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

That didn't take long.
1 posted on 06/25/2005 8:17:23 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
To: snowsislander

They used to call that communism.


2 posted on 06/25/2005 8:20:19 AM PDT by OK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander
"Statement of the U.S. Conference of Mayors on Supreme Court in New London v Kelo Case"

YEAAAAAAAAAAGH ! !

3 posted on 06/25/2005 8:20:29 AM PDT by Enterprise (Thus sayeth our rulers - "All your property is mine." - - - Kelo vs New London)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

I thought they would show a sense of reason. I was obviously VERY wrong. D*MN.


4 posted on 06/25/2005 8:22:25 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander
fair and balanced judgment in protecting the rights of property owners while planning for the city's overall economic viability. (unless our political cronnies make a big enough bribe)

I can just see the stories about how poor Blacks and Hispanics are being driven from their homes (shacks by the Cities standards) to provide the Koffi Annan's of your local Cit/county Goves to buy a new Jaguar.

5 posted on 06/25/2005 8:22:42 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

Yeeks!!!!!


6 posted on 06/25/2005 8:23:58 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander
"City officials continue to act in a most judicious manner...

"... and will do so until they discover that they have virtually unlimited power, at which time they will begin to abuse that power, as all men in history have."

"The power of eminent domain provides elected officials at all levels of governments one of the basic tools they need to ensure the growth and well-being of their communities."

"It also accords unto mediocre, corruptible public parasites the right to confer and sustain private ownership of property. In other words, one of the most sacred of western legal canons is now secured against the most paltry of human edifices: trust."

7 posted on 06/25/2005 8:25:08 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander
the International City/County Management Association

Oh ain't that a beaut.

8 posted on 06/25/2005 8:25:17 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ken21

I realize it's one man voicing an opinion here, (not sure how many members of this org. support Mr. Cochran), yet that opinion is an ominous one.


9 posted on 06/25/2005 8:25:34 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

Robbing from the poor (typically affected by this ruling) to benefit the wealthy.

Isn't that a reverse Robin Hood and something the liberals have accused conservatives of doing?


10 posted on 06/25/2005 8:26:01 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

I definitely wanted a different outcome...but I'm still a bit torn on whether the federal government has the right to prevent localities from doing that.


11 posted on 06/25/2005 8:26:37 AM PDT by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

I don't know folks. This is really serious. How far are people willing to protect their property from government theft?


12 posted on 06/25/2005 8:29:20 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

Very good news for developers and their investors.


13 posted on 06/25/2005 8:29:31 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

They don't get it.

My property is not there for your "economic" development unless I want to sell it to you. If the "public" needs a bridge, or a dam, or a highway that provides a "public use", as the constitution says, then give me the market price and I'll go, otherwise, get off my property.

They don't get it.

The possible, "possible", "benevolence" of some government activity does not trump the basic rights guaranteed to individuals under the constitution.

Impeach 'em.


14 posted on 06/25/2005 8:29:35 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander
"Personally, I don't like using eminent domain, because it pits the government against the little guy and it can be abused," she said.

"For me as mayor, I would ask council to be very, very careful and very responsible if and when we are to consider an eminent domain project here." --- Galveston, Texas Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas

Galveston: No plans to seize property Mayor says city isn't likely to use eminent domain to get private land, despite new ruling

15 posted on 06/25/2005 8:29:50 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander; brityank; Issaquahking; Carry_Okie; backhoe; GrandmaC; AuntB; tgslTakoma; ...

Nope. Sure didn't.


23 posted on 06/25/2005 8:39:17 AM PDT by sauropod (Polite political action is about as useful as a miniskirt in a convent -- Brityank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

This is only my personal opinion, but I believe this statement is in fact an operational fallacy- the primary result of this will be economic insecurity; when the risk of owning a home or a business has been increased by the implicit threat of eminent domain, fewer individuals are likely to dedicate their time toward creating a business or saving to own a home, and this will result in a downward spiral in economic development.

The attack on families, the increase in welfare dependents, the increase in apartment and home renting as opposed to ownership, the many burdens and costs imposed on businesses- this appears to be just another step on the way to institutionalized socialism.

"The Socialist Activist Network: Working to Improve the Ultimate Police State" (in partnership with F.A.G.)

