Connecticut City Votes to Evict Homeowners-Eminent Domain

[Audrey2Katrina]

Most states have enacted protections against eminent domain in these cases.

Actually most (27) are "moving" to enact this protection... meanwhile the Homeland Stupidity Departments are doing precious little to stop the rampant abuses going on every day.

A2K

[artist]

gtalum - you might want to check out this link-

http://www.eminentdomainabuse.com/curre ... index.html
as well as this one-

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=874865

and for those interested in what and where this is currently taking place check out this link -

http://www.eminentdomainabuse.com/curre ... index.html

[Janice]

Well, they just built the New Dorado Court House directly across the street from our house and next door they are building a two story office building, long. I would love for them to come over here and offer us something. They really need a parking lot. As time goes by, our lots are worth more than the house.

Please Domain Me.....

[Aslkahuna]

In the case of Seattle though, that was a case of Public Good (a mass transit system) so the current ruling had no effect. That said, it looks like SEAjumped the gun by getting the property before getting approval for the project. As has been said, the ruling did leave room for the States to change their laws of eminent domain to better define public good.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

In the case of Seattle though, that was a case of Public Good (a mass transit system) so the current ruling had no effect. That said, it looks like SEAjumped the gun by getting the property before getting approval for the project. As has been said, the ruling did leave room for the States to change their laws of eminent domain to better define public good.

Steve

All due respect, Steve; but that's irrelevant. First, they should have gotten the approval BEFORE trying to confiscate the man's land; Secondly, once they didn't receive it... they should have simply given it back to him at the price these rip-off artists paid, instead of now demanding he pay several hundred thousand more just to get what was TAKEN from him, and then make a profit off of it--that's just disgustng.

As far as the ruling leaving room to the states... for years they left slavery "up to the states" as well...The ruling was an attrocity against our democracy and they should have stricken it down immediately, and defined "public good" the way that the Founding Fathers clearly intended; which was decidedly NOT for personal/private enterprise/gain.

A2K

[Regit]

Well the Seattle story must come with the caveat that it was presented in a one-sided manner and on a program that is primarily for entertainment rather than information.

I'd like to know the negotiation process that went on during the original purchase. Also, I'd like to know what has happened to market values in that area over the period the property was held. If the contract stated that it would resell at fair market value, then so be it. Considering that neighboring properties likely sold privately with the effect of the monorail project factored in, a $350,000 increase in one year might not be far fetched.

And I would point out that it is silly to compare this with Slavery. Yes, both were/are left to states, but that is where similarity ends. Slavery was an evil, systematic deracination of entire nations that ended with denigration and murder.

I should also mention that calling the council members "rip-off artists" is libel.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well the Seattle story must come with the caveat that it was presented in a one-sided manner and on a program that is primarily for entertainment rather than information

The news story is readily available, and the caveat changes nothing. If you really want to know the negotiation et. al details, I'm sure a cursory check would give you plenty to feed on... 34 others face the same fate... and it is odd that given the opportunity to "respond" the city officials (more like the aforementioned "rip-off artists"--okay that's a rhetorical metaphor for those incapable of discerning it) refused to comment.

Considering that neighboring properties likely sold privately with the effect of the monorail project factored in, a $350,000 increase in one year might not be far fetched.

So this justifies them demanding this much more money from the man they took the land from when, had they waited for approval first, it would have been his property to begin with? I think not.

And I would point out that it is silly to compare this with Slavery. Yes, both were/are left to states, but that is where similarity ends. Slavery was an evil, systematic deracination of entire nations that ended with denigration and murder.

And I would point out that this "silly" retort is a gross mischaracterization (which doesn't surprise me) as I wasn't comparing this injustice to slavery in and of itself, (see my first posts on this issue) and anyone not gullible enough to buy into this kind of propaganda could see right through it. I simply stated that in the ISSUE of slavery, LIKE this DECISION, was left up to the states...in an attempt (albeit unsuccessful unless one is trying to pervert that which was clearly stated/implied) to show that simply leaving it up to the states does little to rectify a gross injustice. I would never argue the evils of slavery... and in an earlier post on this very thread SAID as much... but selective citing does work nicely when looking to attack a straw man.

I should also mention that calling the council members "rip-off artists" is libel.

I should also mention you need to bone up on your legal acumen. If everyone who made a statement about a politician calling them rhetorical names, the libel court cases would outnumber all other torts combined. First, libel is more often than not a published slander, and most certainly is with malice aforethought. Anyone NOT trying to read between the lines could tell this is an opinion forum and the statement rhetorical in nature and the term a metaphorical opinion--to which I am entitled... and to which I firmly hold. Taking someone's property from them, under the ruse of Eminent Domain, and then putting it up for sale at a $350,000 dollar profit is obscene and unjust.

