|
Post by LW Roberts on Jun 29, 2005 16:37:39 GMT -5
The US Supreme Court has ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development . This gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue. How do you feel about this? Thanks for Idea Premier!
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jun 30, 2005 6:59:12 GMT -5
That might be because that is exactly what they are doing. Eminent Domain has been around for a while. But it is usually used to enlarge roads or to build schools. In this case it is being used to benefit private business and generate taxes. Lightfoot, if it was your property you would probably be screaming. Sure they will pay the property owners. But money is not issue here but peoples rights. These people do not want to move out of the homes they have had for generations.
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jun 30, 2005 12:55:39 GMT -5
Mr. Premier, The people that does not want to sell to make room for a progress that will ensure the stability and job employment for their local communities are really being selfish. What is wrong with relocating. It dose not mean you have to leave your beloved community. If you let roots remain in the ground long enough, eventually it will begin to choke out it's surroundings. We are born to live and then to die. Why fight over such materialism?
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jul 1, 2005 8:26:52 GMT -5
Make room for progress? So you have no problems with corporations buying up the land to make way for gated communities that generate a lot of taxes? What about your fishing holes?
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jul 1, 2005 9:39:09 GMT -5
Dumb dumb, I mean mr. Premier, Most companies by zonning regulated by the local government has to allow some sort of acces when it comes to the public rivers and beaches. It's the pivate home owners that put up gated communities that feel they don't have to share at all !
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jul 2, 2005 8:14:24 GMT -5
Which I am sure that they have paid dearly for. Of course it seems to me that you would be all for the government just deciding that a wal-mart would generate more taxes, and bull dozing those peoples homes. But I am curious. Although I am probably going to regret asking. why do you think that, even though you have not paid one red dime in support of that land track, that they should have to share, or that you should be afforded access?
|
|
|
Post by Big Foot on Jul 2, 2005 11:30:33 GMT -5
My opinion is this. I feel that no one should control or own any access or parts of location concerning any river or beach. It should all remain for all public's enjoyment. Every sqare inch of it.
|
|
|
Post by Premier Edition on Jul 2, 2005 21:43:23 GMT -5
So basically, you fee l you should get it for free while others pay. I have been to many campgrounds and many public beaches. The controlled access campgrounds are always better maintained and taken care of. Usually, people who expect something for nothing, will trash a place. Then they expect the government to fix it for them. Maybe you should just befriend some people living in these places. Because if they don't pay the money it will be trashed. So I disagree with you. People are great! The Public are horrible!
|
|
|
Post by lightfoot on Jul 3, 2005 3:53:26 GMT -5
Still waiting to hear from Mr. Edition to see if he still wishes to post replies to what I post?
|
|