.... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

.... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937

On 6/25/2012 2:09 PM, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937


Thanks for typing in that it's a video and not text source. Appreciate
that. I wish more people would do that...

On 6/25/2012 2:44 PM, Duesenberg wrote:
On 6/25/2012 2:09 PM, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937



Thanks for typing in that it's a video and not text source.
Appreciate that. I wish more people would do that...


Here's an article for those who'd rather read the news than watch it:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/22/pu...e-down-banner/

In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority designated
an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for future university
expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then, they've been gradually
acquiring property in the area via direct purchase and eminent domain.
As they acquire it, they turn it over to the university's real estate
foundation, who pays them for it. At some point the foundation will
bring in developers to redevelop the area as a mixture of university
buildings, student housing, and businesses serving the student community.

There have been three lawsuits fighting the eminent domain claims made
in this redevelopment zone; all three cases have lost. There's very
little land left to fight over; this company and another company are
two of the largest holdouts. Part of the dispute is (as always) over
the definition of fair compensation. One company said they were
offered a take-it-or-leave-it settlement before an appraiser had even
visited the property.

The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.

Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.

On Jun 25, 4:08*pm, Hell Toupee wrote:
On 6/25/2012 2:44 PM, Duesenberg wrote:

On 6/25/2012 2:09 PM, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threaten....

Thanks for typing in that it's a video and not text source.
Appreciate that. *I wish more people would do that...

Here's an article for those who'd rather read the news than watch it:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/22/pu...p-78-year-old-...

In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority designated
an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for future university
expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then, they've been gradually
acquiring property in the area via direct purchase and eminent domain.
As they acquire it, they turn it over to the university's real estate
foundation, who pays them for it. *At some point the foundation will
bring in developers to redevelop the area as a mixture of university
buildings, student housing, and businesses serving the student community.

There have been three lawsuits fighting the eminent domain claims made
in this redevelopment zone; all three cases have lost. There's very
little land left to fight over; this company and another company are
two of the largest holdouts. Part of the dispute is (as always) over
the definition of fair compensation. One company said they were
offered a take-it-or-leave-it settlement before an appraiser had even
visited the property.

The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.

Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.

simple solution, pay twice fair market value.......

such taking should only be for the public good

Hell Toupee wrote:

In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority
designated an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for
future university expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then,
they've been gradually acquiring property in the area via direct
purchase and eminent domain.

So much for your precious freedom and liberty and property rights in the
USA.

There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that
can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal
level.

The only situations in Canada where private land-owners were forced to
sell is either for the development of a roadway / highway, or an
airport.

But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of
homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.

On 6/25/2012 7:00 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Hell Toupee wrote:

In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority
designated an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for
future university expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then,
they've been gradually acquiring property in the area via direct
purchase and eminent domain.

So much for your precious freedom and liberty and property rights in the
USA.

There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that
can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal
level.

The only situations in Canada where private land-owners were forced to
sell is either for the development of a roadway / highway, or an
airport.


In Canada Eminent Domain is called expropriation:

Here are the laws that govern it in all jurisdictions in Canada

http://www.expropriationlaw.ca/expro005.asp

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:08:45 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:




The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.

Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.

There have been quite a few cases of abuse in the past few years. Here
in CT, some houses were taken for development. After a lengthy fight,
the homeowners lost and were kicked out. The project that was
supposed to happen never did. Shameful what they did.

Its all about tax revenue.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:59:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:08:45 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:




The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.

Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.

There have been quite a few cases of abuse in the past few years. Here
in CT, some houses were taken for development. After a lengthy fight,
the homeowners lost and were kicked out. The project that was
supposed to happen never did. Shameful what they did.

Its all about tax revenue.

Kelo was in CT, wasn't it? That decision was criminal.

In article , Home Guy wrote:

But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of
homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.

the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those

On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937

Like I always say: Politicians letting big corporate CEOs run amok.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937

Like I always say: Politicians letting big corporate CEOs run amok.

