Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Sure am glad I don't own property in the US


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
70 replies to this topic

#1 of 71 OFFLINE   Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Producer



  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted June 23 2005 - 05:18 AM

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.c.....ap/index.html

#2 of 71 OFFLINE   Mort Corey

Mort Corey

    Supporting Actor



  • 981 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 21 2003

Posted June 23 2005 - 05:32 AM

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

#3 of 71 OFFLINE   ThomasC

ThomasC

    Lead Actor



  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted June 23 2005 - 05:51 AM

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...Posted Image

#4 of 71 OFFLINE   RichP

RichP

    Second Unit



  • 295 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 26 1998

Posted June 23 2005 - 06:24 AM

Quote:
Well, at least the plans are on display.


Beware of the Leopard!


#5 of 71 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted June 23 2005 - 06:32 AM

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.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#6 of 71 OFFLINE   SteveA

SteveA

    Supporting Actor



  • 701 posts
  • Join Date: May 25 2000

Posted June 23 2005 - 06:40 AM

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.

#7 of 71 OFFLINE   Nathan*W

Nathan*W

    Screenwriter



  • 1,069 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 09 2001

Posted June 23 2005 - 06:50 AM

I don't agree with this decision.
 

#8 of 71 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,519 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted June 23 2005 - 06:52 AM

I vehemently oppose this decision. The majority showed classic anti-individualist thinking here.

#9 of 71 OFFLINE   Mort Corey

Mort Corey

    Supporting Actor



  • 981 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 21 2003

Posted June 23 2005 - 07:01 AM

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

#10 of 71 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted June 23 2005 - 07:14 AM

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.

Quote:
The point I was making is that the concept of private property has largely become an illusion.
Unlike forfeiture laws, the law of eminent domain goes back to the founding of the United States. One may feel (as the dissenters obviously did) that this latest ruling represents an unwarranted extension of states' power to seize private land, but the power itself is nothing new.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#11 of 71 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted June 23 2005 - 07:22 AM

Quote:
Most of the justices who voted in favor of this ruling are Clinton appointees.
Untrue. Only two of the five votes were Clinton nominees (Ginsburg and Breyer). The opinion was written by Stevens, a Ford nominee, and the other two votes were Kennedy (nominated by Reagan) and Souter (nominated by the first Pres. Bush).

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#12 of 71 OFFLINE   Mort Corey

Mort Corey

    Supporting Actor



  • 981 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 21 2003

Posted June 23 2005 - 07:43 AM

Quote:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


It's the court(s) that have expanded the notion of "public use" that is the problem. (Not relevant, but the "commerce clause" has been bastardized much in the same way). Agreed, the concept is not new, it's the implementation.

Mort

#13 of 71 Guest_Eric Kahn_*

Guest_Eric Kahn_*
  • Join Date: --

Posted June 23 2005 - 07:48 AM

write your congress member (if you are a US citizen) and complain about this ruling, I already did, congress can enact a law to prevent this typr of eminant domain land grab

#14 of 71 OFFLINE   Moe Maishlish

Moe Maishlish

    Supporting Actor



  • 992 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 1999

Posted June 23 2005 - 07:52 AM

Posted Image

Three situations come to mind:

1)What if say, Hilton Hotels comes along and says to the local government "You know, we'd really like to build a brand new luxury resort on that plot of land that the local Wal-Mart is sitting on."... what then?

2)What if, say, Walmart or Hilton Hotels comes along and says to the local government "You know, we'd REALLY like to build a new luxury resort/Wal-Mart at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in DC."... what then?

3)What if, say, Walmart or Hilton Hotels or Huge Corporation B comes along and says to the local government "You know, we'd REALLY REALLY like to build a new luxury resort/Wal-Mart/Sewage Treatment Plant at the 5 locations where these (approving) Supreme Court Justices live."... what then?

Personally, someone shows up at my home in a bulldozer ready to kick me out of my house, they'd find me sitting on the lawn, chained to the house, reading a copy of Hitchhikers Guide... out LOUD!

Moe.
- Confidence implies the knowledge of one's limitations, while arrogance implies that one does not have any.

- There's no such thing as "normal". The secret is to find someone that's screwed up in a way that seems "normal" to you.

#15 of 71 OFFLINE   Matt Stieg

Matt Stieg

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 228 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 26 2003

Posted June 23 2005 - 08:08 AM

In my town of Carmel, IN, we've got a jerk of a mayor that's kicking people out of homes right and left to build town houses, condos, and office buildings.

#16 of 71 OFFLINE   Paul_Medenwaldt

Paul_Medenwaldt

    Supporting Actor



  • 648 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 06 2001

Posted June 23 2005 - 08:11 AM

Quote:
Untrue. Only two of the five votes were Clinton nominees (Ginsburg and Breyer). The opinion was written by Stevens, a Ford nominee, and the other two votes were Kennedy (nominated by Reagan) and Souter (nominated by the first Pres. Bush).


I think instead of saying who appointed the judges, it shuld of been referred to as which way those judges lean. Now most everyone knows which way each justice leans when it may come to their philosiphies.

My suprise in the decision was that the more conservative judges voted the way they did and the more liberal judges voted the way they did. I believe Kennedy and O'Connor are the justice's that always teeter in the middle.

I disagree with the decision myself. Congress can always go back and fiddle with the law so that this judgement may no longer be valid, but then we'll have another case to fight that.

Just to add to my statement, we had an issue locally here in the cities where Best Buy wanted to relocate their headquarters in Richfield. The same land they wanted was occupied by a car dealership that had been there for many years and was also the location of where scenes from Fargo was filmed. The city of Richfield bascially condemed the site, forcing the dealership to move out. There were many court cases battling this. Now on that location sits 2 large buildings which consist of the new Best Buy campus.

Paul
If there be one of them who does not follow the way of the Snitzil, let that one go and do not throw bowling balls at them.

#17 of 71 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted June 23 2005 - 08:14 AM

Quote:
I think instead of saying who appointed the judges, it shuld of been referred to as which way those judges lean.
That would get us into politics, which would get this thread closed.

I was responding to a specific factual assertion, nothing more.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#18 of 71 OFFLINE   Paul_Medenwaldt

Paul_Medenwaldt

    Supporting Actor



  • 648 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 06 2001

Posted June 23 2005 - 08:20 AM

Quote:
That would get us into politics, which would get this thread closed


Your correct Michael. My concern was about president bashing and who appointed who and I wanted to focus more on the judges then the presidents who appointed them, or actually the main focus should be the decision itself.

Paul
If there be one of them who does not follow the way of the Snitzil, let that one go and do not throw bowling balls at them.

#19 of 71 OFFLINE   David Brown Eyes

David Brown Eyes

    Second Unit



  • 262 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 1999

Posted June 23 2005 - 08:22 AM

HA HA HA HA.

As a Native American.

Welcome to my existence.

On a more serious note, this is not out of the ordinary when it comes to land the individual is outright screwed if the government wants your land bad enough.

#20 of 71 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted June 23 2005 - 08:40 AM

Quote:
actually the main focus should be the decision itself
Absolutely. One of the problems with reactions to Supreme Court decisions is that they're usually formed on the basis of news reports that have to be written under time constraints, without any opportunity for the reporters to read and digest the opinion(s) thoroughly.

For example, many of the reports don't even mention Justice Kennedy's concurrence, which could be seen (and I too haven't had time to study it) as substantially limiting the impact of the majority opinion.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists


Back to After Hours Lounge



Forum Nav Content I Follow