User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/8/2003 11:54:37 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Quoted: The government has taken property and paid people for it [red]The problem is when they dont want to pay for it, or want to pay less than market value.[/red] That 10-feet was the only thing stanfding in the way of a new Hwy, making it worth millions. The state was probably offering him $200.00 for it. Good point, AR15fan. Some people need to be educated on what "fair market value" really means in ED cases. Real estate is only "worth" what someone will pay for it. Period. If you have a $12 million dollar home (that you pay $12M worth of taxes on, for sure), and the gov't decides to take it through ED - how do you think they determine it's value? By what "someone" would be willing to pay for it. If people know that the gov't wants to doze your $12M home for a highway project, how much do you really think they'd be willing to pay for it? A few bucks. And that [b][i]becomes[/i][/b] your "fair market value". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:08:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is neither a fair nor a realistic way to determine fair market value for a piece of property. Sure it is. Say walmart wants to build a store on a plot that has 40 homes. The first home walmarts buys out isnt worth nearly as much as that last home standing where they want to build the store. [red]Your analogy doesn't hold water. If Wal-Mart bought up 39 out of 40 plots, but the owner of plot number 40 was holding out for millions, Wal-Mart would simply redesign their store to fit in the available land and see how much Owner #40 enjoys living next to a Wal-Mart.[/red] Besides, in the unlikely event that Wal-Mart would wish to go about acquiring land for a store in that fashion, they would place language in the purchase contracts for the other 39 properties making the sale contingent on acquiring all 40. If they get a holdout that makes the plan unfeasible, they pull out. Doens't hold water? Why not? That's exactly how this project ([url]http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/dcavazos/overton.htm[/url]) has gone about property acquisition. (As an aside, I've heard it referred to on the news as "The largest urban renewal project in the United States at this time"). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:18:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: IBLT! What? Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [red]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [/red] That's from a little document a lot of you like to talk about. Apparently it sets the whole idea of emminent domain. The Constitution is a large document, with a lot of articles, amendments, and theories. You just can't pick the ones you like. Sigh, OLY - pls see my post 2 above regarding "just" compensation. That's not what it was intended to mean. By going with that, they (knowingly) violate the intent/spirit of the (ED) law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:19:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Ok Mr_Fenster has gone away for a timeout; anyone else?
Guys there is a valuable discussion here lets keep it civil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:49:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Guys... It's not a wal mart It's not a mall It's a PUBLIC HIGHWAY.... You know, one of those things that benefits everyone - the textbook case for PROPER use of eminent domain! This sort of thing is WHY the govt has ED power in the first place, this kook just happened to take NIMBYisim to a whole new level... Where I live, we have a major city with only 2 freeways - 1 north-south, and one east-west. They're 3-lane roads, and they are ALLWAYS clogged for the aforementioned reasons. The state & surrounding community wants to widen the roads (the city doesn't, the mayor has allways had a 'thing' for his own life-sized train set), and there are about 300 homes/businesses that would have to go (a/o millions of people who need better roads)... When it goes through, there will be plenty of people who will just take the money and run, but you can count on a few kooks who either (a) hate cars, or (b) just don't want it built by THEM... Should they have the right to dig in with weapons and kill people, in an attempt to hold off a project that the whole south-east corner of the state desperately needs??? Dave there is no reason what so ever to widen any of I90 or I94 or anything on 894. Norquist is an asshole. maybe one strech of I can see needing another lane and that would be 43 just north of MU. Thats it. It doesn't matter if this is about a public road. There are/were otherways than to try to force this guy to give up or sell his private property. Tough shit if they have traffic problems, thats someone in the governments fault. Put in a new bigger happier road someplace else. Thats what they did with HWY31 when they wanted the road redone. It's not private property if the state can just take it from you. And theft is theft no matter who is doing it, the state or some POS dirtbag on the street. While I don't agree with killing an LEO over this I do think that the guy showed balls bigger than anyone of us for taking his stand against theft by the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 1:32:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Frome the article:
"He said [b]‘If anybody tries to take my property, they’ll have to take it out of my cold dead hands,’”[/b] said Trey Snipes, a neighbor of the suspect." 'Yeah, whatever' would have been my reply. Eric The(Sassy)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 3:27:18 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: This guy is an asswipe. The cops should have sent someone younger and more capable of gunning this jackass down instead of a 63 year old constable. i concur |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 3:34:19 AM EDT
[#8]
My house got bulldozed for "airport expansion".
