Printable View
I don't understand how the supreme court ruled this way. They are supposed to 'interpret' the constitution. The constitution is pretty clear that personal property is just that.
This whole "I'm taking your house away and giving you pennies on the dollar" seems pretty socalist to me.
No old chap, the "socialist" bit I can handle................we need 100 yards off your bottom field for a new school/hospital..............no problems with that.................20 feet to widen the road and make it safer?.......no problem.............Quote:
This whole "I'm taking your house away and giving you pennies on the dollar" seems pretty socalist to me.
Ack phtt! It vexes me to see a great democracy being corrupted by hypocrisy :mad:
Hell I have had the phone call " can we use your airfield for an airfield defence exercise"............"of course you can Group Captain..........just shoot any bugger you don't recognise, my wife and I will be on a pilgrimage to Spain".........."OK Sir, thank you very much"............"hang on old chap, must get you the numbers............the main pit is still licenced for up to 40mm the two side ones for 20mm" the lads may want some fun?
"Thank you sir"
Airfield defence is RAF Regiment..........ranges are approved by the Army :D If you have the facilities you let them go for free?
Now, if something is being left to go derelict and attract vermin..........steam in there!!!!!, but a property that is "being quietly enjoyed by its inhabitants"
We have "compulsory purchase" over here, but it is for public projects
What amazes me folks is that the UK has a population of about 62 million living in an area about a half the size of Oregon.............yet you seem to be having these problems? HELL! is the country to small for y'all?
:D
From what I know of the U.S. constitution, there are no personal property rights ingrained in it.Quote:
The constitution is pretty clear that personal property is just that.
Now, as for expropriating property, the city where I live has needed a freeway extension for over 10 years now. It is at the end of a major artery leading into Toronto. The only reason the freeway has not been extended was because of one lone holdout who refused to sell. Everyone else, although reluctant to sell to the state, realized the greater good it would achieve when they saw the road they lived on brought to standstill every rush hour. This is a two lane road extending for 10 miles where there should be a limited access, high speed, high volume freeway. You can imagine the gridlock it causes.
Finally, after 8 years, the province expropriated the land to build a road on it. We're still waiting for the bridge work to finish so the actual road can start, and we're still gridlocked. It continues to be a major problem since the city extends past the end of the freeway and commercial transport trucks are forced onto secondary roads day and night to make their way onto the freeway. There was no way to build this *very essential* road without forcing that one holdout to sell.
Now as for doing the same to put up condominiums or office towers, we as well have a downtown core riddled with substandard housing. This has held that core back for well over 20 years now. There has been no major developments in that area in that time. As such, our downtown core consists of two street corners - for a city of half a million (or thereabouts). This is because the mayors in that time have refused to expropriate land for that purpose. Had this been done, we would have a proper downtown core with sufficient businesses to allow people to walk instead of drive in the downtown area. But going on foot for the fifteen businesses there is more than most are willing to do. Hence adding to our current traffic problems.
There evetually comes a point where low density housing must be replaced with higher density commercial or residential use. It's part of the normal growth of a ctiy. Any city refusing to appropriate land for this purpose is evetually holding itself back.
That said, this power can obviously be abused, as stated in the many posts above. But coming from a city that doesn't appropriate enough land, I fully understand the need to do it.
As far as I know, this practice is relatively common in many places in Europe. The governmant needs to renovate buildings or replace them, and simply sends a letter kicking all the residents out. I'm not sure whether they finance the lodging for those citizens during that time, but it is an accepted fact of city living that buildings need to be renovated, imporoved, and sometimes replaced, for the greater good of the city.
A city cannot grow beyond a certain point when it continues to be full of low density housing. Eventually, buildings must be replaced with new, higher capacity buildings. Sometimes, land must be appropriated for this. It's a fact of urban life.
Keep in mind that it was the so-called "liberal" judges that took the
authoritarian position on this decision. I guess "liberal" doesn't mean what it used to.
:cool:
this made me think of Robert Mugabe even before I read Foxyy's post.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4123286.stm
Striek made some strong points also that compulsary puchase can be used in positive way.
The US would have to ensure that controls were in place to prevent powers such as these being abused.
The reaction to this news is just as interesting as the news itself. Quite shocking to see the levels of distrust we all have in our own and each others governments.
Actually, the controls are in place, at least we thought they were.Quote:
The US would have to ensure that controls were in place to prevent powers such as these being abused.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5Quote:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Most honest people thought that meant that the property had to be
taken for public use, not to give to well-connected corporations.
But when the gov't chooses not to honor the constitution, what
can the little people do?
:cool:
Hi Striek,
There is a need to take land for the public good. Freeways, hospitals, air ports, urban decay, etc. You could make a weak argument for property in the constitution. In fact the sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. So given the circumstances, the justices agree with you. There is no protection within our constitution for property. But what they have done is set a daunting precedence for anyone fighting to have their land kept within their families. That precedence is, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Each city and each state should set their own limitations and controls and once the high court rules that is pretty much it. If one’s own individual case goes to court they will use the ruling as a gauge and it applies to the entire USA.
I guess this has been happening all along "under the radar"
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
So finally the bush regime master plan is revealed. Take us to war, drive us in to poverty, buy our houses for $1, raze them, build stores on top of them, give the contract to a haliburton subsidiary, in time to collect the money as he steps down from his presidency.
Brilliant!
As for being "under the radar"..this whole f****ing presidency has been under it.
Bush regime?
He must be using the secret mind control beams.