Developer proposes to build hotel on Souters house

[dbattman 0]

My hats off to this man.

Moving forward with a hotel on David Souters house

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

My hats off to this man.

Moving forward with a hotel on David Souters house

Nice bit, that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[waltappel 1]

Quote

My hats off to this man.

Moving forward with a hotel on David Souters house

That guy is definitely da' man!!! He has my eternal respect!

Walt

[AggieDave 6]

I was reading about that earlier...hats off to that guy!

I think that drives home the point pretty well about the socialist ruling that the SC voted on.

Also, as a side note, the Texas legislature has introduced a bill to limit ED state wide to protect citizen's rights.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Also, as a side note, the Texas legislature has introduced a bill to limit ED state wide to protect citizen's rights.

Good for Texas, but I really want to see the Federal Congress clarify the mistake of the court. (Hey, you five jackasses, we'll clarify the definition of eminent domain in a revision to the original law so you don't screw up your job again on this one.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jdhill 0]

Clements will probably need to make Souter an offer to buy the land first. Absent that, I doubt anyone would even consider condemnation, and taking under eminent domain...

If Souter is smart, he sells, and the story goes nowhere...

It would be poetic justice though...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[dbattman 0]

Souter may not want to sell, or the developer makes him a typical lowball offer. Why wouldn't someone consider condemnation- because he's on the SC? Big deal- let him hire an attorney and fight it like the rest of us peasants.

Several groups are already moving forward under the new ED ruiling to grab property. Do a Google- you will see.

Quote

Clements will probably need to make Souter an offer to buy the land first. Absent that, I doubt anyone would even consider condemnation, and taking under eminent domain...

If Souter is smart, he sells, and the story goes nowhere...

It would be poetic justice though...

J

[jdhill 0]

I'm not suggesting that they would not consider condemnation because he is on the SC... My point is that in most cases an offer needs to be made and rejected before any ED action will be pursued, unless it is actually the government taking it for government use... the offer might be low, but there at least needs to be an offer...

Further, I don't think the government can be compelled to condemn the property either... if the government decision maker(s) says no, then its likely no... although that could set a basis for future decisions for that municipality.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kallend 1,683]

No chance. Some animals are more equal than others.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dbattman 0]

The rules have been changed. If it wasn't for a definite public use (i.e. road, school, et al) than you had a chance at fighting it. ED now applies to the transfer of property from private owner A to private owner B because private owner B will do something with it that pays more taxes or employs more people. You just need to convince a few politicians to go along with this. This was going on all over the country before this decision- it just got a whole lot easier.

This is all about money, money, money. Form an S corp to build this hotel, sell 250,000 shares for $100 each to pissed off property owners like myself and see what happens to the balance of power and equality.

[jdhill 0]

I understand the implications of the ruling, and the underlying issue...

Still, as a mater of practicality local governments are not going to get involved until 1) they are on board with the project, and 2) an offer to buy the property in question has been made by the person/group desiring the property and rejected by the person/group that owns the property... why get involved in an ED issue if the parties can reach terms...

Prior to the ruling, depending on what state you live in, the taking of private property need to meet a pretty high standard, of public use that could not be accomodated on other available propery... now the SC has said it only needs to meet a standard of public good for the government to be OK with it (again depending on your state)...

Yes, its about money... developers want the property for a lower cost because it makes the projects more fiscally viable... if the property costs too much the project does not get done... local politicians want to see the project done so they can have more money to waste, so they will try to take it, and pay "just compensation" as the 5th calls for which is not necessarily the same as market value, and in no way accounts for sentimental value...

If your state allows this, don't bitch about it here, take action to change your state's laws on the issue... and / or tell your Congressman and Senators to do something about it at the national level... I'm sure there is plenty of public support out there, and in the end if the voters don't vote for the guy that is in the developer's pocket, he does not get reelected, no matter how much money they have.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Nightingale 0]

I'd hate to be the judge hearing that case. Talk about pressure. A member of the SC as a defendant in your courtroom!