Within a rather short time, a parking lot and factories were in place. No planes ever landed there, it was obviously about money. I miss living in a neighborhood where peoples "lost luggage" gets strewn. One other case, an ordinance was passed that there shall be no home improvements...a few years later, the house was condemned and simply taken. It's too bad LEOs have to do the dirty work for the ones in power. Risky business, messing with what is believed to be yours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 3:39:05 AM EDT
[#9]
[Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"]
Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 4:22:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:Its a risk He is getting his heavenly reward for a life of service. is that all it takes? a life of service? woo hoo sing me up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 4:23:43 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: [Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"] Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. What "social contract"? I don't remember signing one of those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 4:35:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: I respect anyone for making a stand and willing to pay the ultimate price. Including the cop. There it is. Two sides of the fence and all. No winner there, though. Agreed, very bad situation. I'm sure the cop was not happy about taking someones land. Even thru some people on here think that all cops are SS.[rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 4:36:31 AM EDT
[#13]
IIRC, one of Stephen King's earliest books is about an old man who has his home taken from him through ED, to expand a highway.
Only thing is, he is an explosives expert, and doesn't take the siezure lightly. I never read it, and I may have the details wrong, but I am going to look for it again now. [party][banana] WOOHOO!!!! FIVE HUNDRED POSTS!! FINALLY!![party][banana] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 4:44:15 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: [Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"] Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. What "social contract"? I don't remember signing one of those. Are you repudiating your obligations under the social contract? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 4:57:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"] Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. What "social contract"? I don't remember signing one of those. Are you repudiating your obligations under the social contract? Again I ask, what "social contract"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 5:26:53 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: IBLT! In Bacon, Lettuce, Tomato? Is that like "In God We Trust?" [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 5:34:33 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is neither a fair nor a realistic way to determine fair market value for a piece of property. Sure it is. Say walmart wants to build a store on a plot that has 40 homes. The first home walmarts buys out isnt worth nearly as much as that last home standing where they want to build the store. Your analogy doesn't hold water. If Wal-Mart bought up 39 out of 40 plots, but the owner of plot number 40 was holding out for millions, Wal-Mart would simply redesign their store to fit in the available land and see how much Owner #40 enjoys living next to a Wal-Mart. Besides, in the unlikely event that Wal-Mart would wish to go about acquiring land for a store in that fashion, they would place language in the purchase contracts for the other 39 properties making the sale contingent on acquiring all 40. If they get a holdout that makes the plan unfeasible, they pull out. Funny enough, they did just that at the local Wally World here in Northborough, MA. Some old geezer wouldn't sell out, so they just built the big box and parking lots in back of him. Ten years later, though, he's still there- but so is Wal-Mart... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 5:57:27 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: [Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"] Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. Well, would you be so kind as to share your views with us? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 7:25:10 AM EDT
[#19]
The city here took 10 feet of my front yard last year, as well as 10 ft from the neighbors on the other side of the road.
Didn't bother me in the slightest. They lowered the roadbed, buried the power lines, put in storm drainage, curbs, a bike lane, a bigger water main and fire hydrants, traffic humps, and everyone got a new concrete driveway entrance. They even replanted my mailbox and laid sod along the curbline. All it cost me was a little less lawn to mow. It also raised my home value by over a third, and gave me a lower insurance rate. (the fire hydrants and drainage) Certainly got the best of that deal. This guy is a murdering idiot that only succeeded in driving another nail into the coffin of our gun ownership. Unfortunately, it appears others defend him. We are certainly are our own worst enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 7:59:09 AM EDT
[#20]
I am appalled at the amount ignorance drafted in service to violence in this thread. OlyM4gery is correct. The power of involuntary taking through eminent domain is enshrined in the 5th Amendment, and is limited by the requirement of just compensation. The sovereign has had this power throughout Anglo-Saxon history. It is by no means new.
