Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
Nealz Nuze ^ | Friday, March 12, 2004 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 03/12/2004 5:15:01 AM PST by beaureguard

I ask you today to consider a time in America when there will be no such thing as the private ownership of real estate; where the American dream of home ownership will belong to a past era. Instead of title to a parcel of real property, you'll get a license to occupy that property for a determined period of time. That license will be issued by the government, and subject to renewal on a periodic basis. Renewal will be considered based on several factors, including how you are using that land, and whether or not the license fees you pay for that usage is adequate.

Some areas of this country are closer to this reality than others. Take Connecticut, for instance. The Connecticut Supreme Court recently ruled that private ownership of land was subject to the needs of local jurisdictions for more tax revenue or a wider jobs base. If your friendly local politicians in Connecticut thinks that someone else could redevelop your property in such a way that it would support higher property taxes, or provide more jobs for the community, then the politicians can simply step in, seize the property, pay the current "owner" some stipend, and hand the property over to a new owner. That includes private residences.

As this attack on private property evolves in America you'll hear politicians start to talk about "public ownership of all real estate." That's the argument they use today for denying to broadcasters their private property rights in and to broadcast frequencies. Scarcity in the broadcast spectrum is used as an excuse. Scarcity? Technology is expanding available broadcast frequencies at a rapid rate. Not so for real estate. They really aren't making any more of that stuff. If you want to use scarcity as an excuse for government control, what better place than real estate?

Attacks on the private ownership of real estate are spreading. Enjoy your home while you can. Somewhere out there is a sharp developer who has his eye on your property .. and a case to make before your local politicians that he can do a better job of owning your property than you can.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boortz; nealznuze; privateproperty; propertyrights; pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last

1 posted on 03/12/2004 5:15:02 AM PST by beaureguard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
consider home owners associations. Developers are not building individual homes in urban areas. Developers view the associations as another revenue stream.
2 posted on 03/12/2004 5:16:40 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
If this happens, it will only be because we didn't recognize the trend and plan ahead. No problem, Neal.
3 posted on 03/12/2004 5:17:59 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Ah, we just rent our property from the government, anyway. Don't pay whatever amount the local government has decided to charge you for services you may or may not use, and see how fast they'll take your house away from you.
4 posted on 03/12/2004 5:19:04 AM PST by prion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
"public ownership of all real estate" -

wasn't that one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto?
5 posted on 03/12/2004 5:21:38 AM PST by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
"If your friendly local politicians in Connecticut thinks that someone else could redevelop your property in such a way that it would support higher property taxes, or provide more jobs for the community, then the politicians can simply step in, seize the property, pay the current "owner" some stipend, and hand the property over to a new owner"

A classic example of the philolsophy of "the common good."

6 posted on 03/12/2004 5:23:22 AM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prion
property taxes, too...your fee for the government letting you "own" the property.
7 posted on 03/12/2004 5:24:24 AM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Bump for later reading.
8 posted on 03/12/2004 5:24:36 AM PST by TheBattman (leadership = http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Just look at inner cities to see the demoralization of a disrespect for private property.
9 posted on 03/12/2004 5:25:33 AM PST by P.O.E. (Enjoy every sandwich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
being part of the lake association has been a pretty good deal for us. There are only about 15 homes right on the shore of the lake today and that seems to be the way it will stay.

a few years back a developer bought most of the land on the far side of the lake with the intent of building a subdivision with a marina, beach, and park etc. the lake association with the help of the DEQ managed to prevent the developer from building right down to the shore of the lake and kept the marina and other eyesores from being built.
10 posted on 03/12/2004 5:25:33 AM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
What makes you think that home owners associations provide revenue to developers? Where did you ever get that notion? I'm on the board of my home owners association, and there ain't no money goin' to no developer. It goes toward landscaping of common areas and facility improvements.
11 posted on 03/12/2004 5:27:50 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I believe you are correct.
12 posted on 03/12/2004 5:29:25 AM PST by beaureguard (Herman Cain for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard; SheLion; Gabz; Conspiracy Guy; Just another Joe
I was just entering this into the search bar when you posted it. I don't think people realize the full assault on Private Property that is out there. The most basic tenent of personal liberty and freedom is private property. We now have lost private property rights, we have half our earnings confiscated, we have mail inspections and confiscations, we are no longer a free country.