[dbattman 0]

Quote

Still, as a mater of practicality local governments are not going to get involved until 1) they are on board with the project, and 2) an offer to buy the property in question has been made by the person/group desiring the property and rejected by the person/group that owns the property... why get involved in an ED issue if the parties can reach terms...

Whether they are on board with the project is completely irrelevant. If it is my property it is for me to decide when to sell it and how much to sell it for.

Developer approaches me to buy my lakefront lot where I have lived for thirty years. I built this house myself, I raised my kids here, my daughter was married under the oak in the side lot and I plan on dying here. Since the developer wants to build a ten story condo building the local politicians are on board with this. I do not want to sell, I rejected their offer. Is it 'public use' as originally stated in the 5th Amendment for them to kick me out and hand me a check in this situation? Depending on the statues, yes or no but the SC just struck a strong blow to the 'no'.

Quote

Prior to the ruling, depending on what state you live in, the taking of private property need to meet a pretty high standard, of public use that could not be accomodated on other available propery... now the SC has said it only needs to meet a standard of public good for the government to be OK with it (again depending on your state)...

Exactly. More money in the coffers, fifty new jobs generated by the condo association, standard of public good met as considered by the board. Drop your drawers and bend over sir- this won't hurt (much). Same situation with the parent case in question.

Quote

Yes, its about money... developers want the property for a lower cost because it makes the projects more fiscally viable... if the property costs too much the project does not get done... local politicians want to see the project done so they can have more money to waste, so they will try to take it, and pay "just compensation" as the 5th calls for which is not necessarily the same as market value, and in no way accounts for sentimental value...

Thank you Josh, you have just illustrated the problem quite nicely. It's still my house and if I want to keep it instead of seeing it bulldozed for a health club, or a casino parking garage, or a waterfront that should be my decision regardless of what the local board has to say. There is no road, no school, no public anything involved. Now there doesn't need to be one, just something that is 'public good' as defined by goodness knows what.

'Just compensation' lower than fair market value? Interesting phenomenon.

I had a developer make me the generous offer of buying my house for approximately 85% of reasonable FMV to make it easier for them to build their houses behind me. This also just happened to be slightly more than I owed and a huge loss. No discussions on price, no second offer as I requested even after he stated himself that it needed to be raised. He then threatened me with ED several weeks later and never tried to follow through when I said 'fine- see ya in court', so hopefully you can understand my venomous attitude and apologies if it came across as personal in any way.

***If your state allows this, don't bitch about it here, take action to change your state's laws on the issue... and / or tell your Congressman and Senators to do something about it at the national level... I'm sure there is plenty of public support out there, and in the end if the voters don't vote for the guy that is in the developer's pocket, he does not get reelected, no matter how much money they have.
J

[dbattman 0]

Quote

I'd hate to be the judge hearing that case. Talk about pressure. A member of the SC as a defendant in your courtroom!

I believe that is the man's intent- to make Souter a defendent under his own ruling. Will it happen? I have agree with Kallend and Jdhill- snowballs chance in hell. But with several million dollars behind it, anything is possible. Unfortunately I don't have several million dollars.

[TheAnvil 0]

I would like to state that 'jackass' does not equate to 'JACKASS'

Perhaps Mr. Souter will feel differently now. That developer is an American hero.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Salsa_John 0]

I wonder what publicly benefiting structure we can build at 1600 Pennsylvania.

I hear there is a nice ranch in Texas that could be turned into a farm to grow food for the poor

Now ALL the property of ALL people in power is subject to seizure.



WooHoo!


File your petitions now.

Got an unpopular polotician? Sieze thier property!
Got a corrupt CEO? Sieze thier property!
Got a.... you fill in the blank

"You did what?!?!"

MUFF #3722, TDSM #72, Orfun #26, Nachos Rodriguez

[dbattman 0]

Hey, I've been looking for a new hobby. Being a professional pain in the ass could be a lot of fun.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

I wonder what publicly benefiting structure we can build at 1600 Pennsylvania.

I hear there is a nice ranch in Texas that could be turned into a farm to grow food for the poor

Now ALL the property of ALL people in power is subject to seizure.



WooHoo!


File your petitions now.

Got an unpopular polotician? Sieze thier property!
Got a corrupt CEO? Sieze thier property!
Got a.... you fill in the blank

I don't think you can blame this bad decision on Bush.

Seems to me that it's asking for a legislative remedy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Seems to me that it's asking for a legislative remedy.

1 - I'm surprised you didn't directly find a way to blame it on Bush. I'm almost speechless. What did you do with John? He's important around here.

2 - And Congress needs to get to it and fix the SC's clear mistake. Completely agree

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Salsa_John 0]

Quote

I don't think you can blame this bad decision on Bush.

Seems to me that it's asking for a legislative remedy.

I don't blame Bush. I think you are correct.

However, things seem to get corrected much faster when it happens to someone in power

"You did what?!?!"

MUFF #3722, TDSM #72, Orfun #26, Nachos Rodriguez

[Slappie 9]

Quote

My hats off to this man.

Moving forward with a hotel on David Souters house

And the shit begin.. http://www.theagitator.com/archives/022207.php#022207 wonder when it will get to your hometown.

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

And the shit begin.. http://www.theagitator.com/...es/022207.php#022207 wonder when it will get to your hometown

I can't believe Memphis was only listed once.
scum sucking m-fer's.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Pendejo 0]

One of the people that I do business with in NJ got a notice this morning that the property that his business sits on has been "selected" as an improvement area. He said the offer they made him was about half the appraised value.... It seems that want to put in what they call "clean businesses" in this location. He owns a trucking company (that I have visited and it is in no way what I would call un-clean) that has been in his family for 50 years (and in that location for 40 of the 50 years).

He put it like this..... I (he) will be one of the ones that you see on TV defending what I (he) own.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Seems to me that it's asking for a legislative remedy.

1 - I'm surprised you didn't directly find a way to blame it on Bush. I'm almost speechless. What did you do with John? He's important around here.

2 - And Congress needs to get to it and fix the SC's clear mistake. Completely agree

Congress is getting ready to do that. Got this off Earth Link [url]Congress Working on Property-Seizure Bills
June 30, 2005 4:14 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - Lawmakers are trying to blunt a Supreme Court decision that says local governments can seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls and other private development.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Thursday the high court had made "a horrible decision" and he hoped it would cause a backlash.

"The only silver lining to this decision is the possibility that this time the court has finally gone too far and that the American people are ready to reassert their constitutional authority," said DeLay, R-Texas, a critic of recent court decisions.

In a 5-4 ruling last week, the Supreme Court said municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes and put up shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations. DeLay agreed.

"Someone could knock on your door and tell you that the city council has voted to give your house to someone else because they have nicer plans for the property," DeLay said.

The House on Thursday approved by a 231-189 vote a bid by conservative Scott Garrett, R-N.J., to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.

Legislation in the works also would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.) decision.

"They're going to have to find their own money, instead of coming to Washington," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Susette Kelo, whose riverfront house in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood is set to be razed, said she's glad politicians in Washington are working against the decision. "I think the people in this country are outraged in this decision, and rightly so," she said. "Everyone in this country has just lost the right to own their own property."

Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., mentioned community development block grants as one type of money source that would be banned for projects advancing as a result of the Kelo decision.

The grant program provides money to more than 1,000 municipalities for everything from lead abatement in old buildings to improving water and sewage facilities.

Sensenbrenner and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, are planning a bill that would prevent Washington from claiming eminent domain for economic development and block any state or local government from getting federal funds for projects

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced a similar bill on Monday, with a House companion introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont. The Supreme Court has overturned other congressional attempts to supersede its decisions.

"It is clearly within the power of Congress to limit the use of federal funds," Cornyn said.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

There were more than 10,000 instances of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use between 1998-2002, according to the Institute for Justice.

---

On the Net:

Information on the Senate bill, S. 1313, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

No chance. Some animals are more equal than others.

Agreed...no politician in the country at any level would go up against an SC justice in his own backyard....no way it will ever get to the ED stage. Local boys will shoot it down at first chance.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239