Hey, that's not nice to say. We have the best politicians money can
buy.

On 6/25/2012 9:59 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:08:45 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:




The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.

Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.

There have been quite a few cases of abuse in the past few years. Here
in CT, some houses were taken for development. After a lengthy fight,
the homeowners lost and were kicked out. The project that was
supposed to happen never did. Shameful what they did.

Its all about tax revenue.


Wasn't their a little slowdown after it happened to one of the
"supremes" in I think MA? I only vaguely remember the story but some
developer paid off the right people to get the properties they wanted
and one of those just happened to be owned by "justice x"?

On 6/26/2012 1:05 AM, wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937

Like I always say: Politicians letting big corporate CEOs run amok.


Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.

In article , George
wrote:

Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.

It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
decides not to run, usually the last year of their term.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Jun 26, 12:02*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , Home Guy wrote:
But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of
homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.

the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those

The govt wins even when they lose. How much money
does an individual or a small business spend to TRY to
win? Answer, a hell of a lot. And the govt? Why they
couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that
get the legal bill, win or lose.

In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for
the municipality to offer a fair price. They lowball it
time after time. Rather than give a fair price, which
might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a
legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.

On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , George
wrote:

Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.

It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
decides not to run, usually the last *year of their term

And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. Like
any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
be out.

I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
campaign money, etc from influencing them. They
still have to run for the first election, don't they?
They still need a job afterward, don't they?

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:02:54 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:


the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those

Why the owner has not requested a zoning variance and the city granted
one, tells me they are just grabin' land. They are not supporting a
local business.

The local govt. picked on a local family that owned land on the Vegas
Strip. Deep pockets, a long fight -- never followed up on the final
disposition.

Nevada has had several votes on ED :-\

On Jun 25, 6:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:08:45 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:



The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.

Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.

There have been quite a few cases of abuse in the past few years. Here
in CT, some houses were taken for development. *After a lengthy fight,
the homeowners lost and were kicked out. *The project that was
supposed to happen never did. *Shameful what they did.

Its all about tax revenue.

It used to be that emminent domain would acquire 'necessary'
properties for the benefit of the general population, primary examples
are constructions to provide expanding infrastructures - highways,
right of ways, govt buildings to centralize, water, power etc.

Sadly, the concept has been perverted to now allow acquiring property
for the benefit of not the general population, but for narrower
selected populations, BY PRIVATE INVESTORS. Meaning, your home can be
taken to enable a large housing development, shopping mall, hotel/
convention structure WHATEVER development is deemed to 'increase' the
value of the land use. Even if that proposed land use will benefit
only a select few [ie a golfing site] and NOT benefit the general
population.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id=87937

Like I always say: Politicians letting big corporate CEOs run amok.

Um mm, this is not a case about "corporate", but rather govt. takin'
land for - whatever?

On Jun 26, 2:03*pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:02:54 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

wrote:

the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the
very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those

Why the owner has not requested a zoning variance and the city granted
one, tells me they are just grabin' land. They are not supporting a
local business.

I don't see a zoning variance being an issue. The
business is apparently there and in compliance with
the zoning. It looks like the city is taking the land
and turning it over to the college real estate trust
so that it can be used as some kind of new development
zone in the future in conjunction with the college.
Apparently for college buildings and businesses
that support the college.

Sure doesn't sound like one of the strongest cases for
using ED to me.

On Jun 26, 2:19*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Jun 25, 6:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:





On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:08:45 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:

The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.

Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.

There have been quite a few cases of abuse in the past few years. Here
in CT, some houses were taken for development. *After a lengthy fight,
the homeowners lost and were kicked out. *The project that was
supposed to happen never did. *Shameful what they did.

Its all about tax revenue.

It used to be that emminent domain would acquire 'necessary'
properties for the benefit of the general population, primary examples
are constructions to provide expanding infrastructures - highways,
right of ways, govt buildings to centralize, water, power etc.

