Posted by: pgrzelak
More bad news - 27/06/2005 19:14
I was even more annoyed by this one personally.
More bad news
Posted by: tonyc
Re: More bad news - 27/06/2005 19:22
Quote:
I was even more annoyed by this one personally.
Indeed. That needs to be appealed or reversed or something. I can totally see outrage boiling over into riots if peoples' homes are being bulldozed to make room for a Wal*Mart. I mean, at least Arthur Dent's situation was the result of an interstellar highway, which was arguably for the commpn good. When any company that has good standing with the local governments can start claiming iminent domain for projects that don't really benefit anyone except the shareholders of the company, we're in really bad shape.
I'm particularly surprised by the list of judges who ruled in favor of it... Sup wit dat?
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: More bad news - 27/06/2005 19:30
Quote:
Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a distressed municipality. In 1996, the Federal Government closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had been located in the Fort Trumbull area of the City and had employed over 1,500 people. In 1998, the City s unemployment rate was nearly double that of the State, and its population of just under 24,000 residents was at its lowest since 1920.
Quote:
The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan.
Quote:
in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes opinion for the Court stressed the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test. Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906). We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.
It sounds like, again, this is not new precedent. It sucks, but I don't think there's much to see here.
Posted by: Mataglap
Re: More bad news - 27/06/2005 19:44
Quote:
I'm particularly surprised by the list of judges who ruled in favor of it... Sup wit dat?
That's the difference between old school Republicans and old school Democrats, before the current situation when the Republicans got taken over by the fundamentalist Christians and bought out even more by big business and the Democrats became the party of reactionary opposition.
--Nathan
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: More bad news - 27/06/2005 19:54
Yeah. I reading the opinion (well, not all of it), it would appear that the liberal side of the court ruled in favor of the city in the belief that this plan will help more people than it'll hurt. Still, it sucks that a woman that's lived in her family home for nearly 100 years is getting kicked out.
Posted by: Laura
Re: More bad news - 27/06/2005 22:52
That is wrong on so many levels.
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 00:59
Quote:
don't really benefit anyone except the shareholders of the company
And the state and local governments who get more tax revenue to line their fat pockets with.
Land developers with near-unlimited money can buy whatever legislation they want. I hate government. Is it this bad in the rest of the world, or should I continue just giving up and stay my course of "get the hell off this planet as soon as possible"?
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 01:07
I'm outraged by this and I hope more people are too. I'm a developer and builder and think this is a pile of crap. Anyone who supports this will regret it one day. You may have a lot of pull with the city today, but eventually, a bigger, stronger developer is going to come your way. It's bad enough that the government can tell you what you can and can't do with your own land, now they can just take it!
What's curious is that the left wing radio shows I listen to decry this as a win for the "Walmarts" (rolling eyes) of the world and say this is simply a by-product of the rich people in America buying politicians while the right-wing radio stations are outraged that this is yet another win for the "big government" agenda and libs who want to redistribute wealth (and land).
Can't we (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone) for a moment stop assuming that just because something "bad" happened that your political opponents must have supported it? Yes, some wealthy developers like this decision and yes, so do some greedy politicans who favor tax revenue over property rights. But, as a whole, I think that most Americans would be equally upset about this (if it ever were to make the news
).
This is one of those issues that should cross party lines and be worked on together by everyone. You know, like national security or illegal imigration.
BTW: The desenting viewpoint writen for this decision (I forget who wrote it) had some great points in it.
What's curious is that the left wing radio shows I listen to decry this as a win for the "Walmarts" (rolling eyes) of the world and say this is simply a by-product of the rich people in America buying politicians while the right-wing radio stations are outraged that this is yet another win for the "big government" agenda and libs who want to redistribute wealth (and land).
Can't we (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone) for a moment stop assuming that just because something "bad" happened that your political opponents must have supported it? Yes, some wealthy developers like this decision and yes, so do some greedy politicans who favor tax revenue over property rights. But, as a whole, I think that most Americans would be equally upset about this (if it ever were to make the news
). This is one of those issues that should cross party lines and be worked on together by everyone. You know, like national security or illegal imigration.
BTW: The desenting viewpoint writen for this decision (I forget who wrote it) had some great points in it.
Posted by: genixia
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 01:45
It's a rare day that I agree with Scalia. 
Posted by: msaeger
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 02:08
I have been outraged by this since the Best Buy / City of Richfield scam here in Minnesota several years ago.
No one was ever outraged by that story when I told them about it and they tell me I'm nuts for refusing to shop there because of it.
Maybe now there will be some publicity for this story. I doubt it though it happened last week and all I have been hearing about is flag buring.
No one was ever outraged by that story when I told them about it and they tell me I'm nuts for refusing to shop there because of it.
Maybe now there will be some publicity for this story. I doubt it though it happened last week and all I have been hearing about is flag buring.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 02:29
The flag burning thing pisses me off. At a time when our country has so many important things to be debating, some jokers in Congress decide that flag burning is suddenly a topical issue. Who exactly is burning flags? Oh, that's right, Iraqi insurgents. Think they're going to pay attention to a constitutional amendment in the US?
