A man's home is his castle... with pic

[KK]

I'm surprised china didn't haul his ass to jail and kill him.

 

[JungleMan1]

I guess the Chinese have learned a thing or two about capitalism!!! More power to him, I say. Bottom line is that eventually one of them is going to give in and it will probably be the company.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

The way eminant domain is now is, that they can't take the land because xyz company wants it. They can take it if XYZ building something on it will increase the taxes that the local government will recieve since more taxes for the gov=better for the people. Most of the time in the US though it's not a big deal since the companies will give far more than the assessed value just so they don't have the PR nightmare to deal with for "stealing" someones home. Here in DFW several people got millions for holding out on land that they are building the new Cowboys stadium on.

 

[magomago]

My guess is for every one case of the local being able to do this, there are countless situations where other were just tossed aside

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: everman
I wonder if under Chinese law they would be responsible for rebuilding the house if that dirt collapses? It's actually good to see that someone can refuse to move like that, in the good 'ol USA the gov can take your property even for commercial purposes.

That would go against an executive order.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

never thought i'd say this, but :thumbsup: to president bush

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: everman
I wonder if under Chinese law they would be responsible for rebuilding the house if that dirt collapses? It's actually good to see that someone can refuse to move like that, in the good 'ol USA the gov can take your property even for commercial purposes.

That would go against an executive order.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

And like most of what Bush has done it is full of hot air and/or BS. You see 2 things wrong in that order. 1. It only says Federal government, not state. The whole issue was small towns and cites taking land for wal-marts and such. 2. It states they must give "just compensation". Now who decides what "just compensation" is. Usually the ones that are taking the land.

hmmm good points. didnt think of those.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: everman
I wonder if under Chinese law they would be responsible for rebuilding the house if that dirt collapses? It's actually good to see that someone can refuse to move like that, in the good 'ol USA the gov can take your property even for commercial purposes.

That would go against an executive order.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

got a link on that?


I was slightly pissed off when the courts said it was legal for the goverment take private property and give it to ohter private business.

Based on that quote though, it only applies to the federal government. It isn't the federal government that usually condemns people's land to sell to developers, it's the local government.

yeap. so the law is pretty much worthless. was wondering why i havn't heard anything on it.

i really wish they would do something about it. having the local goverment be able to steal your land for a private business is insane.


I seem to remember watching something on the news recently. A owner of a plot of land downtown (can't remember where) had a devoloper come to him and tell him if he did not pay the guy $80k he was going to have the local goverment take the land from him and give it him.

the owner of th eproperty refused. so what happened? the local goverment took the land. the guy sued to get it back. he had recordings of the guy threatning him. but that didnt matter he lost the case (though it was being appealed).

 

[atomicacid55]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: everman
I wonder if under Chinese law they would be responsible for rebuilding the house if that dirt collapses? It's actually good to see that someone can refuse to move like that, in the good 'ol USA the gov can take your property even for commercial purposes.

That would go against an executive order.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

And like most of what Bush has done it is full of hot air and/or BS. You see 2 things wrong in that order. 1. It only says Federal government, not state. The whole issue was small towns and cites taking land for wal-marts and such. 2. It states they must give "just compensation". Now who decides what "just compensation" is. Usually the ones that are taking the land.

hmmm good points. didnt think of those.

So if Kerry did this you would bow down and go OMG SO COOL, but when Bush passes such a law you go omfg this is f-tarded.

Wasn't this Proposition 90 in the CA elections last fall?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: atomicacid55

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: everman
I wonder if under Chinese law they would be responsible for rebuilding the house if that dirt collapses? It's actually good to see that someone can refuse to move like that, in the good 'ol USA the gov can take your property even for commercial purposes.

That would go against an executive order.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

And like most of what Bush has done it is full of hot air and/or BS. You see 2 things wrong in that order. 1. It only says Federal government, not state. The whole issue was small towns and cites taking land for wal-marts and such. 2. It states they must give "just compensation". Now who decides what "just compensation" is. Usually the ones that are taking the land.

hmmm good points. didnt think of those.

So if Kerry did this you would bow down and go OMG SO COOL, but when Bush passes such a law you go omfg this is f-tarded.

Wasn't this Proposition 90 in the CA elections last fall?

IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

until bush pass's something stopeing that then he don't get a brony point for it

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: atomicacid55

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: everman
I wonder if under Chinese law they would be responsible for rebuilding the house if that dirt collapses? It's actually good to see that someone can refuse to move like that, in the good 'ol USA the gov can take your property even for commercial purposes.

That would go against an executive order.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

And like most of what Bush has done it is full of hot air and/or BS. You see 2 things wrong in that order. 1. It only says Federal government, not state. The whole issue was small towns and cites taking land for wal-marts and such. 2. It states they must give "just compensation". Now who decides what "just compensation" is. Usually the ones that are taking the land.

hmmm good points. didnt think of those.

So if Kerry did this you would bow down and go OMG SO COOL, but when Bush passes such a law you go omfg this is f-tarded.

Wasn't this Proposition 90 in the CA elections last fall?

Dang it, Waggy beat me by a couple seconds. 🙂

Try again. This is not a law, and its does nothing. It is just a PR fluff job. If Kerry was Prez I would say the same thing.
Federal government and states can still take private land and decide how much it is worth. Nothing has changed. If your town wants to pay you less then going rate for your land so wal-mart can put up another store, they can still do it.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: atomicacid55

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: everman
I wonder if under Chinese law they would be responsible for rebuilding the house if that dirt collapses? It's actually good to see that someone can refuse to move like that, in the good 'ol USA the gov can take your property even for commercial purposes.