Sadly, the concept has been perverted to now allow acquiring property
for the benefit of not the general population, but for narrower
selected populations, BY PRIVATE INVESTORS. Meaning, your home can be
taken to enable a large housing development, shopping mall, hotel/
convention structure WHATEVER development is deemed to 'increase' the
value of the land use. Even if that proposed land use will benefit
only a select few [ie a golfing site] and NOT benefit the general
population.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, that's pretty much what has happened and this
case is an example of it. AT least in this case a
college is involved, but as you say, in other cases
it's been private, for profit, developers. I can see
doing that in very select cases. An example here
in NJ is Asbury Park, where they used ED to take
large parts of the beachfront area so that developers
could then turn what was a total slum into businesses,
apartments, condos, etc. It has been a big benefit
to the city and has cleaned up what was a real pit.
Prior to that it had been mostly crumbling, unoccupied,
boarded up buildings.

But the problem is that it's then being used in other
cases, where the need isn't nearly as clear and
compelling. An example here would be Long Branch,
where they started out in a similar fashion to turn
around a waterfront in decline. But
even then, LB was not close to being as bad as
Asbury Park was. And having started down the road,
they have continued and have used ED on people in small,
modest homes by the ocean that are well kept and
perfectly fine to sell with ED so they can turn it over
to condo developers. How you draw the line and
prevent the abuse is a problem.

On Jun 26, 2:26*pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threaten....

Like I always say: Politicians letting big corporate CEOs run amok.

Um mm, this is not a case about "corporate", but rather govt. takin'
land for - whatever?

I think his point is that in cases where people tend to
have a problem with the use of ED, it's being used
by govt to take property and then in turn, sell it to
developers. In this case, it's not corporate developers
directly, but instead the govt is going to take it and
then sell or give it to the college. The college in
turn will use some of the properties for it's own
future buildings and the rest will be for commercial
properties that fit in with the colleges grand plan.
college. In all that, clearly there are those in the
private sector that will benefit.

In worse cases, govts have used ED to take property
and the sell it directly to commercial developers.
But in all those cases, it's not really "big corporate
CEOs" that are involved. The developers are
generally smaller, at most regional firms. Not that
it makes it any better, just that it's not typically
Fortune 500 type companies involved.

On Jun 26, 9:59*am, "
wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , George
wrote:

Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.

It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
decides not to run, usually the last *year of their term

And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. *Like
any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
be out.

I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
campaign money, etc from influencing them. *They
still have to run for the first election, don't they?
They still need a job afterward, don't they?

strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
company. no PACs etc......

make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as
part of their license renewal



2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
out........

let people who want to help the country run for congress.

it cant be worse than the current arrangement

In article ,
" wrote:

On Jun 26, 12:02*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , Home Guy wrote:
But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of
homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.

the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at
the
very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those

The govt wins even when they lose. How much money
does an individual or a small business spend to TRY to
win? Answer, a hell of a lot. And the govt? Why they
couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that
get the legal bill, win or lose.

In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for
the municipality to offer a fair price. They lowball it
time after time. Rather than give a fair price, which
might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a
legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.

that's all basically true, but every time they do that they sow the seeds for
future battles...battles that are becoming more and more common. the gov't may
not care, but those people that are in office sure do

On Jun 26, 3:51*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,





" wrote:
On Jun 26, 12:02*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , Home Guy wrote:
But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of
homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.

the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the
property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at
the
very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those

The govt wins even when they lose. * How much money
does an individual or a small business spend to TRY to
win? *Answer, a hell of a lot. * And the govt? *Why they
couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that
get the legal bill, win or lose.

In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for
the municipality to offer a fair price. *They lowball it
time after time. *Rather than give a fair price, which
might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a
legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.

that's all basically true, but every time they do that they sow the seeds for
future battles...battles that are becoming more and more common. the gov't may
not care, but those people that are in office sure do- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't even begin to decode what that means? The
govt doesn't care, but the people in office do?