All these tangential non-sequiturs aside, this misuse of Eminent Domain is "evil" as well, and in MY opinion, so are those who feel this kind of abuse is justifiable.

A2K

[Regit]

Well the Seattle story must come with the caveat that it was presented in a one-sided manner and on a program that is primarily for entertainment rather than information

The news story is readily available, and the caveat changes nothing. If you really want to know the negotiation et. al details, I'm sure a cursory check would give you plenty to feed on... 34 others face the same fate... and it is odd that given the opportunity to "respond" the city officials (more like the aforementioned "rip-off artists"--okay that's a rhetorical metaphor for those incapable of discerning it) refused to comment.

Considering that neighboring properties likely sold privately with the effect of the monorail project factored in, a $350,000 increase in one year might not be far fetched.

So this justifies them demanding this much more money from the man they took the land from when, had they waited for approval first, it would have been his property to begin with? I think not.

And I would point out that it is silly to compare this with Slavery. Yes, both were/are left to states, but that is where similarity ends. Slavery was an evil, systematic deracination of entire nations that ended with denigration and murder.

And I would point out that this "silly" retort is a gross mischaracterization (which doesn't surprise me) as I wasn't comparing this injustice to slavery in and of itself, (see my first posts on this issue) and anyone not gullible enough to buy into this kind of propaganda could see right through it. I simply stated that in the ISSUE of slavery, LIKE this DECISION, was left up to the states...in an attempt (albeit unsuccessful unless one is trying to pervert that which was clearly stated/implied) to show that simply leaving it up to the states does little to rectify a gross injustice. I would never argue the evils of slavery... and in an earlier post on this very thread SAID as much... but selective citing does work nicely when looking to attack a straw man.

I should also mention that calling the council members "rip-off artists" is libel.

I should also mention you need to bone up on your legal acumen. If everyone who made a statement about a politician calling them rhetorical names, the libel court cases would outnumber all other torts combined. First, libel is more often than not a published slander, and most certainly is with malice aforethought. Anyone NOT trying to read between the lines could tell this is an opinion forum and the statement rhetorical in nature and the term a metaphorical opinion--to which I am entitled... and to which I firmly hold. Taking someone's property from them, under the ruse of Eminent Domain, and then putting it up for sale at a $350,000 dollar profit is obscene and unjust.

All these tangential non-sequiturs aside, this misuse of Eminent Domain is "evil" as well, and in MY opinion, so are those who feel this kind of abuse is justifiable.

A2K

I was trying to have a genuine debate of the issues here. You have a presupposition about this whole issue, and are not interested in a debate. Instead, you have declined into the most dreadful kind of name calling. Everything you've said is of no concern to me from now on. If you're not held accountable by the mods, I'll be absolutely floored and disgusted.

[Stephanie]

What is happening here is what caused the Supreme Court to make the ruling they did. Personally, it was one of the worse rulings that could of came out of the Supreme Court. With this ruling, you can loose what you have saved up for, for your entire life.

While I do disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, the homeowners won't exactly lose their savings on the deal. People get far more for their property when it's taken by eminent domain than they would selling it on the open market.

Regardless, it shouldn't be ultimately up to the government to be able to come in and say "sorry, you gotta move, but we'll pay you for it". Where's the citizen's rights?

[Audrey2Katrina]

I was trying to have a genuine debate of the issues here. You have a presupposition about this whole issue, and are not interested in a debate. Instead, you have declined into the most dreadful kind of name calling.

You remind me a lot of someone else who seemed to like debating issues, but I guess that's irrelevant. I have no presuppositions whatsoever. What I have are my own opinions to which I am entitled, as are you. The only thing I'm guilty of in the above cited post is responding to what were, in my honest opinion, patently mischaracterizations of what I was trying to say--as is my right. I don't see any "dreadful name-calling"; unless you took the "evil" to represent anyone in particular when I clearly stated that I felt it applied to those who could justify taking someone's property away, without his consent, and then reselling it for an obscene profit. If anything it was you who mischaraterized my statements into a comparison of this issue and that of slavery which any review of my posts clearly shows it was not.

Everything you've said is of no concern to me from now on.

Mutuality is assured... PAX!

If you're not held accountable by the mods, I'll be absolutely floored and disgusted.

I'm very confident that any review by the mods will hold that all I did was defend my position when it was being mischaracterized. Trusting this will end our little dialogue, have a good summer!

A2K

[Aslkahuna]

Well, my critique of the SEA City Government was contained in my That said phrase. Since Political discussion is verböten on this site I wanted to refrain from expressing my opinion of the SEA City Council. However, I would certainly hope that the State Attorney General's Fraud Division would conduct an investigation and certainly other aspects should be investigated since I'm not aware of any other place where eminent domain can be invoked for a Project that does not exist which this one certainly did not since the voters had not approved it.

