Eminent Domain

[oneswiftmotion]

Basically this is a clause in the 5th amendment that states that the federal government has the ability to seize your property without your consent in order to build a road, school, etc. That's understandable, but the government has, at times, seized land from one private party to give to another private property if they would receive more $ in property taxes from that party than they would from you. Anyway, do you think the government has the right to do that? Can they knock down your little shack of a house in order to let someone build a Mercedes dealership because they'll pay more in taxes than you do? Or does that violate your other rights? Discuss.

[xshady121]

As a libertarian, I would give a resounding no.

[Machu505]

That is definitely not a good thing.

[Dunn.Nope]

the compensation paid to the people who are living in the house is not enough, so no it is not good.

[Alou]

Happened to a friend of mine. Shit sucks. You don't get nearly as much for this in compensation as you should usually.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson thought this was a good thing?

[saysmydoctor]

Shows the silliness of property.

[Andy Young]

Happened here in the suburbs of Cincy. They were building this giant shopping complex and all of the homeowners were given market value for their land (not their houses) and that was it. One guy went through the trouble of filing a lawsuit and got his original $100,000 offer turned into a 1.25 million offer. After that he willingly left.

But yes the whole concept is seriously fucked up. There is no way this should be allowed.

[JGood4]

This is stupid. By me they tore down houses and built a luxury car dealership and they took this family's farm but they haven't done anything to it.

[Miss Heartcore]

This was/is a big issue in Asbury Park, NJ. They continue to shut down business and kick people out of their home with barely enough money to get a new place.

I remember several years ago the local news station did a specific piece on an apartment complex that included a large number of senior citizens and they were just crying about how they had no idea where they would go and what they kind of place they could afford with their "compensation" money.

[J.C.]

Nah, homey don't play that.

[open mind]

the seizing of property by the government has been going on for centuries......funny how it wasn't a problem when it was native americans who were the ones getting fucked over.

[Tesoro]

As a libertarian, I would give a resounding no.

second.

[derekmoyer4]

the seizing of property by the government has been going on for centuries......funny how it wasn't a problem when it was native americans who were the ones getting fucked over.
truth.

[zachff]

The examples we're giving here suck, yes, but the government needs to retain this authority in case they do actually need it.

[Miss Heartcore]

The examples we're giving here suck, yes, but the government needs to retain this authority in case they do actually need it.
I guess? I mean these buildings and homes were seized in the Asbury Park and West Long Branch so they could build "luxury" condominiums with restuarants/shops/gyms. I understand that they want to "improve" the neighborhood but they're basically only making the area affordable to a certain class.

[caveBEAR]

I guess? I mean these buildings and homes were seized in the Asbury Park and West Long Branch so they could build "luxury" condominiums with restuarants/shops/gyms. I understand that they want to "improve" the neighborhood but they're basically only making the area affordable to a certain class.

They did the same thing in Chicago. Knocked out low-income high rises, added in 'luxury' condominiums.

[zachff]

I guess? I mean these buildings and homes were seized in the Asbury Park and West Long Branch so they could build "luxury" condominiums with restuarants/shops/gyms. I understand that they want to "improve" the neighborhood but they're basically only making the area affordable to a certain class.

I mean imagine if they removed this clause, then (however unlikely it may be) there was some sort of war waged against the US by Canada or Mexico. The US government would need the ability to claim land owned by private citizens for bases, infantry staging, etc etc.

They did the same thing in Chicago. Knocked out low-income high rises, added in 'luxury' condominiums.

I lived in one of those "luxury" (not sure why the quotes) condos up until last November. It's actually one of the better examples of people being able to live where they lived before. A number of people were relocated to those condos and given the ability to rent them at a reduced price. If they made the payments for X months, they were given the option to buy at a reduced price. I would say that 95% of the people who moved there initially eventually bought.

[xshady121]

They did the same thing in Chicago. Knocked out low-income high rises, added in 'luxury' condominiums.

I can advocate the tearing down of low income high rises.

[caveBEAR]

I lived in one of those "luxury" (not sure why the quotes) condos up until last November. It's actually one of the better examples of people being able to live where they lived before. A number of people were relocated to those condos and given the ability to rent them at a reduced price. If they made the payments for X months, they were given the option to buy at a reduced price. I would say that 95% of the people who moved there initially eventually bought.