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jun 25, 6:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:08:45 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:



The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot
this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be
exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the
public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must
include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying
the real estate.

Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment
authority or local government is in bed with the local property
owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at
outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.

There have been quite a few cases of abuse in the past few years. Here
in CT, some houses were taken for development. *After a lengthy fight,
the homeowners lost and were kicked out. *The project that was
supposed to happen never did. *Shameful what they did.

Its all about tax revenue.

It used to be that emminent domain would acquire 'necessary'
properties for the benefit of the general population, primary examples
are constructions to provide expanding infrastructures - highways,
right of ways, govt buildings to centralize, water, power etc.

Sadly, the concept has been perverted to now allow acquiring property
for the benefit of not the general population, but for narrower
selected populations, BY PRIVATE INVESTORS. Meaning, your home can be
taken to enable a large housing development, shopping mall, hotel/
convention structure WHATEVER development is deemed to 'increase' the
value of the land use. Even if that proposed land use will benefit
only a select few [ie a golfing site] and NOT benefit the general
population.

That's what happens when you put lefties on the Supeme Court - government runs
amok.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:05:21 -0700 (PDT), bob haller wrote:

On Jun 26, 9:59*am, "
wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , George
wrote:

Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.

It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
decides not to run, usually the last *year of their term

And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. *Like
any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
be out.

I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
campaign money, etc from influencing them. *They
still have to run for the first election, don't they?
They still need a job afterward, don't they?

strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
company. no PACs etc......

I see you don't care much about the Constitution either.

make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as
part of their license renewal

Wow! Why not force every man, woman, and child, to work for 100hours for a
candidate, too?

2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
out........

Watch those unexpected consequences.

let people who want to help the country run for congress.

"Let"? Isn't it a "right"?

it cant be worse than the current arrangement

Famous last words. You just threw away the Constitution.

In article ,
" wrote:

In article , Home Guy wrote:
But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can
declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block
of homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.

the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them
the property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper
valuation, at the very worst there are court cases and the gov't
doesn't always win those

The govt wins even when they lose. * How much money does an individual or
a small business spend to TRY to win? *Answer, a hell of a lot. * And the
govt? *Why they couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that
get the legal bill, win or lose.

In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for the municipality
to offer a fair price. *They lowball it time after time. *Rather than
give a fair price, which might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a
legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.

that's all basically true, but every time they do that they sow the seeds
for future battles...battles that are becoming more and more common. the
gov't may not care, but those people that are in office sure do- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't even begin to decode what that means? The govt doesn't care, but the
people in office do?

so you did decode it

On 6/26/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Jun 26, 2:26 pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)

... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threaten...

Like I always say: Politicians letting big corporate CEOs run amok.

Um mm, this is not a case about "corporate", but rather govt. takin'
land for - whatever?

I think his point is that in cases where people tend to
have a problem with the use of ED, it's being used
by govt to take property and then in turn, sell it to
developers. In this case, it's not corporate developers
directly, but instead the govt is going to take it and
then sell or give it to the college. The college in
turn will use some of the properties for it's own
future buildings and the rest will be for commercial
properties that fit in with the colleges grand plan.
college. In all that, clearly there are those in the
private sector that will benefit.

In worse cases, govts have used ED to take property
and the sell it directly to commercial developers.
But in all those cases, it's not really "big corporate
CEOs" that are involved. The developers are
generally smaller, at most regional firms. Not that
it makes it any better, just that it's not typically
Fortune 500 type companies involved.

Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have the
resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market" style. Why
would someone like me even think about complaining?

bob haller wrote:

And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. Like
any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
be out.

I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
campaign money, etc from influencing them. They
still have to run for the first election, don't they?
They still need a job afterward, don't they?

strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
company. no PACs etc......

