http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051003-122623-2136r.htm

Quote :

"Florida city considers eminent domain By Joyce Howard Price THE WASHINGTON TIMES October 3, 2005 Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex. "This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown. He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers." Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base. [...] "More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners."

There's not even the pretense that we have true private property rights in the new AmeriKa. They're just throwing it in our faces now. We haven't had true private property rights for a long time. True owners don't have to pay rent ("property taxes") to the owner of the property (government).

Hey, maybe New Orleans could use this to get rid of the low income/black neighborhoods.

10/4/2005 8:42:03 AM

i'm glad someone else understands how terrible that decision was

10/4/2005 9:06:02 AM

yea, it is about the worst thing that could have come out of the supreme court

10/4/2005 9:10:54 AM

What bullshit

gg Supreme Court

10/4/2005 9:24:15 AM

i'm glad someone else understands how terrible that decision was

10/4/2005 9:26:28 AM

i'm glad someone else understands how terrible that decision was

10/4/2005 9:30:16 AM

i'm glad someone else understands how terrible that decision was

10/4/2005 10:12:17 AM

10/4/2005 10:22:12 AM

now please

for the love of god

do not post any links to your crackpot website

right now most people are going to agree with you on this issue

but if you post anyhting about a jewish conspiracy behind this...

10/4/2005 10:56:27 AM

i just thought of something that has probably been mentioned before

this applies to depressed areas

so the people that live there are not going to have any money to fight a legal battle

so then this will never have an opportunity to reach the suspreme court again

i hope a lawyer pickes this up pro bono if they start to do it

but can this be challenged again?

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2005 11:03:54 AM

i'm glad someone else understands how terrible that decision was

10/4/2005 12:26:22 PM

problem: city is poor

solution: kick out the poor people

10/4/2005 1:08:48 PM

No it's more like this

problem: city is poor

solution: take the larger lots that the poor people are renting from, demolish it, build a million dollar area where tourists and vacationers will come. Now take the people living in the wallows and move them out of the "worthwhile realestate".

Now how they implement the solution is the issue. The good way would be to compensate them as well as provide land for them to build a house. Of course this won't happen since they are already having money issues.

Most probably what has happened as they have been trying to get people to move for a long time and they refuse to move, the city is in dire straights. This is how they can be forced to move. It doesn't mean they won't be compensated, they will get what the land is worth but most of those houses are worth 40,000 or less.

10/4/2005 1:20:07 PM

Quote :

"they will get what the land is worth"

That remains to be seen.

And, even if they are fully compensated for the value, you still have the issue of the government FORCING people to transfer their property to the government.

10/4/2005 1:32:13 PM

Quote :

"they will get what the land is worth "

too bad the land will be so devalued they won't be able to purchase anything else with what they get

yay gov't

10/4/2005 1:34:28 PM

I find it funny how economically depressed areas use way more resources than they provide in taxes. They get free school, free food, free housing or housing assistance, free money, free healthcare, all from the government.


Then they are like "the government can't tell me what to do with my land!!!".


Fine, lets let take away all the big bad government's money and see if you live even a month.

10/4/2005 1:34:37 PM

not to mention you said these people didn't own the land to begin with. but were renting it.

10/4/2005 1:37:25 PM

its like West Greenville here, 80% of the people are renters but are complaining that its "their land"


no one really owns land, you just live on it untill you get bored and sell it or die.

10/4/2005 1:41:58 PM

...

10/4/2005 1:44:01 PM

They should do this shit around Atlantic City.

10/4/2005 1:48:30 PM

ok, let me play the Devils Advocate. In Kelo vs. New London, seven property owners were playing obstructionists to an economic development proposal that had been been years in the making, had gone through dozens of meetings with elected officials and had hundreds of oppurtunities for public comment throughout the process.

New London has been in economic dire straits for awhile, with the highest unemployment numbers in Connecticut. This proposal would bring hundreds to thousands of high paying jobs to New London, revitalize the city, bring huge property tax revenues, enabling better services, schools and standards of living for thousands of people in New London, Groton and the entire region.

Mary Kelo and the rest of these people were selfish landowners who would have eventually sold, but only at a price worth several times the value of their property on the free market. Im much more comfortable weighing the needs of an entire region over the needs of two or three 70 year old women and some real estate investors.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2005 1:55:32 PM

Quote :

"Im much more comfortable weighing the needs of an entire region over the needs of two or three 70 year old women and some real estate investors."

perhaps you wouldn't say that if Wal-mart wanted to build in your neighborhood. And because of the Kelo decision, they can now. for the good of the community

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:58 PM. Reason : d]

10/4/2005 1:56:21 PM

You blowhards supporting government confiscation of private property would be singing a different tune if it happened to you. Let the government tell you that you have to sell your house and land to them, and I wonder what you'd say then?

Kind of like these people who support U.S. military torture of Iraqi and other prisoners. As long as it's happening to the "enemy" or somebody else it's ok. But would they take the same view if it was U.S. troops, American citizens, a member of their family, or themselves that was tortured?

10/4/2005 1:58:47 PM

I've argued this point with people on other message boards, and they always say "well Wal Mart wants to tear down my house". We are talking about a regional economic stimulus here, not a retail store. Its passed city board after city board of elected officials of the citizens of New London.Its had its own commisions and feasability studies. It has had public input at every single turn. The overwhelming number of people in New London support this. No one is ever going to use eminent domain to put up a Wal Mart. Eminent domain is only used for large scale projects of citywide or regional importance.

Could you imagine what Raleigh would have been like without RTP? Maybe three rednecks out in the sticks would have decided not to sell some land and would have killed the whole project. No IBM, Glaxo, Nortel or Cisco jobs. We might as well start asking to send our high paying jobs overseas.

10/4/2005 2:09:31 PM

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/independent_business/walmart_eminent_domain.html

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/?cnn=yes

Sorry ScubaSteve, you are wrong. Wal-Mart and other big chain stores have been doing this for years.

10/4/2005 3:21:23 PM

How the fuck did you just compare IBM, Cisco, Glaxo, and Nortel to a waterfront yachting and housing complex and expect anyone to take you seriously?

I think the lesson here is that poor people shouldn't be allowed to live in beach houses because the more important wealthy people would rather have it for their own use or build tourist traps that will help them become more wealthy. [/sarcasm]

10/4/2005 3:45:52 PM

Quote :

"How the fuck did you just compare IBM, Cisco, Glaxo, and Nortel to a waterfront yachting and housing complex and expect anyone to take you seriously?"

I was talking about New London. But any large project where private business comes in is going to have a few holdouts. Very few people have a true affinity for a certain piece of land. My thoughts are that 95% of the people would sell if the price is right, and all of them would sell if they could be made instant millionaires.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2005 3:57:41 PM

but why bother to offer what the land is worth when you can just take it for "fair market value"?

10/4/2005 4:00:00 PM

fair market value is what it is worth

people want to get unfair market value

When Walt Disney World was being created, farmers were selling their land for $100 an acre. When it got out that the land was going to be Disney World, they started asking for $10,000 an acre.

10/4/2005 4:02:57 PM

not to be the stereotypical soap box poster

but

^link?

10/4/2005 4:12:06 PM

Quote :

"When Walt Disney World was being created, farmers were selling their land for $100 an acre. When it got out that the land was going to be Disney World, they started asking for $10,000 an acre."

that's because the opportunity cost of the land increased as soon as disney world became an opportunity

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 4:21 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2005 4:14:11 PM

^I am pretty sure that ScubaSteve doesn't understand the concept of market value, so what in the world makes you think he understands opportunity cost?

Quote :

"I think the lesson here is that poor people shouldn't be allowed to live in beach houses because the more important wealthy people would rather have it for their own use or build tourist traps that will help them become more wealthy."

[/thread]

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 4:24 PM. Reason : d]

10/4/2005 4:23:15 PM

Quote :

"^I am pretty sure that ScubaSteve doesn't understand the concept of market value, so what in the world makes you think he understands opportunity cost?"

I have a Masters Degree in Planning, I understand how this shit works. I'm just tired of seeing much needed economic development proposals get shit canned because of greed. Do I support waterfront hotels? No. Do I support removing urban blight and getting all this crime out of our cities? Yes.

