THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

Nealz Nuze ^ | Friday, March 12, 2004 | Neal Boortz

[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.

[not_apathetic_anymore]

bump for later

[brityank]

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.

[Hanging Chad]

"...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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

[CSM]

I agree. The red areas will stand up and fight for their rights. The blue will roll-over and want their bellies rubbed.

[doubtfullyhopefull]

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'.

[ampat]

Are you a speedboataphobe?

[Centurion2000]

bump .... they better pack a lunch ... and have REALLY good security if they steal my house.

[ampat]

They may not have your guns yet, but they're sure as heck tryin' to get 'em.

[Final Authority]

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.

[wizr]

Have you heard of the new "reverse mortgage"?

If you are over 62, you can receive funding determined by the value of your home. You make no payments. When you and your spouse are deceased, the property belongs to the mortgage company.

These loans are backed by the federal government, as noted in the commercials I've heard lately.

Make life more expensive to live, have to "borrow" on the house to keep up, the property goes back to the lender.

What a concept.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Of that I am aware and I have taken steps where ever possible to prevent it.

CG

[Centurion2000]

=Think about it. jetskis, skiboats, endless traffic. No thanks i prefer the wildlife.

Then BUY the land .... sounds like your lakeside council is a bunch of fascists.

[Porterville]

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.

Um, that has always been the case, but, the government will either give back or fall completely a part... so in the end it doesn't matter- especially in the North Eastern communist block of the nation

[NYC Republican]

bump

[sergeantdave]

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

---

Politicians are already saying this via the laws they support. Their mouthpeices in the so-called environmental movement clearly state that government should control private property. The correct word for this is "fascism."

All your rights to private property are stripped away thru the Endangered Species act, smart growth, biodiversity and other Marxist phrases. Your right to develop your property, sub-divide, log, farm, use your water are controlled to the point where the only "rights" remaining are the "right" to pay taxes and the "right" to manage your property as some unelected Marxist bureaucrat tells you to develop it.

This seizure of private property for de-facto government nature preserves - without compensation - has been allowed by corrupt courts and politicians.

Here in Michigan our Marxist governor wants a state-wide land use plan that would affect every blade of grass in the state.

This land use plan:

1) Calls for the seizure of private property - without compensation - to create de-facto state nature preserves for “viewsheds, swamps, wildlife habitat” and other arbitrary and questionable state mandates.

2) Recommends that voters be stripped of the power of the recall vote and the referendum initiative.

3) Dictates how many homes and the type of home that may be built on private property.

4) Demands the establishment of unelected soviet-style regional planning commissions to rule over county and local governments.

5) Elevates the welfare of bugs, trees, animals and swamps above the needs, interests and liberties of Michigan’s citizens.

6) Allows the seizure of people’s homes and businesses through “administrative warrants” - without compensation - if homes don’t meet state-mandated aesthetic codes.

7) Establishes “no growth” zones to destroy owners of farms, woodlands, streams and shorelines, to discriminate against low income families and to devastate the rural and suburban tax base.

8) Engages in social engineering by attempting to move people off or bar people from rural and suburban property through harassing regulations and forcing them into cities.

9) Tries to slam shut the courtroom doors to citizens who wish to file suits and seek legal remedies against arbitrary or illegal state mandates.

10) Allows land use policy to be written or influenced by unelected, politically motivated environmentalists, foundations and university researchers who are hostile to private property.

Politicians are playing with fire and will get their hands burned.

[DManA]

Boorz has come unhindged on this one. In the era of infinate bandwidth, ownership of a piece of it is moot. Don't worry Neil, keep your ratings up and your job is safe.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Your comment reminds me of the blurb; A developer wants to build a house in the forest, a conservationist already has his house in the forest. I hope I misunderstand you, because your comment rings of elitism.

[ccmay]

they can get theirs but they cant screw up my good thing in the process.

I'm on the side of the developer. I hope he takes you and your precious "lakefront owner's" association to the cleaners. You are selfishly stealing his private property.

If you don't want the land developed, JUST LIKE YOUR OWN DAMN HOUSE WAS, then get together with your neighbors and buy it.

-ccm

[SheLion]

The sad thing is that we have a contingent of freepers that support this loss of freedom.

They support this with a very narrow vision.

Just because their hatred of people who smoke and of the act of smoking, they support this 110% .  Without realizing the implications of what one act of banning smoking will do between the private business owner and the government.  By banning the business owner from allowing one act, this allows the government to get their foot in the door and more banning "acts" can follow.

How many would support state run restaurants and bars/taverns?  I don't think I would!

Also, by allowing the government to "run" a private business owners business, this will open the door to the government coming into our "private" property...........to which they all ready are.........homes and cars.