Ahh, ain't the government just grand?

[Airicky 0]

Do you think the lawmakers will ever be the ones tossed out of their homes against their will?

 

High court OKs personal property seizures

 

[Guest guest]

nothing new governments have been seizing or expropriating land since the foreigners first came to america why are you so supprised ? it took four million aficans sold by queen isabela of spain to build the american dream, anyone remember AMISTAD

[theist 1]

Just one vote the other way. Another infamous 5-4 decision. So now if you are a big enough developer you can affords to pay off the right people in the town and they can seize whatever they want.

 

In the good ole days this is the time when the common folk break out their shotguns, Remingtons and Colt .45's. They could only try this after emasculating the men which they have done. It's all over. Witness the mode of passion burn out into the mode of ignorance and apathy in the form of TV and video games. Most people won't notice or see the significance even if by accident they hear about it.

 

I was talking to a La Roucheie today as he was out proselytizing. He was advocating state control of everything and mixing in Jefferson et all along with it somehow. When I mentioned this ruling his face went white with shock and he said "they can't do that it's unAmerican" Just one moment before he was telling me that the govt. should seize General Motors and other major corp. and shut down the stock market. LOL This place is doomed.

 

No place to try to build a permanent nest, no where to rest in the material world.

 

Save who we can starting with ourselves.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

This is really starting to blatently cut in all round the world with the wrong people in power.

Recently in Mumbai they just bulldozed thousands of those temporary homes of the poorer residents close to the airport with hardly enough time to gather their possessions. All beause they didn't do anything for the cities image.

Then there's Mugabis' dispicable activities bulldozing the poorer class into oblivion. The meglamaniac control freaks are really plummeting right out of control. Xtreme Lust is driving them all, subtle or gross there're all the same.

[Guest guest]

it is the same in calcutta or even holy places they just come knock everything to the ground built a brothal or liquer out let to hell with the poor

[Airicky 0]

Would you shop at these stores after they rip your home out from under you?

 

Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond

[krsna 3]

 

Religion News Service

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 24, 2005: Religious institutions may be more vulnerable to takeover through eminent domain after the June 23 Supreme Court ruling that gives local governments greater power to seize properties for private economic development, according to some religious and civil rights advocacy groups. Churches, mosques, synagogues and other nonprofit religious entities are considered especially at threat because they generate no tax revenue for cities, while developments like hotels or shopping malls are seen to be economic boons for urban renewal projects. "Because all houses of worship are tax-exempt, they will continue to be attractive targets for seizure by revenue-hungry local governments," said Jared Leland, media and legal counsel of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund is a nonprofit, interfaith legal organization that advocates for the free _expression of religion.

 

The Becket Fund, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Rutherford Institute and many other groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of seven residents of New London, Conn., who were fighting the city's decision to raze their homes to allow private developers to build a commercial complex. Leland warned that taking land and property strictly for economic interests is a dangerous slippery slope, and said religious organizations threatened by this decision offer communities services and aid that are immeasurable by monetary standards. "Religion is something that may not have an economic impact on communities, but does have a tremendous social impact on communities." Leland said. "Religious institutions should be welcomed and protected in the land-use matter." John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said public furor may protect some religious institutions from takeovers, but warned they still will be vulnerable. "If push comes to shove, churches, synagogues and anyone who they don't conside r tax-generating entities will come under this," Whitehead said.

 

The close 5-4 decision in Kelo et al v. City of New London was made citing rights given to municipalities by the Fifth Amendment, which allows them to seize private properties for public use, in exchange for just compensation to the owner. The high court said economic development, especially in blighted areas, is an appropriate "public use" rationale for seizing property. Leland said although the ruling removes the added protection of the Fifth amendment for fighting eminent domain cases, his organization will continue to fight for the rights of citizens and places of worship. "The First Amendment and federal law will continue to be the shoulder to lean on for religious institutions," Leland said. In addition, White noted that the ruling may not have the final say in eminent domain cases, since the ruling allows state legislatures to pass laws restricting this type of land seizure. He said he hopes that religious institutions will use their organizing powers to protect themselves and help homeowners facing situations like the New London residents. "The less fortunate are vulnerable and that's what Christians should be concerned about," Whitehead said. "The churches can fight back; small land owners and families can't."

 

 

[theist 1]

I wouldn't blame folks if they started shooting these thiefs in the head. Usurps of the home, right?

[Guest guest]

<h4>Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter?</h4>

 

Weare, New Hampshire --- Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

 

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

 

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

 

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

 

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

 

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

 

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

 

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

 

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gauracandra 1]

Used properly I don't have that much of a problem with it. For instance, if a government needs to build a highway and your house is in the way, I think they have the right to properly compenstate you. Personally I think if the government uses this process they should overcompensate, say 1.5 or 2 times property value. They are after all not allowing you to bargain.

 

However, it was meant to allow government to expand public works that benefit everyone. What it has turned into is a scam by which rich wealthy businessmen screw the little guy.

 

A few examples I saw on a 60 minutes program some months back. The New York Times had the city of New York take over an apartment complex and then give it to the them to build a new skyscaper. Now, this is clearly an abuse. If the city took it over to build a new school because of the growing population in the area, then it would be understandable. But to steal from one person to then give the property to a multi-million dollar enterprise is just cheating. Same thing happened where a Home Depot like company wanted to shut down someone's garage because this guy had prime location. But thats why he wants to keep it. Instead the state forced him to give it up to this building supply company.

 

This is just an erosion of private property rights.