The sad thing is that we have a contingent of freepers that support this loss of freedom.
13 posted on 03/12/2004 5:29:41 AM PST by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GigaDittos
Did a contract where the developer had the contract for the maintainace and construction of any improvements from the association for a set period of years.
14 posted on 03/12/2004 5:31:33 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
..."As this attack on private property evolves in America you'll hear politicians start to talk about "public ownership of all real estate." That's the argument they use today for denying to broadcasters their private property rights in and to broadcast frequencies.".... yea right boortz(chickenlittle). this is just a cry baby response to the FCC's new rules. People ARE tired of listening to foulmouth shockjocks and inyourface Sex on TV. now ALL the media FACES are whining. Police your own, Neal, and the FCC wouldn't have to do it.
15 posted on 03/12/2004 5:36:22 AM PST by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
...kept the marina and other eyesores from being built.

Not having ever lived on lakefront or seashore property, why is a marina an eyesore? Isn't it just boats? Sailboats would be allright, but not speedboats, etc.

16 posted on 03/12/2004 5:36:32 AM PST by jeffc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CSM
You are right. There is a full assault on property. Neal generally keeps this issue alive on his show. This is as important an issue as any, and flys under most people's radar.
17 posted on 03/12/2004 5:36:53 AM PST by beaureguard (Herman Cain for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Yesterday the took my cigarettes. Today they took my Big Mac. Tomorrow they'll try to take my house, but they forgot to take my guns first. A grievous error on their part.

CG
18 posted on 03/12/2004 5:37:15 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Of course I'm armed. Isn't everyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard; B4Ranch; JackelopeBreeder; Sabertooth; dennisw

"Instead of title to a parcel of real property, you'll get a license to occupy that property for a determined period of time. That license will be issued by the government, and subject to renewal on a periodic basis."

Matrix alert.

19 posted on 03/12/2004 5:39:46 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Look for it to happen in Canada first, then here within a decade (north of the border they are awfully close to this now).
20 posted on 03/12/2004 5:39:58 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy
At least until we get President HRC. Then the 2nd will be overturned by executive order!
21 posted on 03/12/2004 5:41:17 AM PST by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"...being part of the lake association has been a pretty good deal for us. There are only about 15 homes right on the shore of the lake today ... a developer bought most of the land on the far side of the lake with the intent of building a subdivision ... the lake association ... managed to prevent the developer from building right down to the shore of the lake ..."
- - -
Sounds to me like you got yours but are perfectly happy to disallow others to get theirs.
22 posted on 03/12/2004 5:41:39 AM PST by Hanging Chad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
It is my guess, that most citizens do not own their property at this moment.

The bank in which they make their monthly loan payment to is the owner of their property.

That is especially true for you loan payors who also have to pay their property taxes on a monthly basis into an escrow account.

Your lender, in so many words, is telling you that you are not the owner of this property and not ultimately responsible for payment of the property taxes.

I, the lender, do not trust you, the lendee, for whatever reason, to pay the property taxes in full and on time, thus possibly causing me, the lender, future problems with the local government.

So I, the lender, will collect the property taxes that I, the lender am responsible for, in advance from you, the lendee, on a monthly basis from you, the lendee, with your loan payment.

Now since the bank or mortgage company is more than likely a nationwide business, doing business across state lines, eventually one of the communist/socialist legislators is going to exert the "commerce clause" as the federal jurisdiction to "regulate" your life in your house, such as smoking of cigarettes.

23 posted on 03/12/2004 5:42:49 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM; Conspiracy Guy

"As this attack on private property evolves in America you'll hear politicians start to talk about "public ownership of all real estate."

Kofi Annan's successor just might be the largest real estate broker ever . .

Property Rights

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976


* * * *

The United Nations Wants to TAX you!

Taxation

"Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali ... urged the [UN] to consider imposing its own taxes to become less dependent on the United States...."

-Washington Times, January 16, 1996

Are you concerned that...
...numerous taxation schemes to finance the UN are being considered?