31 posted on 06/25/2005 8:53:47 AM PDT by the anti-liberal (Crap impersonating intellectual discourse is the final fruit of decadence (It's time the Left left!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander
So let's see...here's who "Joe Average" has to line up against when it comes to matters of private property: Hate to be pessimistic, but the deck seems just a little bit more than stacked.

Looks like we have our work cut out.

GOP Official Response: [insert cricket sound].

Latest GOP Headlines and Important issues (from GOP.com on June 25 at 11:56 AM EST)...

June 24, 2005 : Dems Vs. Dems: House Leader Nancy Pelosi Vs. House Leader Nancy Pelosi
June 24, 2005 : Meet MoveOn.org
June 24, 2005 : In Case You Missed It: A Party Without Ideas
I'm not sure what I'm more disappointed in: the SCOTUS decision to strip the last vestiges of personal property rights that we had or the GOP's non-existent reaction to it. Maybe the last headline ("A Party Without Ideas") was about the GOP itself? Maybe it should have been titled "A Party without a Clue" or "A Party without Gonads" or "A Party without concern for individual rights".

I'm very depressed about this.

And, just yesterday in my hometown, the City Council voted on an eminent domain issue where the city will take over about 40 acres right near downtown, which is currently occupied by working class people. Eminent domained them right out of there.

Only 1 vote against it. Coincidentally, the guy who voted against it is about the only person on the entire council that's worth anything.

I would like to pretend that city governments aren't frothing at the mouth over this decision, but apparently it took less than 24 hours in my hometown for them to starting using their new-found powers.

So much for "judicious use" and other rhetorical allusions to being fair with this new power.

[mattdono shakes head] I just never thought that our country would come to this. If a man's own home isn't sacred, then what is?

If I don't have purview of my own home, then by their logic, neither do I have purview over the things in it. And, next, they will use (twist) this power into telling us that we can't own guns. Then, the local sherriff is at your door telling you to get out or they will have to use force.

Then what will happen?

It has always been apocolyptic to consider our own military turning on it's own citizens. And, it probably wasn't fathomable because of the honor of the American solider. And, I mean no disrespect to law enforcement, but it certainly a lot easier to see a local sherrif and SWAT team have a showdown with a homeowner that ends in armed conflict, then it would be to have F-16 fire on a homeowner. All citizens in the country would massively revolt if the military power were turned on its own citizens. Most citizens wouldn't even notice if a local sherrif "took out" a homeowner, his family, whatever. And, no doubt, the local sherrif, local government, local and national media would paint the homeowners as...you ready?... a whacko gun nut. (Sound familiar? Call it a watered down Ruby Ridge or whatever, but that's where we will are headed.

If someone in the federal government is going to say that cities can do this (SCOTUS), then someone in the federal government needs to say that they can't (President? Congress?). Because it seems like all of the other local and state levels have already taken side (see the list above).

Needless to say, my "collection" is getting a very through cleaning this weekend. And, yes, I will be adding to the collection soon.

I guess this is where we are in this country. I'm not in Boston and I'm not pissed off about tea tax. I'm just a regular guy who wants liberty and freedom. What's so hard to understand about that?

34 posted on 06/25/2005 9:14:23 AM PDT by mattdono ("Crush the democrats, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of the scumbags" -Big Arnie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nutmeg

ping


44 posted on 06/25/2005 9:51:51 AM PDT by solitas (So what if I support an OS that has fewer flaws than yours? 'Mystic' dual 500 G4's, OSX.4.1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to the Conference of Mayors:

RE: New London v Kelo

To paraphrase the immortal words of John Paul Jones, "We have not yet begun to fight!"

While the concept of eminent domain powers for public use is well established in our country, the use of eminent domain powers to transfer land from one private citizen to another while the city, county or redevelopment agency collects a commission for the transaction in the form of increased tax revenues is an outrageous twisting of the Founders' original intent.

The American citizens of this Nation will not sit still for this egregious usurpation of power. You are on public notice that we will litigate your collectivist entities into the ground, and vote elected officials out of office until this right is wronged.

Contemptuously yours,
K.W. Myers
Sparks, Nevada


48 posted on 06/25/2005 9:55:14 AM PDT by kilowhskey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: snowsislander

What this means is that the citizens have to take an interest in what their elected officials and their staff are doing. The Mayors and City Managers like this. The Citizens elect the Mayors and elect those who appoint City Managers. Ultimate power resides in the People. But, the People need to get off their country estates and come to town for City Council meetings now and then.


49 posted on 06/25/2005 9:57:41 AM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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