There [i]are[/i] two relatively new and abusive trends in this area of law, and neither is fully resolved. The first (as to which things seem to be going well for property owners) is the concept of "taking by regulation" or "nonivasive taking." This involves situations like these (from supreme court cases): A. Landowner is required to build a 10' bike path, open to the public, along his property as a condition of obtaining a permit to build on his property. B. Landowners were prohibited from building [i]anything[/i] on their land, due to environmental regulations enacted after they bought the property. I am pretty sure that the last one was found to be a taking requiring compensation, and I think the 1st was as well. The 2d new and immoral trend, which seems to be going rather more badly for the home team, is the idea that a government can exercise ED in order to convey the siezed property to a party who will put the property to "better use." This started with cases allowing ED to be used for slum clearance, but has degenerated to courts approving the poilitcal decision that a Wal-Mart would be a better use of the land than your house. While it seems to me self-evident that Wal-Mart, being a private company, cannot make "public use" of land, the courts have disagreed. The densest comments on this subject (apart from the denial that ED has previously allowed involuntary taking) are the ones containing rabid speculation about property valuation. "They" don't decide the fair of the land. "They" make an offer. If the property owner disagrees, in most states (maybe all) a [b]JURY[/b] decides the value, and the siezing entity has to pay the attorney fees. There's plenty not to like about ED without making crap up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 7:59:12 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: The city here took 10 feet of my front yard last year, as well as 10 ft from the neighbors on the other side of the road. Didn't bother me in the slightest. They lowered the roadbed, buried the power lines, put in storm drainage, curbs, a bike lane, a bigger water main and fire hydrants, traffic humps, and everyone got a new concrete driveway entrance. They even replanted my mailbox and laid sod along the curbline. All it cost me was a little less lawn to mow. It also raised my home value by over a third, and gave me a lower insurance rate. (the fire hydrants and drainage) Certainly got the best of that deal. This guy is a murdering idiot that only succeeded in driving another nail into the coffin of our gun ownership. Unfortunately, it appears others defend him. We are certainly are our own worst enemy. I think that building green belts that look beutiful and add property value, and expanding a highway to increase traffic in front of your home are two different things, wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 7:59:32 AM EDT
[#22]
No man will die at my hands for knocking on my door, and serving me with civil papers...
Never Happen!! [pissed] If he's there to violate my rights, (forcibly remove me from MY land), then he should be willing to die for what HE believes is right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 8:02:13 AM EDT
[#23]
Admittedly, this would be easier to justify if it were a more substantial land-grab and a more clear abuse (i.e. clearing space for a temple to the Almighty Sam Walton). However, there has been so much abuse of the ED system recently that I can’t help from sympathizing with this guy.
As for the cop(s), I hate seeing some old guy getting shot as much as anyone else, but (just like in war) someone can be a perfectly decent guy, but still be your enemy because they are fighting on the wrong side. This kind of reminds me of Carl Drega; anyone else read that one? Edited to add: OK, so all-in-all I don’t think that this particular incident was justified (especially as the old cop was not initiating force, but just serving some papers). Maybe a case of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 8:15:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Another article on it:
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105233,00.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 9:11:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Becuase I unlike many of the above posters don't know the whole story or the background of this case of ED I can't realy comment on it!!!
I will say that although I have a great deal of respect for soldiers firemen and police there are plenty of saffer jobs out there!!! Besides if you could get the stats I would not be suprised if you would find that more construction workers die on the job each year than cops!!! As I never want to be accused of being an arm chair QB one thing that would help cops is not trying to portay themselves as an alpa male (Its annoying for those of us that really are) when they are nailing someone trying to get to work for 5-10 MPH over the speed limit!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 9:22:00 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: I am appalled at the amount ignorance drafted in service to violence in this thread. [...] There's plenty not to like about ED without making crap up. FLAL1A, thanks for taking the time to type up this excellent, educational post. Messages like yours make it worthwhile to sift through all of the chaff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 9:36:36 AM EDT
[#27]
The [i]real[/i] travesty in this case (b/c I don't think [i]this case[/i] is necessarily the best example of rampant ED abuse) is this: Politicians "doing their thing" and sending LEOs (whose time would be better spent elsewhere) to do their dirty work for them. Who do you always hear/read about getting shot? Certainly not the people making the money off these deals.
I think it should be SOP for the financial holdings of players in ED proceedings to be examined. The same rules that apply to insider trading in the financial world should apply to the folks who try to invoke imminent domain. The mayor of Lubbock, TX is also the city's real estate mogul, Marc McDougal. If you want to tell me that you think he's doing all this stuff (again, this link: [url]webpages.acs.ttu.edu/dcavazos/overton.htm[/url]) for completely altruistic reasons, I think I'll want to tell you to take a short walk off a long pier.... Think McDougal Properties ain't making any scratch off of all the ED stuff (three separate projects in three different areas of the city that have invoked ED in the last three years) that's gone on in Lubbock lately? Think again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 9:52:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Another article on it: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105233,00.html[/url] Omg they had anti American literature! I suprised they didnt torch the place to make sure he didnt have any home made bombs and super weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 9:57:25 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The government has taken property and paid people for it |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 10:41:42 AM EDT
[#30]
I think the home owner has done the right thing,although he should have used a belt fed in his opening shots.Most people do not seem to understand what is happening here.It doesn't seem to bother them until it is happening to them.But i am pretty sure most of the Pro-ED people posting here do not own a piece of real property they have had to give their sweat and blood to purchase.And for those of you saying "don't argue,you knew the state or city had a 10' right of way when you bought the property", Wake up! When the Government powers move onto the previous right of way that was your property,their right of way automatically extends with the new move.So, if your dumb ass gave them ten feet and now the room you are typing in is only 5' from the newely established line,Guess what Genius,now your computer room is in the new right away.
Theft is Theft,No matter what.You try to steal my property,you will get the same thing,And i do not care what Uniform you may be wearing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 10:56:05 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Bull Shit. You have the most wacked idea of market value i have ever heard. Why don't i hold a molotoff cocktail in my hand and offer you $10,000 for your $200,000 house because you know i am going to burn your house down in the next minute? edited for spelling, grammar Actually, Dan-O, the behavior you describe above likely falls under the concept of [b]duress[/b], which is one of the forms of conduct invalidating agreements (contracts). And aren't [i]Molotov[/i] cocktails illegal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:16:55 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: [Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"] Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. What "social contract"? I don't remember signing one of those. Since no one else here is willing to help you out, let me lend a hand (or foot, which I will likely promptly place in mouth). I'm, however, also not completely sure [i]which[/i] social contract he's referring to: Rousseau's, or the Lockean SC. Though they don't have the market cornered in SC thoery/theories, when most people talk SC, they're talking Rousseau and/or Locke. Perhaps it's a mis-reading on my part, but I've always liked Locke's SC better. Rousseau's always seemed too "Japanese" (as in Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Wait a minute, Spock wasn't Japanese - he was Vulcan, so - uh, nevermind, I guess...) to me. Basically, it's a contract between the gov't and the governed. Gov't does 'x' for you (builds you roads, schools), you do 'y' for them (obey, pay taxes, etc.), although it does go "a bit" deeper than that. Found this for ya about Rousseau's: [url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Rousseau-soccon.html[/url]. It's decent. This one about Locke's is OK, too: [url]http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/118.html[/url]. Hobbes was just an ass. Locke provided for the ultimate "redress of grievances" to guarantee performance on the part of the sovereign. Perhaps ETH would like to weigh in on [i]any[/i] of this, and lay the smack down on all of us (myself included)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:22:58 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: I think the home owner has done the right thing,although he should have used a belt fed in his opening shots.Most people do not seem to understand what is happening here.It doesn't seem to bother them until it is happening to them.But i am pretty sure most of the Pro-ED people posting here do not own a piece of real property they have had to give their sweat and blood to purchase.And for those of you saying "don't argue,you knew the state or city had a 10' right of way when you bought the property", Wake up! When the Government powers move onto the previous right of way that was your property,their right of way automatically extends with the new move.So, if your dumb ass gave them ten feet and now the room you are typing in is only 5' from the newely established line,Guess what Genius,now your computer room is in the new right away. Theft is Theft,No matter what.You try to steal my property,you will get the same thing,And i do not care what Uniform you may be wearing. Another fucking genius who only reads or remembers the parts of the Constitution that fit his little world-view. Oh, sorry, you don't think you're a fucking idiot? Read what you just wrote - the homeowner who shot the 63 year-old constable, who showed up to hand him papers, [i]did the right thing[/i]? The constable didn't show up on a bulldozer, didn't show up with a shovel, or a drawn gun, or with a posse of JBT's. He showed up to serve paper. What the fuck happened to the rule of law? Why are so many hotheads here ready to blast the first "JBT" who THEY think is infringing on their rights? There's a way we handle things in this country, kids, and it's call the legal system. This guy was entitled to full and fair compensation for his land, there would have been appraisals, counter-appraisals, and even maybe lawsuits. Now he's a dead man walking, going to lose his all he's got in the world instead of 10 feet of grass, a cop is dead, and there are people here screaming "good for him"!. Unfuckingbelievable. And this bullshit about "today it's his land, tomorrow it's his guns" doesn't hold water. As has been noted (and ignored, time and again, above), the gov't was following the Constitution here. This is the way it works, this is how roads get built. The act of serving process on a landowner in a condemnation case is so far removed from confiscating guns that it's ridiculous to even compare them. The Constitution that protects this guy's gun is the same Constitution that allows the government to do exactly what it was doing. I swear, I love this place, but the level of ignorance around here is astounding. This idiot landowner throws away whatever he had in the world over 10 feet of land, without even going through the legal process that is set up to protect him and his rights, and all the tin-foil hatted cheerleaders here think he's some kind of hero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:28:50 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: [Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"] Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. What "social contract"? I don't remember signing one of those. Oh, BTW - you don't remember signing anything because you didn't have to. You were born into it. Which can be good (like being born into royalty) or bad (like being born into slavery). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:31:21 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: I swear, I love this place, but the level of ignorance around here is astounding. This idiot landowner throws away whatever he had in the world over 10 feet of land, without even going through the legal process that is set up to protect him and his rights... It's a safe bet the landowner believed the process was stacked against him. The full money and power of the state leveled against one homeowner. Bill Gates might win, but he wasnt going to. ED should be used rarely, if ever. When it is used the level of compensation should be so far above market value that the landowners will be happy to hand over the property. When you look at the cost of a state hwy project, it's silly for the state to try to lowball the landowners. My house is worth about $360,000.00 if I chose to sell it today. If someone were FORCING me to move. I wouldnt take less than $3,000,000.00. I figure that's the bare minimun of the value of the house and inconvienance to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:34:06 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bull Shit.
You have the most wacked idea of market value i have ever heard. Why don't i hold a molotoff cocktail in my hand and offer you $10,000 for your $200,000 house because you know i am going to burn your house down in the next minute?
edited for spelling, grammar Good point, AR15fan. Some people need to be educated on what "fair market value" really means in ED cases. Real estate is only "worth" what someone will pay for it. Period.
If you have a $12 million dollar home (that you pay $12M worth of taxes on, for sure), and the gov't decides to take it through ED - how do you think they determine it's value? By what "someone" would be willing to pay for it.
If people know that the gov't wants to doze your $12M home for a highway project, how much do you really think they'd be willing to pay for it? A few bucks. And that becomes your "fair market value". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:36:46 AM EDT
[#37]
I agree there are no winners in this case. Three lives are now lost (The homeowners life as he knew it is now over even [b]if[/b] he survives).
This idiot landowner throws away whatever he had in the world over 10 feet of land, without even going through the legal process that is set up to protect him and his rights, and all the tin-foil hatted cheerleaders here think he's some kind of hero. Sadly enough......they will be saying something [b]very[/b] similar about gun owners one day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:39:49 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: The city here took 10 feet of my front yard last year, as well as 10 ft from the neighbors on the other side of the road. Didn't bother me in the slightest. They lowered the roadbed, buried the power lines, put in storm drainage, curbs, a bike lane, a bigger water main and fire hydrants, traffic humps, and everyone got a new concrete driveway entrance. They even replanted my mailbox and laid sod along the curbline. All it cost me was a little less lawn to mow. It also raised my home value by over a third, and gave me a lower insurance rate. (the fire hydrants and drainage) Certainly got the best of that deal. This guy is a murdering idiot that only succeeded in driving another nail into the coffin of our gun ownership. Unfortunately, it appears others defend him. We are certainly are our own worst enemy. I think that building green belts that look beutiful and add property value, and expanding a highway to increase traffic in front of your home are two different things, wouldn't you agree? Greenbelt? What greenbelt? The city took property for road improvements. This, among other things, was to handle increased traffic. Just like the case some of these guys are applauding multiple murders for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:40:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: I agree there are no winners in this case. Three lives are now lost (The homeowners life as he knew it is now over even [b]if[/b] he survives). This idiot landowner throws away whatever he had in the world over 10 feet of land, [red]without even going through the legal process that is set up to protect him and his rights[/red], and all the tin-foil hatted cheerleaders here think he's some kind of hero. Sadly enough......they will be saying something [b]very[/b] similar about gun owners one day. Yep, and they'll be right, if that little step in red is skipped by those who would rather die in a blaze of glory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:40:57 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"] Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. What "social contract"? I don't remember signing one of those. Since no one else here is willing to help you out, let me lend a hand (or foot, which I will likely promptly place in mouth). I'm, however, also not completely sure [i]which[/i] social contract he's referring to: Rousseau's, or the Lockean SC. Though they don't have the market cornered in SC thoery/theories, when most people talk SC, they're talking Rousseau and/or Locke. Perhaps it's a mis-reading on my part, but I've always liked Locke's SC better. Rousseau's always seemed too "Japanese" (as in Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Wait a minute, Spock wasn't Japanese - he was Vulcan, so - uh, nevermind, I guess...) to me. Basically, it's a contract between the gov't and the governed. Gov't does 'x' for you (builds you roads, schools), you do 'y' for them (obey, pay taxes, etc.), although it does go "a bit" deeper than that. Found this for ya about Rousseau's: [url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Rousseau-soccon.html[/url]. It's decent. This one about Locke's is OK, too: [url]http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/118.html[/url]. Hobbes was just an ass. Locke provided for the ultimate "redress of grievances" to guarantee performance on the part of the sovereign. Perhaps ETH would like to weigh in on [i]any[/i] of this, and lay the smack down on all of us (myself included)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:42:08 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[Edited to delete my original response to paraphrase Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish . . . the fool or the fool who argues with him?"]
Some of the people here are severely misguided in their understand of the constitution and the social contract. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:47:27 AM EDT
[#42]
How about a simple question? If ED is the right way, then why can't the thieves pay the owner, the money that they are paying land taxes on? If you property taxes are on x amount, why can't the thieves pay that amount? Two big cases here, one for a racetrack and one for a mall...and the owners were raped....without lube.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:50:54 AM EDT
[#43]
Some of these guys make Storm88 look smart.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:51:58 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The city here took 10 feet of my front yard last year, as well as 10 ft from the neighbors on the other side of the road. Didn't bother me in the slightest. [red] They lowered the roadbed, buried the power lines, put in storm drainage, curbs, a bike lane, a bigger water main and fire hydrants, traffic humps, and everyone got a new concrete driveway entrance. They even replanted my mailbox and laid sod along the curbline. [/red] All it cost me was a little less lawn to mow. It also raised my home value by over a third, and gave me a lower insurance rate. (the fire hydrants and drainage) Certainly got the best of that deal. This guy is a murdering idiot that only succeeded in driving another nail into the coffin of our gun ownership. Unfortunately, it appears others defend him. We are certainly are our own worst enemy. I think that building green belts that look beutiful and add property value, and expanding a highway to increase traffic in front of your home are two different things, wouldn't you agree? Greenbelt? What greenbelt? The city took property for road improvements. This, among other things, was to handle increased traffic. Just like the case some of these guys are applauding multiple murders for. I don't know?? Maybe the green belt you described??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 11:53:59 AM EDT
[#45]
eswanson,
I agree w/ you wholeheartedly that numbnuts did the [b]wrong[/b] thing when he capped Barney Fife. You don't just cap Barney, you go and talk to Andy - and you don't cap him, either, if he doesn't see your point. If you can't work it out there, you go above him, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, unti something - hopefully - gets done. All (or at least most) of my posts on this subject have been in the furtherance of the point that, in order to restore/maintain (depending on one's POV about that) [b]the legitimacy of[/b] the federal gov't, certain things need to be changed/righted. Bearing arms against a tyrannical state (real, perceived, or otherwise) isn't the 1st or even 12th step - it is the absolute (and usually, for the person/s bearing them, dead) last. What [i]does[/i] need to be done? Legislators need to stop letting/making the judiciary do their jobs for them, for one. Of course, the other part of this contract is for us not to elect these cocksuckers in the first place. What the fuck happened to the rule of law? That's what I'd like to know. Of course, it has to apply to both the gov't AND the governed. While this case may not be a bald-faced misuse of ED, they do occur - all to often lately, it seems. And this bullshit about "today it's his land, tomorrow it's his guns" doesn't hold water. As has been noted (and ignored, time and again, above), the gov't was following the Constitution here. This is the way it works, this is how roads get built. The act of serving process on a landowner in a condemnation case is so far removed from confiscating guns that it's ridiculous to even compare them. Actually, when I used the analogy, I was using it in the strictest sense of the word ("Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar"). I actually think that ED and gun control are very different/dissimilar [i]issues[/i]. The reasoning/rationale ("for the common good"), however, was the aspect I was attempting to show similarity between. Another point of similarity, which I garnered from your post (when you said "the gov't was following the Constitution here"), is that: this is part of the problem as I stated above (regarding legitimacy). The judiciary has been (for years; not a new thing by any means) extracting "meaning" from the Constitution that was never there originally. Some "good" things have come out of this, but the real issue here is this: do the ends justify the means? This "living Constitution" crap is what's going to get guns confiscated/outlawed if it's anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:00:10 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The government has taken property and paid people for it |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:00:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: How about a simple question? If ED is the right way, then why can't the thieves pay the owner, the money that they are paying land taxes on? If you property taxes are on x amount, why can't the thieves pay that amount? Two big cases here, one for a racetrack and one for a mall...and the owners were raped....without lube. Well, that usually is what happens, if your tax amount is based on the fair market value of your property. That's one way to appraise the value of the home. My house just got re-valued for tax purposes, and if .gov decided to condemn it for something, that's probably what they'd offer me. BTW, did you get the package I sent you? If not, you'll get it today or tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:00:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Don't agree with Rousseau's contract, his idea of personal property is a little off. I don't think its what was in mind at the beginning of the country, either. I knew if we kept talking about stuff long enough, we'd find [i]something[/i] we agreed on. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:01:16 PM EDT
[#49]
IBTL (now, I'm gonna get some popcorn but I'll be right back!)[;D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:01:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: I don't know?? Maybe the green belt you described??? Apparently we have different definitions going here. You call it a greenbelt, I call it the street in front of my house. 30 ft wide, made of asphalt. Where is the "Green" part? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