I can advocate the tearing down of low income high rises.

I was referring specifically to the Cabrini Greens Apartments (I don't know if that's where you live, Zach), and I definitely agree that low-income high-rises are things of the past, and need to go away, but from what I had thought (and Zach would probably know better than I) that in this particular instance (and some others) that way less than 95% of people stayed around and bought new apartments. I had just heard that most of them had to find somewhere else to go, completely abandoning the communities they had forged in there.

Just sucky. Always seemed to me like there could have been some better solution, especially since the apartment building put in place (of Cabrini) seemed like it was not meant for the people living there.

[xshady121]

I was referring specifically to the Cabrini Greens Apartments (I don't know if that's where you live, Zach), and I definitely agree that low-income high-rises are things of the past, and need to go away, but from what I had thought (and Zach would probably know better than I) that in this particular instance (and some others) that way less than 95% of people stayed around and bought new apartments. I had just heard that most of them had to find somewhere else to go, completely abandoning the communities they had forged in there.

Just sucky. Always seemed to me like there could have been some better solution, especially since the apartment building put in place (of Cabrini) seemed like it was not meant for the people living there.

Decentralizing poverty is a tricky endeavor.

[caveBEAR]

Decentralizing poverty is a tricky endeavor.

Yup.

[zachff]

I was referring specifically to the Cabrini Greens Apartments (I don't know if that's where you live, Zach), and I definitely agree that low-income high-rises are things of the past, and need to go away, but from what I had thought (and Zach would probably know better than I) that in this particular instance (and some others) that way less than 95% of people stayed around and bought new apartments. I had just heard that most of them had to find somewhere else to go, completely abandoning the communities they had forged in there.

Just sucky. Always seemed to me like there could have been some better solution, especially since the apartment building put in place (of Cabrini) seemed like it was not meant for the people living there.

I am referring to Cabrini yes. And no, it was not 95% of the people that lived there that got to stay in the neighborhood, it was 95% of the people given the opportunity to stay that made the successful rent payments and now own their own condos. The bolded part is what I was referring to, sections of this housing were set aside for these people to move to.

There is going to be an issue whenever something like this happens, there is no good way to relocate people from public housing but in the end, that's what it is: public housing. If the government is the one providing the roof over your head for you and due to circumstances (whether they are beyond or within your control) you continue to live there, the government has a right to move you from that housing.

[caveBEAR]

I am referring to Cabrini yes. And no, it was not 95% of the people that lived there that got to stay in the neighborhood, it was 95% of the people given the opportunity to stay that made the successful rent payments and now own their own condos. The bolded part is what I was referring to, sections of this housing were set aside for these people to move to.

There is going to be an issue whenever something like this happens, there is no good way to relocate people from public housing but in the end, that's what it is: public housing. If the government is the one providing the roof over your head for you and due to circumstances (whether they are beyond or within your control) you continue to live there, the government has a right to move you from that housing.

Agreed, but I'm more arguing the shittyness of that experience than the legality of it. :shrug:

How many people were not part of the 95% (if you know)?

[zachff]

Agreed, but I'm more arguing the shittyness of that experience than the legality of it. :shrug:

How many people were not part of the 95% (if you know)?

I don't know for sure. I mean, they just demolished one of the three remaining buildings in my area, but at most those other two buildings are 25% full, so getting a clear cut number would be difficult.

[oneswiftmotion]

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson thought this was a good thing?
I think their intention was different than the way it is being misused by the government now. I can completely understand if they need to build a school/road/community center on someone's property, but they're not supposed to be taking my property to build a luxury car dealership.

This was/is a big issue in Asbury Park, NJ. They continue to shut down business and kick people out of their home with barely enough money to get a new place.

I remember several years ago the local news station did a specific piece on an apartment complex that included a large number of senior citizens and they were just crying about how they had no idea where they would go and what they kind of place they could afford with their "compensation" money.
yeah, in my business law class we watched this video where this town in CT somewhere was being torn down to build this huge corporation's main office/manufacturing facility and this tired old woman was one of the last people remaining. She went around what was left of her town and pointed out places where everyone used to live because it was a really close-knit town. Just heartbreaking.

