|
|
 |
|
06-23-2005, 12:18 PM
|
#1 of 71 
|
|
Member
Location: Othyrworld
Join Date: Aug 1998
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 8,683
|
Sure am glad I don't own property in the US
It used to be that when you paid good money for a piece of land it was yours until you wanted to sell, assuming you kept up with your taxes and so forth. Now, the federal US courts have ruled that local governments can sieze your land for whatever reason they want, not just the public good as it used to be. That means that when WalMart or any other developer with lots of cash wants your property, out you go. There is no provision for negotiating a decent buyout either from what I can see, your land is simply taken, your house bulldozed and your family uprooted, for whatever the local area deems appropriate.
Sure am glad I live n Canada where that few hundred grand actually allows me to own my property, and if someone wants it, they pay my price.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/2....ap/index.html
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
06-23-2005, 12:32 PM
|
#2 of 71
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 971
|
It's even better than that (eminent domain) in some instances. Should you rent your property to someone that uses it for illegal purposes, it can be seized and sold without any compensation at all. Is this a great country or what?
Mort
|
|
|
|
06-23-2005, 12:51 PM
|
#3 of 71
|
|
Thomas
Member
Location: Columbus, OH
Join Date: Dec 2001
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 6,341
|
Quote:
|
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
|
Well, at least the plans are on display... 
The man I loved - the man who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe some day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2005, 01:24 PM
|
#4 of 71
|
|
Member
Location: New York City
Join Date: Aug 1998
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 293
|
Quote:
|
Well, at least the plans are on display.
|
Beware of the Leopard! |
|
|
|
|
06-23-2005, 01:32 PM
|
#5 of 71
|
|
Michael Reuben
Administrator
Location: New York City, Lehman Bros. was here
Join Date: Feb 1998
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 19,603
|
Quote:
|
There is no provision for negotiating a decent buyout either from what I can see
|
Eminent domain seizures are always subject to judicial challenge over the amount of compensation paid. AFAIK, the new Supreme Court decision does not change that long-standing rule.
Quote:
|
Should you rent your property to someone that uses it for illegal purposes, it can be seized and sold without any compensation at all.
|
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the law of eminent domain or the new S. Ct. ruling.
M.
"Most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they're capable of anything." -- Chinatown
"What kind of movies would there be if everyone in them had to do what we thought they should do?" -- Roger Ebert
HTF Beginner's Primer and FAQ
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2005, 01:40 PM
|
#6 of 71
|
|
Member
Location: Southwest VA
Join Date: May 2000
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 941
|
Most of the justices who voted in favor of this ruling are Clinton appointees. Clinton is from Arkansas. Wal-Mart is based in Arkansas. Coincidence? Hmmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2005, 01:50 PM
|
#7 of 71
|
|
Member
Location: Virginia
Join Date: Sep 2001
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 1,037
|
I don't agree with this decision.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2005, 01:52 PM
|
#8 of 71
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 1998
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 9,132
|
I vehemently oppose this decision. The majority showed classic anti-individualist thinking here.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2005, 02:01 PM
|
#9 of 71
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 971
|
Quote:
|
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the law of eminent domain or the new S. Ct. ruling.
|
The point I was making is that the concept of private property has largely become an illusion. SCOTUS has upheld this type of travesty as well.
Mort |
|
|
|
|
06-23-2005, 02:14 PM
|
#10 of 71
|
|
Michael Reuben
Administrator
Location: New York City, Lehman Bros. was here
Join Date: Feb 1998
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Local Date: 10-15-2008
Posts: 19,603
|
Quote:
|
SCOTUS has upheld this type of travesty as well.
|
Yes, the Court has ruled that forfeiture laws are constitutional, but it's not the Court that created them. Complain to Congress.
| |
