+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures (/thread-6177.html)
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Doc - 06-24-2005
I think I am just about mad enough to go burn a flag right about now...
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Sailboat - 06-24-2005
Burning is the proper way to dispose of a flag. The proposed amendment, I believe, concerns desecrating a flag -- burning is used in some protests that could be considered desecration.
I actually support the idea of an amendment that criminalizes desecrating a flag. Sure, go ahead. Make the penalties as stiff as you like! One caveat: I only support this on the grounds that *I* get to define "desecration".
Waving a flag, dressing in it, even burning it to express sincerely-held beliefs in the Constitution and this nation's higher purpose would, of course, not be desecrating a flag at all -- more like supporting what it stands for.
Dressing in flag bikini for the cover of a fashion mag -- desecration.
Wearing flag underwear to moon John Sunnunu at a cabinet meeting -- aggravated desecration. (That actually occurred during Bush Senior's administration. No word on whether Dubya will haul his father in under the proposed new amendment.)
Using the flag to sell used cars -- second-degree desecration. Maybe also fraud.
Wrapping oneself piously in the flag to distract the public from real issues one is afraid to tackle -- first degree desecration.
Wrapping oneself piously in the flag to attack political opponents or to hide one's own crimes: CAPITAL desecration.
Bring it on, politicians! There's room in Gitmo for a while bunch of you.
Sailboat
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Doc - 06-24-2005
I am told by my minions and lackeys out in the world that today around where I live, a lot of people are flying their flags upside down or at half mast.
Fitting. Death of the American dream.
I have always stated I thought about moving out of this country, but I always, always meant it as a joke. I was never truly serious.
Canada is out, I don't think they would agree with my policy on firepower.
Anybody know any small islands for sale? I mean, far far away from America where they could just jerk it back out from under me after I paid hard currency for it.
Not sure where to, but this place no longer feels like home.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Minionman - 06-24-2005
Sailboat,Jun 24 2005, 08:39 AM Wrote:Burning is the proper way to dispose of a flag. The proposed amendment, I believe, concerns desecrating a flag -- burning is used in some protests that could be considered desecration.
[right][snapback]81491[/snapback][/right]
Desecration, shoot! There go all my arguments. Guess I'll get sued for libel now.
There was this funny story some some person wrote to get the point across about what the flag means. Supposedly some lawyer bragged about being able to get people out of almost all their taxes through loopholes and such. than asked if he supoported the country, he said something along the lines of "Yes I do, I fly flags all the time". Was designedto show how little the symbols really matter.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - jahcs - 06-24-2005
IMHO I believe the flag issue deserves it's own thread.
To get this back on track...
Here is some new info I learned:
Quote:Susette Kelo dreamed of owning a home that looked out over the water. She purchased and lovingly restored her little pink house where the Thames River meets the Long Island Sound in 1997, and has enjoyed the great view from its windows ever since. The Dery family, down the street from Susette, has lived in Fort Trumbull since 1895; Matt Dery and his family live next door to his mother and father, whose parents purchased their house when William McKinley was president. The richness and vibrancy of this neighborhood reflects the American ideal of community and the dream of homeownership.
Tragically, the City of New London is turning that dream into a nightmare.
In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed over its power of eminent domainâthe ability to take private property for public useâto the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. As the Fort Trumbull neighbors found out, when private entities wield governmentâs awesome power of eminent domain and can justify taking property with the nebulous claim of âeconomic development,â all homeowners are in trouble.
Apparently the city turned over it's power of eminent domain to a PRIVATE COMPANY. The stew thickens...
This screams corruption, incompetence, and conflict of interest.
PUBLIC USE does not mean PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT TO GENERATE TAX REVENUE.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Doc - 06-24-2005
Well, it's not called the Wal Mart ruling for nothing, duh!
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - oldmandennis - 06-24-2005
jahcs,Jun 24 2005, 09:44 AM Wrote:Here is some new info I learned:
Apparently the city turned over it's power of eminent domain to a PRIVATE COMPANY. The stew thickens...
[right][snapback]81516[/snapback][/right]
"PRIVATE COMPANY"... you probably got the wrong idea here. A redevelopment corporation is not a company in the traditional, moneymaking sense of the word. They usually have members appointed by the city, from neighborhood groups, community activists, and yes, business interests.
The idea is to get most of the nitty gritty details (and there are a lot of details in all of these situations) out of the city council meetings, and in front of a board that can give it their full attention. The city usually reserves enough power for itself to put them back in line if they are going against the peoples interest.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Chaerophon - 06-24-2005
whyBish,Jun 23 2005, 09:11 PM Wrote:jahcs,Jun 24 2005, 08:25 AM Wrote:
It looks like no-one owns a house... they are all just rented until further notice from the state
[right][snapback]81466[/snapback][/right]
Nicely put! :)
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Chaerophon - 06-24-2005
oldmandennis,Jun 24 2005, 10:31 AM Wrote:The city usually reserves enough power for itself to put them back in line if they are going against the peoples interest.
