Eminent domain laws.

[The One and Only...]

I challenge any one of you to claim that the government is justified in taking private property without consent of the owner.

[kahljorn]

Technically the government owns all "Property" we live on, because they are the "Government". We are just "Leasing".

Duh.

I OWN YOUR DIRT.

[punkgrrrlie10]

well since it was written into the bill of rights by those who in effect started the united states, i think it's pretty justified.

[AChimp]

Ahh... you must have heard about that little community in Wisonsin (or wherever) where they want to bulldoze the 100-year-old houses to make condos. In that case, no, it is not justified.

But, if they wanted to build a highway through there, damn straight. They can take as much as they want.

[whoreable]

I saw this on the news a few days ago.



Mesa's challenges

Mesa's downtown redevelopment area covers a square mile and includes an additional 300 acres bordering downtown. Several projects slated for that area for which private land was seized have either stalled or fallen apart.

The city has captured national attention for its attempt to seize and raze two shops near downtown for a city-engineered redevelopment project.

Randy Bailey, owner of Bailey Brake Service, 18 N. Country Club Drive, and Patrick Dennis, owner of the Maaco Auto Painting and Bodyworks shop, 434 W. Main St., are fighting Mesa’s plan to take their property on the northwest corner of Main Street and Country Club Drive and turn the land over to three other local businessmen who want to build a hardware store and an electronics store.

Lawyers for Bailey and Dennis argue that the city is violating their property rights guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution. The project is on hold while the courts untangle the legal issues. Maricopa County Superior Court Justice Bethany Hicks ruled this week that Mesa must wait at least six months to seize the Maaco property while the Arizona Court of Appeals rules on the Bailey property.



this is fucking ridiculous. Take one man's private property and give it to another? What a great cuntry.

[kahljorn]

LETS ARRANGE A RIOT, OR AT LEAST A STRIKE

Who's down for it?

[El Blanco]

Ummmm, no they can't. Not even for a highway (who builds a highway through a residential area?). We are not the government's subjects. Its not the government's land and we are just squatting on it. Thats a Communist state.

You don't need government permission to buy or sell property.

[punkgrrrlie10]

gov't can take your land for gov't purposes so long as they pay you fair mkt value. it's in the constitution.

[El Blanco]

But they just can't seize it. I'll have to check that part of the Constitution. Where is it?

[whoreable]

Yea they pay you what they think is fair. Either way its bullshit. But this situation is much worse because it is not being used to the cities infrastructure it is for someone else's business.

[kahljorn]

TO SUMMON THIS UP WITH A POEM:

Mapped Boundries, land paintde with blue sand
One foot here, one foot there, you never know just where
I drew a man in this sand, red crayon, I named him sam
Gentlemen's cane, thick with ivy, swung and struck poor sandman's hand
Murder, masacre I cursed, how could you harm my mount of dirt?
For this measure of malice I will not stand
No blood was seen, for this his hand i drew in green, just to understand his great obscenes
The scene had changed, I conjurde new time and foe
For poor sam, the man of sand, the seeds of war were sewn.

[Zhukov]

Thats a Communist state.

No, It is a Stalinist state.

[The_Rorschach]

Blanco buddy, thats the fifth and fourteenth ammendment she is referencing:

". . .nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And then Article Four, Section Three of the US Constitution we also see:

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. . ."

[Perndog]

Are they justified? Only under certain circumstances, like if you owe them money or are a criminal. Can they do it? Hell yes. Are you going to stop them? Might makes right.

[AChimp]

PUBLIC USE, aka building a government building, a new road, bulldozing your house to make a park or a war memorial. Stuff like that.

If you don't like it, move to a different country. :P

[punkgrrrlie10]

If someone disagrees with the taking, they can always get a temporary injunction and put the burden of proof on the gov't that they are taking it for public use. If it is for a private contractor to build condos, it most likely won't hold up under the constitution, even if it's state laws b/c the U.S. constitution is a minimum of rights. States must at least meet that threshold if the right is incorporated (which it is) and can only grant more, not less, protection to its citizens.

[VinceZeb]

Neil Boortz has brought this up for the last month. There are HORRIBLE uses of the domain laws out there such as:

Walmart wanting to use the laws so they can take houses and build a supercenter.

ACE Hardware wanting the city govt to condem a local hardware store so ACE can move in and provide a healither tax base.

It's damn sickening.

[Helm]

I wouldn't object to the US goverment if they took away your trailer, however.

[VinceZeb]

If by "trailer", you mean modest St. Louis county apartment, then the landowners of the appartment would have a problem with it.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Neil Boortz has brought this up for the last month. There are HORRIBLE uses of the domain laws out there such as:

Walmart wanting to use the laws so they can take houses and build a supercenter.

ACE Hardware wanting the city govt to condem a local hardware store so ACE can move in and provide a healither tax base.

It's damn sickening.

Well in some areas, there are no jobs and alot of poverty so they justify it by saying it will bring jobs to severely depressed areas. And wanting to use those laws for that purpose, and actually using it for that purpose are 2 different things. Until a court reviews ALL of the evidence (rather than just what you may want to hear about), it can't be ruled to be unconstitutional. If no one challenges it, and just takes the money and runs (they are getting compensated) well then who is hurt?

[AChimp]

No, by trailer he meant that 7' x 10' thing you drag behind a vehicle, except yours is on blocks rather than wheels.

[El Blanco]

". . .nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

What is considered due process?

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. . ."

See, it doesn't belong to to United States, it belongs to the citizen. It is US terrirtory, but that is different from property.


[/i]

[AChimp]

See, it doesn't belong to to United States, it belongs to the citizen. It is US terrirtory, but that is different from property.

No, see, your government controls U.S. territory, and your little patch of land just happens to be in U.S. territory, kinda like how slices of bread add up to the whole loaf.

You don't own the land. You own the title to it. The government's authority with regards to the land supercedes your own, provided that they can show there is good enough reason to expropriate it.

[Jeanette X]

Neil Boortz has brought this up for the last month. There are HORRIBLE uses of the domain laws out there such as:

Walmart wanting to use the laws so they can take houses and build a supercenter.

ACE Hardware wanting the city govt to condem a local hardware store so ACE can move in and provide a healither tax base.

It's damn sickening.

My God, I agree with Vince. :shocked

[Perndog]

If by "trailer", you mean modest St. Louis county apartment, then the landowners of the appartment would have a problem with it.

Tell me that's not St. Louis County, Minnesota... :/

[Big Papa Goat]

:( I thought OAO was talking about taxes in his first post, since I don't know what eminent domain laws are. But as to the government expropriating land, I don't see anything wrong with it in principle, so long as the owners are compensated. I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to take land from individuals if it will then use the land towards the public good.