Economist James Tobin proposed in 1972 that the UN be the recipient of a tax of 0.05% on foreign exchange transactions. In 1993, the Ford Foundation produced Financing an Effective United Nations, a report containing recommendations that the UN tax airline traffic, shipping, and arms sales. In 1995, the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance suggested that the UN collect levies from those who use "flight lanes, sea lanes for ships, ocean fishing areas, and the electromagnetic spectrum." Ultimately, of course, the burden of all taxation falls on consumers.

Are you concerned that...
...a State Department study specifically proposed giving the UN taxing power and, ultimately, control of the world?

In 1962, the State Department financed a study entitled "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations." The report outlined what would be needed for such a total world government: "a mandatory universal membership," an ability to use "physical force," and "compulsory jurisdiction" of its courts. One of the UN's "principle features," stated the report, would be "enforceable taxing powers." (Emphasis added.)

Are you concerned that...
...no matter how much our nation gives, the UN will never be satisfied?

In addition to hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid, our nation has provided the UN with tens of billions more for its programs since 1945. Currently, U.S. contributions make up 25% of the UN's annual budget. But, in his May 2001 speech at Notre Dame University, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan complained with a typical anit-American attitude, "It is shameful that the United States ... should be one of the least generous in terms of helping the world's poor."

Are you concerned that...
...taxing authority would fuel an unaccountable UN Superstate?

Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said of a UN tax: "We would no be under the daily financial will of member states who are unwilling to pay up." UN Founder Harlan Cleveland made the same point in Futures: Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year decisions by individual governments" (about how much to give the UN), "what's needed is a flow of funds for development which are generated automatically under international control." And there would be no Congress to limit the UN's appetite for your tax dollars!

Property Rights

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

24 posted on 03/12/2004 5:44:19 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
=Think about it. jetskis, skiboats, endless traffic. No thanks i prefer the wildlife.
25 posted on 03/12/2004 5:45:36 AM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hanging Chad
they can get theirs but they cant screw up my good thing in the process. am i supposed to keep moving so others can "get theirs"?
26 posted on 03/12/2004 5:47:36 AM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gdc61
"...this is just a cry baby response to the FCC's new rules. People ARE tired of listening to foulmouth shockjocks and inyourface Sex on TV..."
- - -
Does your radio not have an 'off' knob?
Or is your channel selector stuck?
I dispise folks like Stern etc.
So I CHOOSE to not listen to their shows.
I really don't want the FCC or Boortz or you deciding for me.
27 posted on 03/12/2004 5:48:11 AM PST by Hanging Chad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f
~eh, heads-up.

Not that you needed to see this, you already knew it would happen & said so many times.

...just here sooner than I thought.

28 posted on 03/12/2004 5:48:44 AM PST by Landru (Indulgences: 2 for a buck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
And JFnKerry wants to give up military control to the UN, therefore handing them our soveriegnty (sp?)!

Thanks for the details.
29 posted on 03/12/2004 5:50:19 AM PST by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
You sent a chill down my spine! Good thoughts!
30 posted on 03/12/2004 5:51:52 AM PST by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I'll be ready.

CG
31 posted on 03/12/2004 6:01:36 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Of course I'm armed. Isn't everyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard; farmfriend
I ask you today to consider a time in America when there will be no such thing as the private ownership of real estate; where the American dream of home ownership will belong to a past era. Instead of title to a parcel of real property, you'll get a license to occupy that property for a determined period of time. That license will be issued by the government, and subject to renewal on a periodic basis. Renewal will be considered based on several factors, including how you are using that land, and whether or not the license fees you pay for that usage is adequate.

Its mourning in America -- today.

32 posted on 03/12/2004 6:03:32 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
I'll die keeping mine and then I won't need it.

CG
33 posted on 03/12/2004 6:04:05 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Of course I'm armed. Isn't everyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hanging Chad; gdc61
Ten or even five years ago the FCC taking action to silence indecency on our air waves wouldn't even be given a second thought.

Now, the likes of Stern being shut down for violating the FCC decency laws are even coming under great scrutiny since 9/11.

Panic.

34 posted on 03/12/2004 6:07:36 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"Then the 2nd will be overturned by executive order" - CSM

IMO - such an order would last for less than 2 weeks.
35 posted on 03/12/2004 6:09:15 AM PST by Triple (All forms of socialism deny individuals the right to the fruits of their labor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy
If (God forbid) you do ever lose your's, so will the rest of us.

