Quote :

"It doesn't mean they won't be compensated, they will get what the land is worth"

do they get another house, free of charge? because if they don't, then they aint being compensated fully...

Quote :

"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."

thats all fine and dandy, but if we allow corporations to come in and take property, all in the name of "progress," then those who keep getting their property taken from them will never progress. And they'll always be stuck at the bottom rung. At least with the current system, people have a solid base from which to build. Not protecting property rights leads to an uneven playing field, where the rich can continually make more money, all the whole upheaving the efforts of the poor.

Quote :

"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."

thankfully, that is their right as a property owner. Economic developers do not have a right to that land. Those who own it do, and until they no longer own, the situation should remain as such.

Unfortunately, this is a case of legislating for the common case based on the extreme case. Maybe in this case it is a good thing to force out the holdouts, but its not in the general case.

Quote :

"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."

or so you say. The problem is that this makes it possible for them to user Eminent Domain to put up a Wal-Mart, and easily so. It should be difficult to take private property away from citizens. This decision makes it damned easy now.

10/5/2005 9:23:17 AM

if the proposed use for the land will bring so much in jobs and taxes and revenues, i dont see why the developers cant pay a little more for it.

10/5/2005 10:00:33 AM

^^It has been easy for a while now. If you reference the links I posted, Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot and others have been doing this for years. This just puts it in the spotlight.

^exactly

10/5/2005 10:32:39 AM

Yep, Wal-Mart has never used eminent domain

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

Quote :

"Most of Alameda Square's businesses are profitable. Together they generate about $125,000 a year in sales tax revenue. But if the city of Denver has its way, these small businesses will be evicted to make way for a Wal-Mart super-center. The city's Urban Renewal Authority has threatened condemnation if the property owners refuse to sell and has offered Wal-Mart $10 million in public subsidies. That's right: Tax dollars would go to one of the country's most profitable and powerful corporations."

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



[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 11:03 AM. Reason : link+quote]

10/5/2005 11:00:34 AM

So if government takes your land through eminent domain and monetarily compensates you for the value of the house, doesn't that count as income? So wouldn't the government actually tax that money that you get from them? Therefore, wouldn't you actually be getting the value of your home minus taxes? So not only do they "buy" your house and land, they also technically "buy" it from you for less than it's actually worth?

Because I honestly don't know the answer to the question. If somebody knows, please feel free to tell me.

10/5/2005 1:16:13 PM

If you sell you house and use the money to purchase like goods, in this case another house of equal or greater value, then the sale will not be counted as income for the purposes of taxation.

This holds whether it was sold voluntarily or not.

10/5/2005 2:25:39 PM

Quote :

"do they get another house, free of charge? because if they don't, then they aint being compensated fully..."

for some reason, i like it when burro and i agree on things

10/5/2005 4:07:09 PM

^ eh, its prolly cause not actually as crazy as my support of teaching ID makes me out to be

Quote :

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

you mean like people who stand to make billions of dollars of of redeveloping land when they get up and talk about how this will "help the local economy" and saying that the the other people are just "hold-outs" and are being "irrational?" yeah... no conflict of interest there, whatsoever, buddy

10/5/2005 6:20:02 PM

the nations capital

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051006-120902-5838r.htm

10/8/2005 11:27:51 AM

^that crap pisses me off even more than a walmart. Not only are they taking these people's houses and land, the less wealthy people probably wont even be able to set foot in the new stadium because of the 60 dollar tickets


Taking people's homes for a freakin Baseball field. Unbelievable.

10/8/2005 11:50:39 AM

BUT IT WILL HAVE SO MANY JOBS
THEY CAN GO SELL PEANUTS AND USE THE MONEY TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES

10/8/2005 1:11:55 PM

the ghetto, crime ridden, 9th ward shouldnt be rebuilt. It was TERRIBLE in the 70s, probably a good thing it got flooded.

10/8/2005 2:57:37 PM