Posted on 06/23/2005 8:07:27 AM PDT by Stew Padasso
MY COUNTRY!!!!!!!
Once the pristine land of freedom and opportunity-- now, you are a tired, old whore.
I can't bear this anymore...
Huh? I thought Bush 41 appointed Souter.
Geffen's property wasn't taken under eminent domain, it was a public easement. When he bought two lots to build a mega mansion, he agreed to allow public access to the beach. The path had always been public access, and the only way he got a building permit was to agree to the access.
Ouch! Loss for property owners.
Living next to a strip mall under this decision
This ABSOLUTELY APPALLING.
I read this about a half hour ago and just sat in silence at my computer, totally steamed. They are going to go hog wild in my city. Anywhere they want to shore up that tax base, they might just raze your house and bring in retailer.
Sickening.
Nice reference/allusion.
Go back to DU, Troll. We don't need your brain-dead thinking here.
Roger Hedgecock said on Rush's show that the property owners in CA better get ready to move. Their taxes were frozen by Prop 13, so any excuse to take the property and give it to some other entity that will pay more taxes is now "the common good." The same holds true for church property everywhere that currently is not taxed at all. The time will come when churches will be bumped off their land if Pfizer, Walmart, or Bank of America want the location and will pay taxes on it.
We need conservative judges on the bench. Period.
"Ya'll know what this ruling reeally means. It means us landowners are only SERFS paying rent on property owned by the ruling classes and their government puppets. When they decide to kick us off our own land, they can legally do so."
You got that right. I've maintained for a while that our "land ownership here" is just a ruse. Try missing a few tax payments and you'll find out who really owns it.
Still, this takes it to a new level
You will make a very fine serf.
Nope, it's NOT consistent with "conservative values."
Or at least the Supremes are not--viz. last week's decision to overturn medical maryjane.
That's why you can diagnose this as Statism, rather than 'conservatism.'
Actually, it leaves me living in my apartment, because there is no way I am going to plunk down that kind of money to buy something that a handful of two-bit sleazy politicans can just take on a whim.
Great, now you only have to be a mayor to be a despot.
I am running for mayor now so that we can evict all the
millionaires from the beach front properties and make
them public beaches. What right do they have to own
that beach privately? My platform :
"REACH FOR A BEACH FOR EACH AND EVERYONE"
The Supremes simply re-wrote the definition of the term "public purpose."
Bashing the Statists is perfectly acceptable. They were WRONG. I don't care which scumsucker local lawyer wrote the local law--the Supremes are WRONG.
If you think this will be made to go away via the ballot box or the jury box, you are sadly mistaken. Thinking like that is how we got here in the FIRST place.
Good points. I was only listing the solutions given by others here so far, including amendments on both the federal and state levels.
I don't want to see new laws enacted either. But, the Fifth Amendment's "just compensation" leaves it wide open. The courts aren't limiting eminent domain. Not even the USSC is limiting it.
Ever read Unintended Consequences by John Ross? If not, do it.
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.