We have to keep our eyes open, ears to the ground, and ready for the worst, I'm afraid.

36 posted on 03/12/2004 6:09:19 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Triple
Yeah, just like in NYC!

Actually I believe you, the 2nd revolution would start and the intent of the RTKBA would be shown accurately.
37 posted on 03/12/2004 6:10:47 AM PST by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hanging Chad
you purposely ignored this part..."Police your own, Neal, and the FCC wouldn't have to do it."

"I really don't want the FCC or Boortz or you deciding for me." or how about this way...

"I really don't want the FBI or police or you deciding for me." or how about this way...

"I really don't want my Dad or Mommy or you deciding for me.

Sometimes in life, in order to keep those who would take advantage of others in check you have things called RULES
38 posted on 03/12/2004 6:11:41 AM PST by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
WE must and we will. The UN has to go. The Nanny state has to go. Good people must do good things in spite of the odds.

CG
39 posted on 03/12/2004 6:14:44 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Of course I'm armed. Isn't everyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Yeah, just like in NYC - CSM

Your NYC example is well taken, but IMO there is a big difference between NYC and Duluth Alabama, or any similar Small/medium size town or rural area, especially in fly-over country.

Regards,
40 posted on 03/12/2004 6:15:39 AM PST by Triple (All forms of socialism deny individuals the right to the fruits of their labor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
bump for later
41 posted on 03/12/2004 6:17:50 AM PST by not_apathetic_anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
You did seem to espouse the NIMBY (or in your case NIMLF - Lake Front) attitude so prevelant among the World-Firster groups. Was the developer reimbursed for his loss of that part of his holding? If the local boards or whoever simply passed a 'rule' saying he could not 'use' a section, then either it should have been purchased from him, or some other valuable consideration made.

Check out Agenda21 and the UN. They are after your land too.
42 posted on 03/12/2004 6:20:38 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gdc61
"...you purposely ignored this part..."
- - -
No, you are wrong, I did not ignore that part.
I specifically said that I don't want Boortz to make my moral (censorship) decisions for me, nor the FCC, nor you.
As a matter of fact you even quote me on that.
I don't think it is Boortz' responsibility to 'police' Stern.
That task can be done by the listeners and the sponsers.
43 posted on 03/12/2004 6:21:53 AM PST by Hanging Chad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
consider home owners associations. Developers are not building individual homes in urban areas. Developers view the associations as another revenue stream.


I don't know how developers get revenues from associations, but the important point is that a buyer in any area has hundreds of options if they don't like associations.

Homeowners associations are like churches. You can pick the type you want, pick none at all, or start your own if you can persuade others that your preferences have merit.
44 posted on 03/12/2004 6:22:02 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Triple
I agree. The red areas will stand up and fight for their rights. The blue will roll-over and want their bellies rubbed.
45 posted on 03/12/2004 6:25:10 AM PST by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
There is no private property now. What you are describing is already happening. We are renting everything we 'own' including cars. Just try not paying 'rent' on anything you own even if it is completely paid off free and clear...it will be legally taken for nonpayment of taxes 'rent'.
46 posted on 03/12/2004 6:25:16 AM PST by doubtfullyhopefull (Muslim terror coming to a town near you, have a nice day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
Are you a speedboataphobe?
47 posted on 03/12/2004 6:27:07 AM PST by ampat (to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
bump .... they better pack a lunch ... and have REALLY good security if they steal my house.
48 posted on 03/12/2004 6:27:48 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you must; perform without fail that what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy
They may not have your guns yet, but they're sure as heck tryin' to get 'em.
49 posted on 03/12/2004 6:28:06 AM PST by ampat (to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
I think the precedent for this piece was that in one community a church wanted to buy a relatively large industrial building and land for a place of worship and school. The idea was to be able to place it near where people work to encourage working parents to place their children for day care and education. The city nefariously denied the change of use permit. The city then allowed a retail company to buy what once was a place of manufacture, thereby changing it's use. The reason of course is to keep the property on the tax rolls. I believe other cities have zoned areas where churches can or can't be located.
50 posted on 03/12/2004 6:28:48 AM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson