by a government entity. You and I, or a developer, can't just come to the court and say, I want to build a hotel on this land, I want it, it's mine by eminent domain. Next, in the Kelo case, the area in question was designated by the State as a "Distressed Municipality" in need of Revitilization. This is an official finding that must be passed through the city government. I doubt Suters house in a Distressed Municipality, or one that is subject to a plan of revitilization. Additionaly, the court did not base thier decisio on the single fact that more taxes and revenue would be brought it. It was just one of the factors they considered. They also express how the development, which will include parks, and a Marina, as well as a Hotel and stores, will be open to the public, for "public use." And lastly, and I am not 100 percent sure because it is not completely clear from the decision, but the "company" that want to develop the land, that everyone thinks is some sort of private entity, is actually a Non Profit Corp that was established by the City government, as a city agency. This is not a case of a private company coming in and saying, I want the land, this is a city agency, persuant to a valid plan of revitilization, accomplishing a plan of revitilization.

                              For some reason people want to hang on to the belief that Any company can do this, that it is for private use and profit (something that has never been dispositive before. In almost every eminent domain case, someone profits, and even sometimes after being condemned, the property is owned by an individual, or private corporation) and that somehow this is a result of Big Companies making more money at the expense of iundividuals. It just is not the case.

                              Really, everyone should read the decision (There is a link in the other thread) and also, read the dissent. The dissent is will show what the dissenting justices felt was incorrect about the decision. I have read it, and it has nothing to do with the fact that "A private company can now take land if taxes will be generated"

                              Michael
                              I responded to you in the other thread and here is my shorter response similar to that.
                              Your understanding of eminent domain is the bastardized version of the past 25 years. It was not intended to benefit individuals, but instead allow for building of roads, schools and other public projects. If you want a look at a similar case, check out the one from 1981 involving GM. GM won, the case has been used for many years as a precedent until 2004 when it was disallowed as such. Which means that this kind of thinking was in fact considered to be illegal just not too long.
                              The land does not need to be "Distressed Municipality" for eminent domain to be used, if the arguments are good enough to have the land trasnferred from one private owner to another (yeah, for public benefit and what not, but still a private owner) then eminent domain can be used.
                              Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on legality (you claim it is all perfectly legal with no caveats) in light of the fact that similar case has been rescinded before. It is easy to quote the decision to back up itself, how about trying to find a way around?
                              I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X