Seriously, if anything, flag burning is probably at an all-time low, so the fact that the flag burning amendment will likely pass the Senate (if it hasn't already, I stopped following the story) shows how out of touch our politicians are. It's so typical that they'd latch onto a *symbol* of our country instead of actually working to imrpove the day-to-day reality of our country, be it domestically or overseas.
Of course, I don't think i'tll get through the house, and there's no way it gets 3/4 of the states to ratify it, so it's all just mental masturbation. Still, it's a waste of congressional resources that ought to be spent on much more pressing issues.
Seriously, if anything, flag burning is probably at an all-time low, so the fact that the flag burning amendment will likely pass the Senate (if it hasn't already, I stopped following the story) shows how out of touch our politicians are. It's so typical that they'd latch onto a *symbol* of our country instead of actually working to imrpove the day-to-day reality of our country, be it domestically or overseas.
Of course, I don't think i'tll get through the house, and there's no way it gets 3/4 of the states to ratify it, so it's all just mental masturbation. Still, it's a waste of congressional resources that ought to be spent on much more pressing issues.
Posted by: msaeger
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 02:59
I agree the they shouldn't even be wasting time worring about people burning flags. I just think cities being able to force you to sell your property to a private party no less is a bigger threat so I hate seeing this story getting ignored.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 03:06
Yeah, I'm with you (see my post earlier in the thread.) I just have a feeling that once this ruling starts actually being applied, the outrage will be sufficient to cause the courts to reexamine the case and overturn it. It's a horrible regression of personal freedom, and a twisted interpretation of the original purpose of iminent domain. I can't see how it will last, but the ruling is indeed sobering and disturbing.
Posted by: msaeger
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 03:08
It has already been happening for years this is just the first time someone fought it all the way to the supreme court.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 16:10
OMG, you guys HAVE to read this!!!
I've never heard of the site before and don't really care what's its origins are, but it's funny as hell.
I've never heard of the site before and don't really care what's its origins are, but it's funny as hell.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 16:35
Quote:
Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 17:23
Quote:
I'm outraged by this and I hope more people are too.
I am, too, but it sounds to me like the city is on the verge of bankruptcy. I could be wrong, but assume I'm not for a second.
Would it be better to take those people's houses in order for the city to remain solvent or allow them to keep their houses and have the city's services stop? That means no garbage collection, no running water, no sewer. And since the city zoning didn't require extra land for a septic field, there's probably no way to install a septic system after the fact. So those houses would probably become condemned in reality once the city collapsed. But they managed to take everyone else down around them first.
Now, I could be wrong. And a better solution would probably be annexing surrounding areas, but state law might not allow that, or there may be no unincorporated surrounding area to annex.
It sounds like a tough decision, and probably each choice stinks. But this one protects more people than the other. Maybe.
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 23:40
Quote:
Maybe now there will be some publicity for this story.
I've heard about this story every morning on my state's popular talk radio station. Sure, the station loves to prey on citizen fears of corrupt government, because we are the most corrupt state in the nation, apparently. But hey, it's getting the story out there.
Quote:
refusing to shop there
Right on! I haven't thought it over 100% yet, but I'm almost convinced that government is unnecessary and has been replaced by corporations. We have no control over how the government spends our money except for a button that we press every few years. But if you don't like the product from a corporation, you can buy it from someone else. It's "voting with the dollar", the only vote that counts, I'm almost convinced.
(the arguement is based on the assumption that the government does many bloated worthless things with your money, while corporations provide usefull and necessary things. i haven't read enough to understand the full scope of service provided by the government, so i'm not 100% convinced of the arguement yet.)
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 23:50
Quote:
(the arguement is based on the assumption that the government does many bloated worthless things with your money, while corporations provide usefull and necessary things. i haven't read enough to understand the full scope of service provided by the government, so i'm not 100% convinced of the arguement yet.)
That's it. I'm buying my buttons elsewhere.
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: More bad news - 28/06/2005 23:57
<edit>while corporations *and sole proprieterships* provide usefull and necessary things</edit>
But I'm the good guy, see? Vote for me! 
But I'm the good guy, see? Vote for me!
Posted by: pgrzelak
Re: More bad news - 29/06/2005 08:13
*and sole proprieterships* provide usefull and necessary things...
Technically, you are a monopoly at the moment so you are very well protected. Look at Microsoft... At Intel... It is not 1984 anymore...
(Not a reference to the classic literary work, but to the government sponsored vivisection of my current employer)
Technically, you are a monopoly at the moment so you are very well protected. Look at Microsoft... At Intel... It is not 1984 anymore...
(Not a reference to the classic literary work, but to the government sponsored vivisection of my current employer)
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: More bad news - 30/06/2005 01:10
The story is even on CNN. More power to them -- I hope the guy is succesful, and then goes after the other 4 asshat judges' homes, too. 
Posted by: msaeger
Re: More bad news - 30/06/2005 01:38
So that wasn't a bit that makes it even better.
Posted by: julf
Re: More bad news - 08/07/2005 07:57
Quote:
the government sponsored vivisection of my current employer)
Ummh, yes... Was rather sad to see the former Bell Labs building in Murray Hill is for sale... Many nice memories...