[right][snapback]81527[/snapback][/right]
Just a thought... municipal politics is not always the most accountable game in town, particularly (if I've heard correctly) in many parts of small-town USA. The presence of politicians does not guarantee that they are always working in the little guys' favour.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Rhydderch Hael - 06-24-2005
Having gained a new job some two years ago, I had to move back into the Antelope Valley of southern California. Dirtland. Not as bad as, say, Riverside, but close.
There's a stretch of road some 8 miles long separating Palmdale from a small community called Littlerock (where Charlie Brown's Farm makes a famous home for milkshakes). At the intersection of 47th/Palmdale Boulevard and 90th/Palmdale Blvd, a pair of big honkin' lightboard signs were erected: the 90th street sign servicing westbound traffic, the 47th servicing eastbound. Fancy, high-tech yellow LED arrays with monitoring cameras. I saw the suckers pop up years ago whenever I came by to visit family.
I don't think those things were ever switched on for the first two or three years. Then, lo and behold, one day a test pattern came online and continually flicker through these signs. Then the rains came and the Littlerock wash coming out of Littlerock Dam was soon flowing over Palmdale Boulevard with a swift current. Then the ultimate purpose of those electronic signs was made manifestâ they were put to work, giving drivers approaching the wash this warning: "Road Flooded Ahead" "Icy Conditions"
Apparently this multi-thousand dollar electronic message system was designed solely to supplant $20 metal signs mounted on an $8 metal pole. Which is further troubling in my mind since the City of Palmdale still made the effort to erect $20 metal signs stating "Road Flooded"/"Icy" on the same roadâ right next to the electronic signs.
Somebody got rich over that "civic improvement". Nobody I know, though... :whistling:
Second case in point, on that same stretch of Palmdale Boulevard: within the past year, access roads from the quarry (or 'them there Dirt Farm', as I call it) were cut to put a lot of gravel hauler and cement mixer traffic onto this eight mile stretch of two-lane road. At the exact same time, those eight miles were re-striped into double yellow no-passing zones. That's right: put a whole bunch of slow-moving trucks on a two lane road, then re-zone it so that it's illegal to pass.
No accident. Somebody thought it up and thought it was a good idea to execute. Most probably so that they have a "civic improvement" to work upon in the future. I swear, it is in the city's mindset to subtly wreck something during a change to ensure their job security by coming along and fixing it up some years later.
This is not the sort of local government I'd trust to wisely wield the power of eminent domain for public use, much less for resale to private companies.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Doc - 06-24-2005
So it begins.
Ugh.
Water front property owners, take note.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - oldmandennis - 06-24-2005
Chaerophon,Jun 24 2005, 12:41 PM Wrote:Just a thought... municipal politics is not always the most accountable game in town, particularly (if I've heard correctly) in many parts of small-town USA. The presence of politicians does not guarantee that they are always working in the little guys' favour.
[right][snapback]81550[/snapback][/right]
I'm curious, what do you consider accountable? The great thing about small town politics is that no matter how much money you throw at it, concerned citizens can go door to door and see everyone. Twice!! There are 25k people in New London, figure that makes 10k households, figure 100 adults lived in those 80 households being siezed, if they made 1 visit a day to people to present their case, they could have seen eveyone in town 21 times over the course of this case. If you can't sit in your neighbors living room and convince them not to take your house, well the project probably makes at least a little bit of sense.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - jahcs - 06-24-2005
oldmandennis,Jun 24 2005, 01:40 PM Wrote:If you can't sit in your neighbors living room and convince them not to take your house, well the project probably makes at least a little bit of sense.
[right][snapback]81559[/snapback][/right]
If it's one thing the American Public have proven over and over again: If it doesn't affect them directly, it doesn't matter that much.
400 jobs for the community? Great! Let's get started. Tear down some of those houses. The owner gets paid a bit, what's the problem?
Oh, wait, it's my home? I'm not selling. My family grew up here. I planned on growing old here.
When the shoe is on the other foot it might not be so easy to talk the talk and walk the walk. And this ruling gives the government the power to buy your shoes right out from under you.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Doc - 06-24-2005
jahcs,Jun 24 2005, 04:59 PM Wrote:If it's one thing the American Public have proven over and over again: If it doesn't affect them directly, it doesn't matter that much.
