Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    What did you say? Huh?
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    18,250

    Paging: ALL 'eminent domain' F@ns

    Is there annyone on this board who *DOESN"T* like this @ some level?




    Campaign to seize US judge's home
    Activists angered by a US Supreme Court ruling that homes can be demolished for public developments are trying to seize the home of one of the judges involved. About 60 people rallied in the small New Hampshire town of Weare on Sunday, where Justice David Souter has a house.

    The protesters say they have enough signatures from Weare residents to put their proposal to a town vote in March.

    They want a compulsory purchase order on the 200-year-old farmhouse, and say they will build a hotel in its place.

    Campaign organiser Logan Clements, from Los Angeles, told supporters in Weare the Supreme Court had "shot a hole in the [US] Constitution".





    I don't want my house to be taken away to be the next Disneyland
    Campaign supporter Eric Dellinger

    Judge Souter was in a 5-4 majority on the court panel that ruled last June that the city of New London in Connecticut could seize homes to make way for a hotel, convention centre, office space and flats.

    The ruling gave government the right to seize homes for "public benefit", where previously they could only be taken for "public use".

    Many fear the ruling means land can now be requisitioned for commercial ventures that benefit the local economy, not just public projects like road building.

    The Supreme Court ruling has prompted many states, including New Hampshire, to consider tightening their laws on "eminent domain", or compulsory purchase.

    'Very scary'

    Mr Clements needed only 25 signatures calling for Mr Souter's house to be compulsorily purchased, to put the issue to a ballot of the 8,500 residents of Weare.




    He says he already has 188 names.

    Weare resident Eric Dellinger signed the petition.

    "I'm not sure that going after a justice is really the right way to do it," he told the Los Angeles Times.

    "But this eminent domain thing is very scary. I don't want my house to be taken away to be the next Disneyland no matter how much good it would be for other people."

    There was no comment on the petition from Justice Souter.


    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/4639374.stm

    Published: 2006/01/23 12:25:19 GMT

    © BBC MMVI
    Man. You are all stuped.
    ~RUFUSPHOTO

  2. #2
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,867

    Oh Man.I hope they pass it.

    how f'in funny would that be..
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,106
    Funny that this got picked up by the BBC in 01/06. I remember last year when the decision (Souter wrote the majority opinion, as I recall) came down and this movement started. It got coverage from the NYTimes, if I recall correctly.

    The problem isn't with the use of ED; if the gov't is seizing a house (for FMV) in order to lay down a freeway, that's one thing. But when they do it in order to turn the land over to another private party for a revenue producing project, it makes my blood boil. How can true conservatives (and by true conservatives, I mean those that believe in less government and individual liberties) condone this? Frankly, how can anyone?
    First Things First

  4. #4
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,867

    not a fan either

    in private to private transfers. IMHO if a private business wants the property they should have to buy it off the private owners. Gov has no business in such a transaction.

    but it's nice when this stuff turns NIMBY
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,106
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    in private to private transfers. IMHO if a private business wants the property they should have to buy it off the private owners. Gov has no business in such a transaction.

    but it's nice when this stuff turns NIMBY
    Exactly, and frankly, there is a law in place that deals with these sort of transfers; supply and demand. If they want it bad enough, they'll pay the price. And at some point, the price will get high enough that the seller will realize he doesn't want it as much as he thought.
    First Things First

  6. #6
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,867

    and that sounds like

    the ProBusiness, Individual freedom attitude of a good capitalist. why does this sound like real mean nanny statism?
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,106
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    the ProBusiness, Individual freedom attitude of a good capitalist. why does this sound like real mean nanny statism?
    Actually, it a perfect example of the illogical extreme. Big business supports the free market because it benefits big business. Republicans generally are friendly to big business partly because big business represents the Republican base. Republicans also generally are conservative. Free market economic principles are, by and large, conservative norms. Generally, big business goals mesh nicely with conservative principles. However, at times, conservative principles militate against the big business aims. Rather than staying true to the conservative philosophy, Republican politicians sacrifice these principles for the benefit of big business.

    A similar, although more complicated and less obvious, dichotomy appears when you look at the influence of "political correctness" on the traditionally democratic "free speech" movement of the 60s and 70s. Of course, "free speech" should have been a conservative plank from the outset . . .
    First Things First

  8. #8
    You're Not the Boss of Me
    Reputation: JayTee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison
    Actually, it a perfect example of the illogical extreme. Big business supports the free market because it benefits big business. Republicans generally are friendly to big business partly because big business represents the Republican base. Republicans also generally are conservative. Free market economic principles are, by and large, conservative norms. Generally, big business goals mesh nicely with conservative principles. However, at times, conservative principles militate against the big business aims. Rather than staying true to the conservative philosophy, Republican politicians sacrifice these principles for the benefit of big business.

    A similar, although more complicated and less obvious, dichotomy appears when you look at the influence of "political correctness" on the traditionally democratic "free speech" movement of the 60s and 70s. Of course, "free speech" should have been a conservative plank from the outset . . .

    I think you are too easily conflating "conservatism" and "libertarianism" (or similar individual-rights politics).

    Both liberal and conservative ideologies have a place for big government over the rights of the individual. No one corners the market on that.

  9. #9
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,867

    agreed but

    this shows big business doesn't support a free market. they want a unfree market that benefits them. everytime they need a gov. handout they are first in line.

    eminent domain isn't free market. it's gov intrusion into the market.

    so what is more 'true' is that the republican Party is Pro Big Business and
    Big Business is Pro Big Business. they don't give a rats a$$ about free markets unless it benefits them.
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  10. #10
    Palm trees & sunshine!
    Reputation: KenB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    24,222
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    how f'in funny would that be..
    It would be totally priceless.


    supervillain

  11. #11
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,867

    how about a theme park?

    ya know "Great Days in Democracy" or something? I'd go. heck I'd go if itwas a hotel as long as I could go out late at night and relieve myself on his former property
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  12. #12
    Back from the dead
    Reputation: mohair_chair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    20,907
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    I'd go if itwas a hotel as long as I could go out late at night and relieve myself on his former property
    There will be a hill out there you can pee on. We'll call it "Splash Mountain."

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    136
    I think it is a stupid idea. He is only one of 5 justices who voted this way. Also if you read the opinions it clearly makes the point that the meat and potatoes of the decision is one of state's rights: The state has the right to determine their laws for eminent domain (how it will/can be used). A previous post was correct in that this was not strictly about eminent domain, which by the way has been upheld in the Supreme Court multiple times. I happen to dissagree with the majority in this case. In fact I really liked Justice Thomas' opinion the best (I can't believe it).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

2015 LIGHTS SHOOTOUT

Hot Deals See All Hot Deals >>

Interbike Featured Booths

Check out the hottest road bike products from these brands!



















See All Interbike Coverage - Click Here »


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook