Houston Mayor siezes property (building) for "public necessity" - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Houston Mayor siezes property (building) for "public necessity" (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:14:57 PM EDT

[#1]

Want to take someone's house to build an office building? F*** you. Want to take someone's empty supermarket to house evacuees? Go for it.

Not a damn bit of diference.

At all.

You're missing the entire point my friend.

CMOS

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:20:15 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Nothing at all to do with eminent domain. Part of the "emergency powers" most states recently passed while everyone was yawning. No "just compensation" either. Oh, and more to come, much more.

Actually, this seems to be a textbook example of what emminent domain was meant to be for. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the decision, but as long as the owner is compensated for the use of the building, it seems to be legally sound.

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:20:56 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
If you lived in the city, wouldn't you rather have the "refugees" getting their $2000 dollar shopping sprees and wandering a nearby vacant building than coming to a bus parked in front of your house?

Mayor White might have an ulterior motive. The faster the refugees get processed, the faster Houston gets rid of them.

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:24:01 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Want to take someone's house to build an office building? F*** you. Want to take someone's empty supermarket to house evacuees? Go for it.

Not a damn bit of diference.

At all.

You're missing the entire point my friend.

CMOS

Me: No, you're missing the entire point.
You: No, you're missing the entire point.
Me: No you're missing the entire point.
You: No, you're missing the entire point.
Just trying to point out how silly it is to tell someone they're "missing the entire point", when they clearly just don't agree with your point. Every right has exceptions, personal property rights included. And those exceptions involve drawing lines somewhere, and that's where I think the line should be drawn.

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:24:23 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing at all to do with eminent domain. Part of the "emergency powers" most states recently passed while everyone was yawning. No "just compensation" either. Oh, and more to come, much more.

Actually, this seems to be a textbook example of what emminent domain was meant to be for. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the decision, but as long as the owner is compensated for the use of the building, it seems to be legally sound.

The recent SCOTUS Kelso decision held the act of taking property by eminent domain for 'economic development' was constitutional. In this case, the taking of the property was not for economic development but, presumably, for the good of the community because it has been invaded by a criminal horde. Not much difference here than if the building was taken to defend the city from attack.

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:27:50 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
... invaded by a criminal horde ...

WTF?
Looting in NO makes all evacuees a "criminal horde"?

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:29:18 PM EDT

[#7]

I wonder if they will suspend any taxes the former owner will have to pay on the money he receives for his building?

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:29:46 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eminent Domain.

exactly, plus it's a frigging national emergency! c'mon guys, think about it! these are exceptional situations requiring exceptional TEMPORARY measures!!!

Ever hear of tents?

Seizing property is wrong. Period. It's one of the reasons our country was founded. And now, our own government is doing it against us.

"Benjamin Martin...Why would I trade 1 tyrannt 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrannts 1 mile away?"

Interesting thought.

Guess this is coming true, huh?

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:30:26 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Want to take someone's house to build an office building? F*** you. Want to take someone's empty supermarket to house evacuees? Go for it.

Not a damn bit of diference.

At all.

You're missing the entire point my friend.

CMOS

Me: No, you're missing the entire point.
You: No, you're missing the entire point.
Me: No you're missing the entire point.
You: No, you're missing the entire point.

Just trying to point out how silly it is to tell someone they're "missing the entire point", when they clearly just don't agree with your point. Every right has exceptions, personal property rights included. And those exceptions involve drawing lines somewhere, and that's where I think the line should be drawn.

My point is when you scoot the line a little, you ALWAYS end up scooting it a lot. ALWAYS. That's why this political axiom is called "the slippery slope."

The Constitution is NOT a flexible document.

CMOS

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:35:06 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Eminent Domain.

exactly, plus it's a frigging national emergency! c'mon guys, think about it! these are exceptional situations requiring exceptional TEMPORARY measures!!!

Nice try, Brit, but we watched what happened to England...

Posted: 9/9/2005 12:55:51 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
+1 for the mayor of Houston.

With respect, it's not the specific case that pisses me off. It's the TREND that concerns me.

What's next? Confiscating your home because some tree-hugger politician likes the trees in your yard???

CMOS

I'm against nearly 99% of all ED type seizures but my guess is the owner of the vacant (non-revenue producing) property envisioned a huge federal payoff in the midst of the billions being tossed around under this relief umbrella. I'd put my bet on the notion of greed from the landlord - not governmental tyranny.

B.S. to that. Everyone is making money on this deal. Did you see the article about FEMA buying all the trailers they couold get their hands on in the entire southwest US ? The companies involved said they were asked not to divulge how much they paid for them. But in another thread, one of our own Arfcommers moved one for the company and they were bragging they made $50,000 on a $ 23,000 trailer. Not hard to figure the profit and why FEMA asked them to STFU about it.

2 problems I see
1. I can see the need SOMETIMES for eminent domain property seizures if it is for the greater good, If they really needed it. In this case they arn't even sure they need it ! How can they legally do it if Houston has not declared an emergency ? Is there a real emergency in Houston ?

2. If they bought all these travel trailers, why take a whole building when you can get a mobile home and move it around ? WTF ?

I agree with CMOS, it is the trend that is scary, not the action. It will become a slippery slope in time. IMHO.

Posted: 9/9/2005 1:59:47 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eminent Domain.

exactly, plus it's a frigging national emergency! c'mon guys, think about it! these are exceptional situations requiring exceptional TEMPORARY measures!!!

IIRC, some guy with a funny little mustache said something like that back in the 30's after a government building burned down...
The first one to mention Hitler or the Nazis in a debate loses.

I didn't. YOU did!

Actually, I was also thinking of the "temporary" income tax to offset WWI that I paid last April 15..

Once a government entity entitles itself to more power, they seem to be quite loathe to return it.

Posted: 9/9/2005 2:03:32 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
+1 for the mayor of Houston.

With respect, it's not the specific case that pisses me off. It's the TREND that concerns me.

What's next? Confiscating your home because some tree-hugger politician likes the trees in your yard???

CMOS

I'm against nearly 99% of all ED type seizures but my guess is the owner of the vacant (non-revenue producing) property envisioned a huge federal payoff in the midst of the billions being tossed around under this relief umbrella. I'd put my bet on the notion of greed from the landlord - not governmental tyranny.

You may be right, but it may also be true that he saw the footage of what the Superdome looked like after the refugees left and didn't want his property trashed.

Posted: 9/9/2005 2:16:15 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Eminent Domain.

exactly, plus it's a frigging national emergency! c'mon guys, think about it! these are exceptional situations requiring exceptional TEMPORARY measures!!!

Gotta go. I'm going home to straighten up that spare bedroom in case they want to quarter some FEMA dudes at my place. Or dude-ettes.

Posted: 9/9/2005 2:19:34 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
How many people did you guys inherit up there? I'd say the number Houston has taken in merits the term "emergency".

It's not a national emergency. At this point, as I said, it's a regional emergency at best.

BTW, the number the local news in St. Paul is reporting is 5,000 "displaced citizens" will be relocating here from the Gulf area. I can't see that number remaining through the two or three weeks of sub-zero cold we get in January or February.

Just make sure that if they hear about the ice fishing up there they know there are no CATFISH involved. Then you'll be cool.

Posted: 9/9/2005 2:25:33 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
This is a good idea, in fact, why not just put the people up in vacant houses, apartments, people's cabins and where ever else they want to take. How about empty rooms in people's houses? They should sieze those too.

AR, post this over in the Survival Forum and suggest they all volunteer their BO cabins "for the duration."

I'll bet some one buys you a team membership. NOT!

Posted: 9/9/2005 2:39:19 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
If you lived in the city, wouldn't you rather have the "refugees" getting their $2000 dollar shopping sprees and wandering a nearby vacant building than coming to a bus parked in front of your house?

If they didn't give them $2k they wouldn't be able to afford the bus fare.

Besides, I prefer the looters to be in the streets so we can get to 'em instead of in "designated areas" under the protection of the government.

This is TX, we've got 12-guage looter control.

Posted: 9/9/2005 3:00:43 PM EDT

[#18]

speechless.

Posted: 9/9/2005 3:27:27 PM EDT

[#19]

"Fair compensation" that could mean $1 per 100sq feet for all anybody knows.

Posted: 9/9/2005 4:19:49 PM EDT

[#20]

And guess what folks, this isn't even an "emergency" in Texas.
They are putting up refugees and taking care of their needs. BUT.....what will happen when a big one hits Texas ??
Imagine the panic driven confiscations when that happens !!

Posted: 9/9/2005 4:25:14 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
And guess what folks, this isn't even an "emergency" in Texas.

Rendell wants PA to be declared a disaster area (to free up fed funds for assisting refugees - can you believe it?) and I have NO DOUBT that fast Eddie and his cronies would take anything, anytime, anywhere if it furthered their political careers.

Seizing property is wrong wrong wrong. This isn't buying out a single house that is blocking a coast to coast freeway, this is government bullying pure and simple. Anyone engaging in it deserves to have their career rot.

Posted: 9/9/2005 4:30:19 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

My point is when you scoot the line a little, you ALWAYS end up scooting it a lot. ALWAYS. That's why this political axiom is called "the slippery slope."

The Constitution is NOT a flexible document.

CMOS

The Constitution, which as you point out is not a flexible document, allows for taking for "public use". I have not "scooted the line". I have not advocated for any change in the meaning of public use. I, frankly, have a hard time understanding how providing temporary housing to people evacuated from a disaster area does not constitute a public use.

Also, regardless of how many times you write it, or whether you put it in all caps, the word "always" is not synonymous with "often" or even "usually".

Posted: 9/9/2005 4:35:08 PM EDT

[#23]

180,000 + refugees were brought across an ocean to this country in 1975 when the Republic of Viet Nam fell. There were no privately owned buildings confiscated then. The refugees were quartered on military bases until they were released.

Posted: 9/9/2005 4:35:56 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Seizing property is wrong wrong wrong. This isn't buying out a single house that is blocking a coast to coast freeway, this is government bullying pure and simple. Anyone engaging in it deserves to have their career rot.

Talk about contradicting yourself ... you follow up your absolute statement with an example that contradicts it. Clearly seizure isn't always wrong. It is, however, all too often wrong.

Posted: 9/9/2005 4:40:27 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Seizing property is wrong wrong wrong. This isn't buying out a single house that is blocking a coast to coast freeway, this is government bullying pure and simple. Anyone engaging in it deserves to have their career rot.

Talk about contradicting yourself ... you follow up your absolute statement with an example that contradicts it. Clearly seizure isn't always wrong. It is, however, all too often wrong.

I can make a good argument for building that freeway around the house. Go look at the church next to the Citibank building in NYC for an example of staying put (they wouldn't stand a chance in today's climate)

The point is, that even "no-alternative" ED's are tenuous at best, and there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER that singled out that property in Houston as the only option.

Posted: 9/9/2005 5:23:38 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seizing property is wrong wrong wrong. This isn't buying out a single house that is blocking a coast to coast freeway, this is government bullying pure and simple. Anyone engaging in it deserves to have their career rot.

Talk about contradicting yourself ... you follow up your absolute statement with an example that contradicts it. Clearly seizure isn't always wrong. It is, however, all too often wrong.

I can make a good argument for building that freeway around the house. Go look at the church next to the Citibank building in NYC for an example of staying put (they wouldn't stand a chance in today's climate)

The point is, that even "no-alternative" ED's are tenuous at best, and there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER that singled out that property in Houston as the only option.

Yeah, No Sh*t! You mean to tell me this is the only piece of real estate sitting vacant? There's probably tons of vacant office space, etc. available in Houston. I think this is a case of the mayor getting his ego bruised and wanting to get back at the property owner.

Posted: 9/9/2005 5:48:34 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If you lived in the city, wouldn't you rather have the "refugees" getting their $2000 dollar shopping sprees and wandering a nearby vacant building than coming to a bus parked in front of your house?

Mayor White might have an ulterior motive. The faster the refugees get processed, the faster Houston gets rid of them.

Oh no my friend - Mayor White wants them to stay. They ALL would become registered Democrats.

Believe me, there are political motives at work here by the Mayor. Most of these refugees will not be leaving Houston.

Ever.

CMOS

Posted: 9/9/2005 9:59:31 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seizing property is wrong wrong wrong. This isn't buying out a single house that is blocking a coast to coast freeway, this is government bullying pure and simple. Anyone engaging in it deserves to have their career rot.

Talk about contradicting yourself ... you follow up your absolute statement with an example that contradicts it. Clearly seizure isn't always wrong. It is, however, all too often wrong.

I can make a good argument for building that freeway around the house. Go look at the church next to the Citibank building in NYC for an example of staying put (they wouldn't stand a chance in today's climate)

The point is, that even "no-alternative" ED's are tenuous at best, and there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER that singled out that property in Houston as the only option.

Sure you could make a good argument for going around the house but you didn't in that first post. Also the freeways and roads need to go somewhere. A lot of land in the places you'd want to build a freeway is private. Someone's gonna have their land taken.

There is no legal basis in which to say "no-alternative" ED's are tenuous. As far as moral basis, it depends on the use. You'd rather we didn't have any roads? Police stations? Fire houses? Those are all "tenuous" reasons for ED? And I never claimed there was ANY reason that singled out that property. I just said its not required under the Constitution. It is required if the mayor wants to retain his popularity.

Finally, the CitiCorp Tower is a really bad example for this argument. The whole development was originally the church's idea. They wanted to unlock the value of their land and their broker approached the bank, who then assembled the rest of the land and built the tower and replacement church. And none of it had anything to do with ED.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Houston Mayor siezes property (building) for "public necessity" (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us