PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Bozco on June 23, 2005, 08:42:26 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html)
Personally I think this is rediculous. If my house gets turned into a mall I\'ll head to Canada.
-
Oh goody, just what we need...more shopping malls...:rolleyes:
-
Thank the libs on the Supreme Court for this one - David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer - Anthony Kennedy was a Reagan appointment (then again his name is Kennedy).
-
Motherf*cker...what the hell?
Personally I think this is rediculous. If my house gets turned into a mall I\'ll head to Canada.
Yeah, no kidding. :mad: This is complete bullsh*t.
-
yeah, this is completely crap
is this unconstitutional in any way?
(I guess not since the judicial system has free reign in this country :( ) we need congress to come up with a law that makes this illegal... like that will happen :hold:
-
THAT\'S CAPITALISM FOR YOU!
But really this is really really scary. Buy a house and you\'ve no guarantee that 20 years later, the local government won\'t tell you to piss off. That\'s just not right.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Thank the libs on the Supreme Court for this one - David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer - Anthony Kennedy was a Reagan appointment (then again his name is Kennedy).
For what its worth.
David H. Souter = Republican
John Paul Stevens = Republican
It was 5-4 with 3 republican and 2 democratic justices in favor.
BTW, This is an issue that has people on both sides of the political fence upset so PLEASE don\'t make this a left/right issue. Thanks
-
that is complete bulls**t...damn everytime you turn around there\'s a new mall bein bulit or strip mall bein bulit...now there gonna force you to leave your house?...guess you don\'t REALLY own anything in america afterall. Now it\'s they tell you to jump, you say "how hi"...truly amazing that this has passed....it\'d be so funny if those a$$holes that voted for this would be the first one\'s affected by this ruling...that would be priceless....
-
They had to destroy my great grandmother\'s house to put in a freeway some long ass time ago, but they paid her enough for a new house. That still doesn\'t justify anything because she lived in that house for ages. All happened before I was born, just heard it from family. Kind of a sh*tty thing to hear about.
-
Originally posted by Avatarr
THAT\'S CAPITALISM FOR YOU!
But really this is really really scary. Buy a house and you\'ve no guarantee that 20 years later, the local government won\'t tell you to piss off. That\'s just not right.
sounds more like COMMUNISM TO ME!
-
Originally posted by JBean
sounds more like COMMUNISM TO ME!
Thats EXACTLY what it is.
-
The only thing I can hope is one of these judges houses gets taken out by some new super mall. Then it\'ll be a big stfu. I just don\'t see how they can justify it.
-
I just don\'t see how they can justify it.
It can\'t be justified. I can\'t even comprehend this crap. I don\'t know how these people can sleep at night. :/
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
For what its worth.
David H. Souter = Republican
John Paul Stevens = Republican
It was 5-4 with 3 republican and 2 democratic justices in favor.
BTW, This is an issue that has people on both sides of the political fence upset so PLEASE don\'t make this a left/right issue. Thanks
Those two are considered part of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court - regardless of who appointed them. They aren\'t Republicans just because a Republican President appointed them.
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court\'s liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
Yes it is a left/right - big federal government/small state government issue - next time please know what the hell you talking about. Thanks.
-
I\'m sure they will compensate you gratiously.
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
It can\'t be justified. I can\'t even comprehend this crap. I don\'t know how these people can sleep at night. :/
They justify it by saying that it is better for the community at-large for a corporation to own your property (more jobs, etc.)
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Yes it is a left/right - big federal government/small state government issue - next time please know what the hell you talking about.
How is it a big government/states rights issue if both the local and federal government approved of this measure?
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
I\'m sure they will compensate you gratiously.
still dosen\'t make it right though
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
I\'m sure they will compensate you gratiously.
All they give you is the appraised value of your property and home.
-
They justify it by saying that it is better for the community at-large for a corporation to own your property (more jobs, etc.)
It seems that\'s enough for them to take away someone\'s years of memories and feelings. It\'s obvious they couldn\'t care less.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
All they give you is the appraised value of your property and home.
This is correct - they give you the appraised value which is well below the market value for your home. Under normal circumstances you want it to be like this as you pay your property taxes on the appraised value and not the market value.
As for this not being a big government/small government issue - I disagree. This is a case where the Federal Government (the Supreme Court) has ruled that the local government has every right to take your property. When it come to this argument big/small we are not talking about the size of the government, but rather how the government invades and takes control of ones life - in this case the right to buy and sell ones property. This case is another ruling allowing government to make decisions for an individual without their consent.
-
FWIW, cities have been seizing land for private use forever. It just so happens that now they can do it legally.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
FWIW, cities have been seizing land for private use forever. It just so happens that now they can do it legally.
Yup. That happen down here in Dallas just recently. They tore down this house and forced some old folks to move in order to build some highway.
God damn liberals. Not only do they invade the media, radio and my bathroom. Now they take away our homes!
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Yup. That happen down here in Dallas just recently. They tore down this house and forced some old folks to move in order to build some highway.
Thats not private use.
-
He was sort of close....give him half credit.
-
What\'s new about this?
-
I dunno vid, try reading for a little bit.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
What\'s new about this?
Nothing really. Its just not illegal anymore. Business will go on as usual.
The media has already moved on.
-
Corporations have been buying land for years and if you fall in the plot lines of progress then you get the boot. It happens. Just don\'t live in a crappy area and you\'ll be fine.
Or make sure you get a nice deal. Don\'t ever the initial offering.
-
It\'s not initial offering vid, wow. It\'s legal now where they just up and take it without your consent. It has little to do with you deciding which offer you take.
-
I know, but you don\'t have to take the initial offering on the cash part.
They don\'t just TAKE your property. They pay you fair market value and displacement costs.
It\'s not like they are tearing down nice areas anyway. It\'s usually places that needed to be torn down years past.