Steve

[gtalum]

Regardless, it shouldn't be ultimately up to the government to be able to come in and say "sorry, you gotta move, but we'll pay you for it". Where's the citizen's rights?

As I noted, the US COnstitution specifically empowers the government to do exactly that, for cases of "public use". The problem, as noted, is defining "public use". I do think it's been too generally defined.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Regardless, it shouldn't be ultimately up to the government to be able to come in and say "sorry, you gotta move, but we'll pay you for it". Where's the citizen's rights?

As I noted, the US COnstitution specifically empowers the government to do exactly that, for cases of "public use". The problem, as noted, is defining "public use". I do think it's been too generally defined.

Yes, it has been too generally defined. Personally I feel this is just another case of where what I consider a fairly spineless decision balking when they might well have clarified the issue themselves. It is a civil rights issue, and since they have so frequently crawled into the minds of the Founding Fathers in "interpreting" the constitution before; they might have taken the bull by the horns here and simply called this for what it is... patent abuse of the Eminent Domain clause... just as SC decisions in the past have used clauses, such as the elastic clause, and that in the first amendment over "establishment" as opposed to "separation of church and state." they might well have done as much here--but in my opinion they woosed out in handing it back to those who frequently might not have the actual best interests of the civil rights of these people at heart.

I simply feel the SC dropped the ball on this one--badly. But this discussion is definitely taking on too political a nature, and Steve is right, politics is verbotten...so on that note I will reiterate that personal offense and/or animus is/was not aimed at anyone at all, but I do feel rather passionately on this issue. That said, I too, will let this one go, I feel I've articulated my sentiments.

A2K

[Cookiely]

:grr: It's way more than a matter of just money!!! I don't believe in emminent domain at all. If someone tries to take my property, they'd better have better fire power than I have... 'cause they are gonna have to pry my property deed from my cold dead hands!!!

Can you imagine someone in Colonial times who had staked and worked a homestead for twenty years being told he had to sell and get out. Yeah right! Like you said, over his dead body. This law makes me sick. Nothing is more sacred than our homes. What happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[Janice]

Big Money.....

[Stephanie]

Regardless, it shouldn't be ultimately up to the government to be able to come in and say "sorry, you gotta move, but we'll pay you for it". Where's the citizen's rights?

As I noted, the US COnstitution specifically empowers the government to do exactly that, for cases of "public use". The problem, as noted, is defining "public use". I do think it's been too generally defined.

I agree 100%.

[Stephanie]

Well the Seattle story must come with the caveat that it was presented in a one-sided manner and on a program that is primarily for entertainment rather than information.

I'd like to know the negotiation process that went on during the original purchase. Also, I'd like to know what has happened to market values in that area over the period the property was held. If the contract stated that it would resell at fair market value, then so be it. Considering that neighboring properties likely sold privately with the effect of the monorail project factored in, a $350,000 increase in one year might not be far fetched.

And I would point out that it is silly to compare this with Slavery. Yes, both were/are left to states, but that is where similarity ends. Slavery was an evil, systematic deracination of entire nations that ended with denigration and murder.

I should also mention that calling the council members "rip-off artists" is libel.

I never thought that her comments about slavery went any further than being left to the states. It was being used as an example of the US Constitution regulations during that time period.

As far as libel - I think you should refer back to your post in the "Cigarette" thread. It's the same thing.

[Regit]

Well the Seattle story must come with the caveat that it was presented in a one-sided manner and on a program that is primarily for entertainment rather than information.

I'd like to know the negotiation process that went on during the original purchase. Also, I'd like to know what has happened to market values in that area over the period the property was held. If the contract stated that it would resell at fair market value, then so be it. Considering that neighboring properties likely sold privately with the effect of the monorail project factored in, a $350,000 increase in one year might not be far fetched.

And I would point out that it is silly to compare this with Slavery. Yes, both were/are left to states, but that is where similarity ends. Slavery was an evil, systematic deracination of entire nations that ended with denigration and murder.

I should also mention that calling the council members "rip-off artists" is libel.

I never thought that her comments about slavery went any further than being left to the states. It was being used as an example of the US Constitution regulations during that time period.

As far as libel - I think you should refer back to your post in the "Cigarette" thread. It's the same thing.

Saying that someone who is in dire straits for money should stop smoking is not libel. It's not even slightly rude as you took it, it's an obvious truth. Meanwhile, your response was indeed rude simply because you took it the wrong way. Calling someone a rip-off artist is indeed libel.

LIBEL
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.

Now are you telling me that S2K supports libel?

[TexasStooge]

Absolutely stupid to evict homeowners and bulldozed the existing properties IMO.

[Janice]

Please don't lock my post..... this is interesting... I actually think some people are concerned especially living on the beaches, etc.