In my view, we have too LITTLE money in politics. I'd implement the three
rules put forth by George Will:
1. No cash,
2. American citizens only, and
3. Instant disclosure.

Let ME make a decision on whom to support - perhaps based on who
contributes.


make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as
part of their license renewal

One more competitive advantage for cable TV networks. Actually, now that I
think on it...



2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
out........

let people who want to help the country run for congress.

it cant be worse than the current arrangement

Sure it can. Things, some things, most things, all things, can ALWAYS get
worse.

George wrote:

Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?

Seize your property for what purpose? To expand the marina?

Well, you had fair warning when you let the city get into the marina
business.

Next, the city can't actually "seize" your property - they have to condemn
it if the two of you can't work out an acceptable price. When that happens,
a court contest ensues and you have an opportunity to persuade your
neighbors on the jury...

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:47:46 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

George wrote:

Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?

Seize your property for what purpose? To expand the marina?

Well, you had fair warning when you let the city get into the marina
business.

Not true. Since the lefties on the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case, ED
can now be used to take your property and give it to someone who will pay more
taxes. The city doesn't have to be in the marina business at all.

Next, the city can't actually "seize" your property - they have to condemn
it if the two of you can't work out an acceptable price. When that happens,
a court contest ensues and you have an opportunity to persuade your
neighbors on the jury...

Perhaps you missed this sentence:

"You have the resources to purchase the correct politicians to seize
our properties on your behalf and we don't have the resources to fight."

The politician gets to hire their lawyer with your tax money. You don't.

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:12:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:47:46 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

George wrote:

Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?

Seize your property for what purpose? To expand the marina?

Well, you had fair warning when you let the city get into the marina
business.

Not true. Since the lefties on the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case, ED
can now be used to take your property and give it to someone who will pay more
taxes. The city doesn't have to be in the marina business at all.

Next, the city can't actually "seize" your property - they have to condemn
it if the two of you can't work out an acceptable price. When that happens,
a court contest ensues and you have an opportunity to persuade your
neighbors on the jury...

Perhaps you missed this sentence:

"You have the resources to purchase the correct politicians to seize
our properties on your behalf and we don't have the resources to fight."

The politician gets to hire their lawyer with your tax money. You don't.

Unlike liberals I never hear conservatives say anything bad about big business. In fact, if left up to them, conservatives would likely let big corporations do what ever they want without any restraint or regulation. You keep calling the supreme court “lefties”. It seems to me that with their decisions on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Kelo v. City of New London there are more “righties” in the supreme court then there are “lefties”.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:11:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:12:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:47:46 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

George wrote:

Isn't this really a "free market" thing? Lets say I own a nicely
maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?

Seize your property for what purpose? To expand the marina?

Well, you had fair warning when you let the city get into the marina
business.

Not true. Since the lefties on the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case, ED
can now be used to take your property and give it to someone who will pay more
taxes. The city doesn't have to be in the marina business at all.

Next, the city can't actually "seize" your property - they have to condemn
it if the two of you can't work out an acceptable price. When that happens,
a court contest ensues and you have an opportunity to persuade your
neighbors on the jury...

Perhaps you missed this sentence:

"You have the resources to purchase the correct politicians to seize
our properties on your behalf and we don't have the resources to fight."

The politician gets to hire their lawyer with your tax money. You don't.

Unlike liberals I never hear conservatives say anything bad about big business.

Um, this is a problem with GOPVERNMENT.

In fact, if left up to them, conservatives would likely let big corporations do what ever they want without any restraint or regulation. You keep calling the supreme court “lefties”. It seems to me that with their decisions on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Kelo v. City of New London there are more “righties” in the supreme court then there are “lefties”.

You're a liar. ...and an idiot (can't even post properly).