Nah, homey don't play that.
Truth.

[oneswiftmotion]

I was referring specifically to the Cabrini Greens Apartments (I don't know if that's where you live, Zach), and I definitely agree that low-income high-rises are things of the past, and need to go away, but from what I had thought (and Zach would probably know better than I) that in this particular instance (and some others) that way less than 95% of people stayed around and bought new apartments. I had just heard that most of them had to find somewhere else to go, completely abandoning the communities they had forged in there.

Just sucky. Always seemed to me like there could have been some better solution, especially since the apartment building put in place (of Cabrini) seemed like it was not meant for the people living there.

Someone I know who used to teach at a magnet school near the Cabrini Greens Apartments told me a story about how so many of his students used to miss school because another kid in their apartments had been killed because of the awful conditions. This one time a 7-year old got stuck in one of the elevators (the elevators would work on and off) and tried to escape, but as soon as he was half way out of the elevator, it started running again and ripped his body in half. Unbelievable.

[rawesome]

As a libertarian, I would give a resounding no.
I really respect you a lot, no hyperbole, but this makes you sound like the party's puppet more than an autonomous individual. Better phrasing, perhaps?

But yeah, this shit is stupid.

[xshady121]

I really respect you a lot, no hyperbole, but this makes you sound like the party's puppet more than an autonomous individual. Better phrasing, perhaps?

But yeah, this shit is stupid.
I get what you're saying. It sounds like i only disagree because i'm supposed to.

I was trying to phrase it as I don't believe in the process, and, as such, I'm a libertarian.

Classic chicken and egg.

[rawesome]

I get what you're saying. It sounds like i only disagree because i'm supposed to.

I was trying to phrase it as I don't believe in the process, and, as such, I'm a libertarian.

Classic chicken and egg.
I only point it out because I remember you saying almost the exact same thing before, but I was at the time unsure how you'd react. I realize you're far more sensible than that, just wanted to make sure you came off that way.

[caveBEAR]

I get what you're saying. It sounds like i only disagree because i'm supposed to.

I was trying to phrase it as I don't believe in the process, and, as such, I'm a libertarian.

Classic chicken and egg.

So you admit Libertarians are chickens? :-|

[xshady121]

So you admit Libertarians are chickens? :-|

Hahaha.

Have you ever shook ron paul's hand? He's certainly not human, if that's what you're implying.

[caveBEAR]

Hahaha.

Have you ever shook ron paul's hand? He's certainly not human, if that's what you're implying.

:squint: His hands feel unhuman?

[GeeBee]

Move off the property. I'm going to build a mormon temple here.

[Neo Cassady]

No way. Happened to my ex and her family. They got compensated pretty well (probably because they owned a ton of land), but being forced to up and move because they want to build a bypass Hitchhiker's Guide style is shitty as all get out.

[caveBEAR]

Move off the property. I'm going to build a mormon temple here.

If all goes well in 2012, this will be a mandate of the land. ::fingerscrossed::

[xshady121]

If all goes well in 2012, this will be a mandate of the land. ::fingerscrossed::

Don't even joke about the word "mandate".

I'm sick of it. If I never hear it again it will be too soon.

[GeeBee]

If all goes well in 2012, this will be a mandate of the land. ::fingerscrossed::

Hahaha. Romney/Palin 2012 is full of win.

[caveBEAR]

Don't even joke about the word "mandate".

I'm sick of it. If I never hear it again it will be too soon.

I was referring to the courtship of homosexual males, I don't know what you were referring to...

[xshady121]

I was referring to the courtship of homosexual males, I don't know what you were referring to...

My bad. I had been revising my paper on political mandates all afternoon, and seeing the word brought a cringe to my spine.

[caveBEAR]

My bad. I had been revising my paper on political mandates all afternoon, and seeing the word brought a cringe to my spine.

Nah, nah, you misunderstood me. I meant that Geebee and I are going on a man date. Would you like to join us?

[xshady121]

Nah, nah, you misunderstood me. I meant that Geebee and I are going on a man date. Would you like to join us?

Hahahaha.

Oh you two.

[caveBEAR]

Hahahaha.

Oh you two.

You know that if Geebee is my gay lover, you're my straight friend. ;-)