Eminent Domain for private profit

Eminent Domain for private profit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Eminent Domain for private profit (7/13/2014 6:26:40 PM)
This is our future and I guess we had better get used to it. Here If they need your land...they get it.

Sanity -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/13/2014 6:32:04 PM)
Nothing to see here, nothing new. Its the same exact way we built railroads and freeways and airports etc

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/13/2014 6:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Nothing to see here, nothing new. Its the same exact way we built railroads and freeways and airports etc Yea, funny though how these are instances when that great glorious free market doesn't work. It's is an entitlement for the investor class no matter how long it's been going on or for whatever purposes. BTW roadways were at one time a complete free market, land and use.

DomKen -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/13/2014 7:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Nothing to see here, nothing new. Its the same exact way we built railroads and freeways and airports etc At least in theory those infrastructure improvements last forever and are used by everyone. This pipeline will last 35 years and be used by a single NG company. That's a pretty big difference. Further, wild places in the east are getting few and far between so preserving those that are left should have priority over thing like some company's profits.

BamaD -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/13/2014 11:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is our future and I guess we had better get used to it. Here If they need your land...they get it. That doesn't make it right.

smileforme50 -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/14/2014 3:19:18 AM)
I don't know if any of you remember this story in the news almost 10 years ago..... (this is quoted from Wikipedia...my emphasis added) On February 22, 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, decided in Kelo v. City of New London, that the city may seize privately owned real property under eminent domain so that it could be used for private economic development, deciding the tax revenue from the private development satisfied the requirement for public interest for eminent domain. The case was centered around pharmaceutical company Pfizer's efforts to construct a mixed-use complex that included a condominium, hotel, conference center, health club and stores on the site of private homes in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood, in conjunction with a research facility Pfizer was building nearby.Local homeowners including Susette Kelo challenged this development proposal on the grounds that their properties were being seized for private, rather than public, use, which was inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In spite of the city's legal victory, the project never got off the ground. The city's chosen redeveloper was not able to get financing for the project. Even though the city expended over eighty million dollars acquiring and demolishing homes, the area where the taken homes once stood is now vacant. In November, 2009, Pfizer announced that they instead were closing their facility adjacent to the site and moving those operations across the Thames River to their site in Groton. The New London campus was sold to General Dynamics in 2010. So actually....this isn't all that surprising.....

Sanity -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/14/2014 5:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen At least in theory those infrastructure improvements last forever and are used by everyone. This pipeline will last 35 years and be used by a single NG company. That's a pretty big difference. "...he wrote, pounding away on his plastic keyboard."

Musicmystery -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/14/2014 7:19:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is our future and I guess we had better get used to it. Here If they need your land...they get it. That doesn't make it right. That's how I feel about some NRA technically legal stances.

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/14/2014 2:54:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 I don't know if any of you remember this story in the news almost 10 years ago..... (this is quoted from Wikipedia...my emphasis added) On February 22, 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, decided in Kelo v. City of New London, that the city may seize privately owned real property under eminent domain so that it could be used for private economic development, deciding the tax revenue from the private development satisfied the requirement for public interest for eminent domain. The case was centered around pharmaceutical company Pfizer's efforts to construct a mixed-use complex that included a condominium, hotel, conference center, health club and stores on the site of private homes in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood, in conjunction with a research facility Pfizer was building nearby.Local homeowners including Susette Kelo challenged this development proposal on the grounds that their properties were being seized for private, rather than public, use, which was inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In spite of the city's legal victory, the project never got off the ground. The city's chosen redeveloper was not able to get financing for the project. Even though the city expended over eighty million dollars acquiring and demolishing homes, the area where the taken homes once stood is now vacant. In November, 2009, Pfizer announced that they instead were closing their facility adjacent to the site and moving those operations across the Thames River to their site in Groton. The New London campus was sold to General Dynamics in 2010. So actually....this isn't all that surprising..... Yea, we know and it's been sited here quite a bit. The SCOTUS also said at one time that certain humans were property and the courageous said...not any longer. Now [they] say money (property) is speech and corporations are people. We bitch and moan and groan but the trouble is, Americans are now...constitutional pussies.

smileforme50 -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/14/2014 6:46:57 PM)
"constitutional pussies"? So is the opposite of "constitutional pussies"....."constitutional dicks"? [8\|] And how do we change ourselves into said "constitutional dicks"?

thompsonx -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/15/2014 4:25:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is our future and I guess we had better get used to it. Here If they need your land...they get it. When the dodgers moved from brooklyn to l.a how do you think they got the land they built the stadium on?

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/16/2014 2:39:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is our future and I guess we had better get used to it. Here If they need your land...they get it. When the dodgers moved from brooklyn to l.a how do you think they got the land they built the stadium on? Well apparently otherwise I am thinking you wouldn't bring it up...they didn't use the hallowed free market, that's costs too much. Why not get govt. to first threaten eminent domain then haggle. That way we don't have to deal with the messy free market like the 'little' people...after the investor class has arranged for govt. to take it and [they] benefit by a factor of say...100 or 300 or.....? After refusing to sell his 8000 acres for Dulles airport, the owner after losing in court, sold out for 3 times the value of what was determined to be nothing more than (appraised as) grazing farm land, that within the next few years was worth 100 times that and in his life time became worth more 1000 times that as residential development land. I wonder what that prime land in LA would have brought a just few years later ?

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/16/2014 2:49:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 "constitutional pussies"? So is the opposite of "constitutional pussies"....."constitutional dicks"? [8\|] And how do we change ourselves into said "constitutional dicks"? A constitutional convention that keeps our congressional whores...out of fit. But Americans writ large, don't have the brains or...tha balls.

FieryOpal -> RE: Eminent Domain for private profit (7/16/2014 4:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 "constitutional pussies"? So is the opposite of "constitutional pussies"....."constitutional dicks"? [8\|] Technically, wouldn't that be "unconstitutional dicks"... or "unconstitutional pricks"? [8D]

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125