I think your perspective is different than mine. About conservatives, and
thier views on big business.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Unlike liberals I never hear conservatives say anything bad about big
business. In fact, if left up to them, conservatives would likely let big
corporations do what ever they want without any restraint or regulation. You
keep calling the supreme court “lefties”. It seems to me that with their
decisions on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Kelo v. City
of New London there are more “righties” in the supreme court then there are
“lefties”.

On Jun 27, 11:11*am, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:12:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:47:46 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

George wrote:

Isn't this really a "free market" thing? *Lets say I own a nicely
maintained 3rd generation in my family cottage down by the marina and
there are some more folks like me there too. You have a 155' boat and
sometimes use the marina and really don't like the idea of my type of
cottage near your boat. You have the resources to purchase the correct
politicians to seize our properties on your behalf and we don't have
the resources to fight. So you win fair and square "free market"
style. Why would someone like me even think about complaining?

Seize your property for what purpose? To expand the marina?

Well, you had fair warning when you let the city get into the marina
business.

Not true. *Since the lefties on the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case, ED
can now be used to take your property and give it to someone who will pay more
taxes. *The city doesn't have to be in the marina business at all.

Next, the city can't actually "seize" your property - they have to condemn
it if the two of you can't work out an acceptable price. When that happens,
a court contest ensues and you have an opportunity to persuade your
neighbors on the jury...

Perhaps you missed this sentence:

* "You have the resources to purchase the correct politicians to seize
* our properties on your behalf and we don't have the resources to fight."

The politician gets to hire their lawyer with your tax money. *You don't.

Unlike liberals I never hear conservatives say anything bad about big business.

You must have been asleep when conservatives were
bitching about GM and Chrysler being bailed out by
the govt.....



In fact, if left up to them, conservatives would likely let big
corporations do what ever they want without any restraint or
regulation.

Not true. Most conservatives for example are perfectly
fine with the anti-trust laws.

On Monday, June 25, 2012 7:00:50 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that
can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal
level.

There isn't in the USA, either. The problem is there is nothing stopping a municipality from exercising eminent domain, then "changing its mind" and selling to a private developer, usually at price far below the fair market value of the property.

It's abuse of power, corruption, at its finest.

I must be a real funny kind of “leftie”.

I’m against gun control.
I’m completely in favor of states right. In fact I’m for leaving up to each individual state to make their own laws on abortion, single sex marriage and The Affordable Care Act.
I’m against affirmative action.
I’m for the death penalty.
I’m against public service unions.
I believe in a school voucher program to let parents have a choice.
I’m against amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I’m in favor of anyone putting up religious signs or symbols anyplace they want as long as they personally pay for it.
I’m for withdrawing from the UN.
I believe that captured terrorists should be treated as spies.
I oppose long-term welfare.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:21:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I must be a real funny kind of “leftie”.

Sorry, no lefty is funny. Most are just sick.

I’m against gun control.
I’m completely in favor of states right. In fact I’m for leaving up to each individual state to make their own laws on abortion, single sex marriage and The Affordable Care Act.
I’m against affirmative action.
I’m for the death penalty.
I’m against public service unions.
I believe in a school voucher program to let parents have a choice.
I’m against amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I’m in favor of anyone putting up religious signs or symbols anyplace they want as long as they personally pay for it.
I’m for withdrawing from the UN.
I believe that captured terrorists should be treated as spies.
I oppose long-term welfare.

Then you're deaf and blind.

wrote in message
...
I must be a real funny kind of “leftie”.

I’m against gun control.
I’m completely in favor of states right. In fact I’m for leaving up to
each individual state to make their own laws on abortion, single sex
marriage and The Affordable Care Act.
I’m against affirmative action.
I’m for the death penalty.
I’m against public service unions.
I believe in a school voucher program to let parents have a choice.
I’m against amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I’m in favor of anyone putting up religious signs or symbols anyplace they
want as long as they personally pay for it.
I’m for withdrawing from the UN.
I believe that captured terrorists should be treated as spies.
I oppose long-term welfare.



You're not much of a lefty at all.