400 jobs for the community? Great! Let's get started. Tear down some of those houses. The owner gets paid a bit, what's the problem?
Oh, wait, it's my home? I'm not selling. My family grew up here. I planned on growing old here.
When the shoe is on the other foot it might not be so easy to talk the talk and walk the walk. And this ruling gives the government the power to buy your shoes right out from under you.
[right][snapback]81561[/snapback][/right]
If you try to charge even one penny over fair market value for your home that the business offers to give you for it, the city can turn around, seize your house from you, and in turn sell it to the business cheaper than you can, and return a full profit and then some. I just know for a fact this will be abused.
Think about it... The city being able to sell land is a fast way to fill up the city coffers with a surplus of cash.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Doc - 06-24-2005
Oh, and with the new blight conditions, the city can blight a whole neighborhood, dropping the fair market value way down to about 10% of what it actually was worth. But that's ok. The city can sell your 100,000 dollar home for 10,000 dollars and still turn a tidy profit. And I am fairly certain that most businesses would rather deal with the city directly, rather than the citizens, as the city has the ability to blight and lower prices for the business considerably.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Any1 - 06-24-2005
Doc,Jun 24 2005, 09:29 PM Wrote:So it begins.
Ugh.
Water front property owners, take note.
[right][snapback]81557[/snapback][/right]
Suddenly the second amendment is sounding pretty good. Nothing like the local militia showing up at the city council member/mayors homes to keep the vultures at bay. ;)
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Doc - 06-24-2005
Sounds good... But most Americans have been downright pussified.
While there are some well trained folk, there are not enough folk that are well trained with fire arms. A citizen with a firearm that has no real training or ability to deal with actual combat situation is a hazard to everybody around him, including their own selves.
And with all the demonising of guns, there are entirely to many people entirely unfit for using their second ammendment rights.
I own a rather prime piece of land. I have already been approached twice by a developer that wants to buy lots of land out where I live for a whole bunch of condos and apartment. As well as other land holdings I have.
Now, I worry.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Chaerophon - 06-24-2005
jahcs,Jun 24 2005, 01:59 PM Wrote:If it's one thing the American Public have proven over and over again: If it doesn't affect them directly, it doesn't matter that much.
400 jobs for the community? Great! Let's get started. Tear down some of those houses. The owner gets paid a bit, what's the problem?
Oh, wait, it's my home? I'm not selling. My family grew up here. I planned on growing old here.
When the shoe is on the other foot it might not be so easy to talk the talk and walk the walk. And this ruling gives the government the power to buy your shoes right out from under you.
[right][snapback]81561[/snapback][/right]
Agreed.
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Occhidiangela - 06-24-2005
Sailboat,Jun 24 2005, 08:39 AM Wrote:Burning is the proper way to dispose of a flag. The proposed amendment, I believe, concerns desecrating a flag -- burning is used in some protests that could be considered desecration.
I actually support the idea of an amendment that criminalizes desecrating a flag. Sure, go ahead. Make the penalties as stiff as you like! One caveat: I only support this on the grounds that *I* get to define "desecration".
[right][snapback]81491[/snapback][/right]
Statute or Act? Law? Yes. Amendment? No.
Occhi
Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures - Rhydderch Hael - 06-25-2005
Doc,Jun 24 2005, 02:02 PM Wrote:If you try to charge even one penny over fair market value for your home that the business offers to give you for it, the city can turn around, seize your house from you, and in turn sell it to the business cheaper than you can, and return a full profit and then some. I just know for a fact this will be abused.Aye.
Think about it... The city being able to sell land is a fast way to fill up the city coffers with a surplus of cash.
[right][snapback]81563[/snapback][/right]
Pre-Thursday
"Hi! I'm an crazy Texas oil tycoon who makes eccentric purchases of homes in order to expand my burdgeoning empire of squirrel-racing tracks. I'd like you buy your 2-bedroom, 1 bath ranch home to complete the southeast corner of my latest complex."
Homeowner: "Sure! Three hundred thousand!"
Tycoon: "Sold! Here's three-twenty five. Buy yourself something with sequins and bull-horns. Yeehaw!"
Post-Thursday
"...the southeast corner, next to the nut shuffler."
Homeowner: "Sure! Three hundred thousand!"
Tycoon: "By golly! Hold on a moment" *makes a quick call on a cellphone*
Bulldozers roll in, and a car pulls up. Guy in a suit pops out.
Official: "In the interests of promoting the civic economy, we are seizing this home on a claim of eminent domain. Here's your check for one-hundred thousand dollars, and now our friendly 'relocation assistants' will transport you and your belongings to the nearest Motel 6."
Bulldozers start crunching away
Official (turning to tycoon): "My master?"