10/4/2005 4:45:59 PM

so you're unhappy when an owner gets the best deal he can
but you're happy when a buyer gets the best deal he can

great

10/4/2005 4:50:55 PM

all these things do is move the crime and urban blight
it doesnt really solve anything

10/4/2005 4:53:31 PM

no, Im tired of owners making unreasonable demands to the point of destroying redevelopment projects

right after the West Greenville Revitlization meetings happened, people said they wouldnt sell their $10k dilapidated houses for less than $1 million. Anyone who has been to Greenville knows that all there is in West Greenville is crime, prostitutution, drugs and gangs. Its not a free market, it's gouging and greed.

10/4/2005 4:58:10 PM

Quote :

"but can this be challenged again?"

I don't think it will be challenged again, but I do believe that most state governments will move quickly to amend this hole with state law. I remember a commentator on NPR talked about how, "this is one of the few issues that have support from 95% of society, so every politician who even remotely cares about being re-elected will be rushing to close this gap."

10/4/2005 5:00:32 PM

I mean, I am all for reasonable property rights, but people don't ususally undertake these measures untill the situation is exceptionally dire. I'm afraid that these legislatures are going to have some sort of knee jerk legislation that is enacted without thinking of the long term consequences.

10/4/2005 5:04:18 PM

let's review a supply-demand curve once again.

if there is enough demand for disney world or a revitalization project, then the correct market price will be payed for the necessary property.

10/4/2005 5:08:29 PM

fine, lets just fence off the bad parts of town and let em kill each other

10/4/2005 5:38:58 PM

"But we can't afford the government we want if it has to pay full price!!!11"

10/4/2005 5:42:53 PM

^^ why do you want to fence off the bad parts of town? yes, i realize it was intended as sarcasm, but no one else has said anything about fencing off anything

sarcasm hyperbole

10/4/2005 6:23:32 PM

I have this friend who is saving plastic 2 liter bottles to build an island so he can sell it to a crazy rich bastard.

10/4/2005 8:35:17 PM

Quote :

"Mary Kelo and the rest of these people were selfish landowners who would have eventually sold, but only at a price worth several times the value of their property on the free market. "

Steve, I'll admit it can get costly and frustrating when private property rights get in the way of the city's plan to increase its tax-base. But the Constitution recognizes only one reason your property can be taken away..public use. Not public benefit, or to erase blight, or because the owner is selfish..but public use. It is, without exception, wrong to take away someone's property and give it to another private citizen or business.

The landowners are being greedy according to your statements. Please define "greed".

The land is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. Simple as that. The only way you can get it for less than you want to pay for it is by fraud or getting the gov't to steal it for you.
People should be able to keep the fruits of their efforts. If they become instant millionaires because of the circumstances-more power to them. It is wrong to take away someone's property and give it to another private citizen or business. It is even more wrong to pay the owner less than what the potential new owner wants to pay for that property.

The protection of property rights helps makes capitalism work. The gov't cannot be allowed to take and transfer property from one citizen to another at will- for whatever noble purpose.

10/4/2005 11:35:34 PM

Quote :

" Its passed city board after city board of elected officials of the citizens of New London.Its had its own commisions and feasability studies."

If a city council does a "study" and considers something "feasible", I know I can sleep well. I mean, reassuring examples are many. The Big Dig in Boston would certainly be one.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 11:53 PM. Reason : ?]

10/4/2005 11:52:38 PM

I'm a developer and my brother is an influential member on the city council

I sure will be sleeping well at night

10/4/2005 11:55:02 PM

Quote :

"I'm a developer and my brother is an influential member on the city council"

I got out of private engineering because of the fucked up things people like you do

10/5/2005 1:16:31 AM

you're the one defending their interests bud

10/5/2005 1:19:17 AM

I was talking about people having direct conflicts of interest when awarding contracts


I am also in favor of businesses who bring in alot of good high paying jobs. Not hotels that have a clerk and a janitor. I will just forget about it because its too big of a thing to discuss on this board. I dont have the time.

10/5/2005 1:22:17 AM

convenient....

10/5/2005 1:23:34 AM