Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eminent Domain: Do you think its okay for the government (city, state, federal) to force you off your land as long as they offer what they consider to be a fair price?
If you said "yes, fine by you" how about if the government plans to force you off your land so they can give/sell your land to another private concern? Ex: The government forces you to sell your home so they can give/sell your land to a developer who wants to build a hotel or a mall on it?
Not talking about any particular case. Just want to know your opinion on eminent domain, in general.
Don't like it. The odds are against you when it comes to a developer.
Good thing that can't happen in Texas..we voted on it just last year restricting what could be taken and for what reason. A developer wanting to build a strip mall or a bazillion home subdivision doesn't have free reign in Texas.
I don't like it either, and I'm only 16... I also don't like HS, welfare, SS, Health Care, and many other government programs that cost taxpayer money, that I don't even have to pay yet... but that's just me...
It's a necessary evil, but only on a VERY limited basis. If you've got a city that's growing rapidly, and you need to build a new highway in order to accommodate the growth, and you've got one or two people that are refusing to sell, you could have a couple people stunting the growth of an area and damaging many folks. If they're compensated fairly (I know that's a subjective number to everyone) to move, that's fair and it's the right thing to do for the majority.
However, eminent domain should not be used except when there's a very real possibility that a good amount of damage will be done to a large amount of citizens. In my opinion, shopping malls, stores, etc., do NOT fall into that category.
It's really not something that's used much at all though.
Don't like it. The odds are against you when it comes to a developer.
Good thing that can't happen in Texas..we voted on it just last year restricting what could be taken and for what reason. A developer wanting to build a strip mall or a bazillion home subdivision doesn't have free reign in Texas.
Being Native American, I find this thread hysterical.
Hey Happy Texan, tell me more about that vote or a link that I can read more about it. I wonder because wasn't some of the land for Jerry World taken by the City of Arlington via eminent domain?
BTW, Go Cowboys and Hook 'em Horns! I'm originally from Irving, Tx.
Being Native American, I find this thread hysterical.
Hey Happy Texan, tell me more about that vote or a link that I can read more about it. I wonder because wasn't some of the land for Jerry World taken by the City of Arlington via eminent domain?
BTW, Go Cowboys and Hook 'em Horns! I'm originally from Irving, Tx.
Lost me here...
And here, completely....
Got the idea here, but for some ego-tistic reason, HATE Texas...
The only reason I could see this as "funny" is the irony, of people talking about the government taking land, and how "white man" took land from Native Americans... but maybe not?
Private property and estate (as in real estate) are mutually exclusive.
One is absolutely owned by an individual, protected explicitly by constitution. The other is not.
Check your own state's constitution for verification. Only estate (real and personal property) will be listed under the delegated power to tax. Estate is held by qualified ownership, and is a privilege, not a right.
Since 1935, and almost universal enrollment into national socialism, few Americans own private property. Hence there have been NO TAKINGS of private property under eminent domain since that year.
Furthermore, since 1933, there have been no dollars in circulation. Dollar bills (aka Federal Reserve notes) are promises to pay dollars - in the future. (See Title 12 USC sec. 411). Which means if the government did condemn private property, it lacks the lawful money with which to pay JUST COMPENSATION.
==================
References:
PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Thanks to "voluntary" participation in National Socialism, Americans surrendered their rights in exchange for entitlements (aka charity). As paupers, they lack the legal standing to absolutely own.
Welcome to the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
Being Native American, I find this thread hysterical.
Hey Happy Texan, tell me more about that vote or a link that I can read more about it. I wonder because wasn't some of the land for Jerry World taken by the City of Arlington via eminent domain?
BTW, Go Cowboys and Hook 'em Horns! I'm originally from Irving, Tx.
The truth is eminent domain will be needed to much of any urban renewal efforts. Sure, its use should be minimized but it is still a needed tool for city planners. I just don't see any major new multiuse projects going ahead without it as most of those tend to involve both public space (parks and what not not) along with private space (baseball stadiums, stores or offices ringing the park, etc...). The Texas ballot measure would essentially mean there could be no public-private cooperation to bring about needed urban renewal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