That would go against an executive order.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

And like most of what Bush has done it is full of hot air and/or BS. You see 2 things wrong in that order. 1. It only says Federal government, not state. The whole issue was small towns and cites taking land for wal-marts and such. 2. It states they must give "just compensation". Now who decides what "just compensation" is. Usually the ones that are taking the land.

hmmm good points. didnt think of those.

So if Kerry did this you would bow down and go OMG SO COOL, but when Bush passes such a law you go omfg this is f-tarded.

Wasn't this Proposition 90 in the CA elections last fall?

IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

until bush pass's something stopeing that then he don't get a brony point for it

That will NEVER happen, since Bush doesn't have the power to make law. Congress makes law, Bush can veto if he doesn't like the law, but he sure can't write it.

 

[CPA]

Reminds me of the Bugs Bunny skit where Bugs refused to move out of his hole. That Bugs Bunny is a wisecracker.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: atomicacid55

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: everman
I wonder if under Chinese law they would be responsible for rebuilding the house if that dirt collapses? It's actually good to see that someone can refuse to move like that, in the good 'ol USA the gov can take your property even for commercial purposes.

That would go against an executive order.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

And like most of what Bush has done it is full of hot air and/or BS. You see 2 things wrong in that order. 1. It only says Federal government, not state. The whole issue was small towns and cites taking land for wal-marts and such. 2. It states they must give "just compensation". Now who decides what "just compensation" is. Usually the ones that are taking the land.

hmmm good points. didnt think of those.

So if Kerry did this you would bow down and go OMG SO COOL, but when Bush passes such a law you go omfg this is f-tarded.

Wasn't this Proposition 90 in the CA elections last fall?

IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

until bush pass's something stopeing that then he don't get a browny point for it

That will NEVER happen, since Bush doesn't have the power to make law. Congress makes law, Bush can veto if he doesn't like the law, but he sure can't write it.

yeap.


until the SC changes and there is another lawsuit nothing is going to change.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: waggy
IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

Tell that to my grandfather. The federal government took 30 sections (sections, not acres) of land from him in the 50s to use for the White Sands Missile Range. He received no compensation whatsoever. So the executive order (it's not a law) is definitely not useless. The federal government takes a lot of land from people for a variety of uses.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: waggy
IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

Tell that to my grandfather. The federal government took 30 sections (sections, not acres) of land from him in the 50s to use for the White Sands Missile Range. He received no compensation whatsoever. So the executive order (it's not a law) is definitely not useless. The federal government takes a lot of land from people for a variety of uses.

The federal government takes land, but normally for government use, not for developers. That's what bugs people - that the local government can kick you out of your house to build a strip mall. You don't hear people complaining about the government using eminent domain to build schools. Since the executive order only prohibits the federal government from taking land for purposes that it doesn't take land for (economic benefit of private parties), the executive order is pretty much useless. They can still take land for government buildings and military bases and what have you.

And if your grandfather says the government took his land without compensation, then I don't think he's telling you the whole story.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: waggy
IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

Tell that to my grandfather. The federal government took 30 sections (sections, not acres) of land from him in the 50s to use for the White Sands Missile Range. He received no compensation whatsoever. So the executive order (it's not a law) is definitely not useless. The federal government takes a lot of land from people for a variety of uses.

do you understand what we are talking about? i guess not.


YES the goverment can take property. they have often. BUT they take it for parks, roads MISSLE silos etc. .


the order is USELESS. the Feds have not been takeing property to give to PRIVATE business's.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: waggy
IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

Tell that to my grandfather. The federal government took 30 sections (sections, not acres) of land from him in the 50s to use for the White Sands Missile Range. He received no compensation whatsoever. So the executive order (it's not a law) is definitely not useless. The federal government takes a lot of land from people for a variety of uses.

do you understand what we are talking about? i guess not.


YES the goverment can take property. they have often. BUT they take it for parks, roads MISSLE silos etc. .


the order is USELESS. the Feds have not been takeing property to give to PRIVATE business's.

Way to backtrack. :roll: That's not what you said. You said the federal government doesn't take land, which is a lie. Also, I doubt you can say with certainty that the feds have never taken land and given it to a private business -- if you're going to be revisionist and make stuff up I really don't see how anyone can expect to have a rational discussion with you.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: waggy
IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

Tell that to my grandfather. The federal government took 30 sections (sections, not acres) of land from him in the 50s to use for the White Sands Missile Range. He received no compensation whatsoever. So the executive order (it's not a law) is definitely not useless. The federal government takes a lot of land from people for a variety of uses.

And if your grandfather says the government took his land without compensation, then I don't think he's telling you the whole story.

It wasn't just him -- there were about 20 ranchers the government abused in the same way when they created the WSMR. None of them received compensation.

 

[her209]

Getting mail delivered must be a bitch.

 

[ElFenix]

some of you need to learn about federalism.

 

[BillyBatson]

that's freakin amazing!!!!!!!!!

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: waggy
IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

Tell that to my grandfather. The federal government took 30 sections (sections, not acres) of land from him in the 50s to use for the White Sands Missile Range. He received no compensation whatsoever. So the executive order (it's not a law) is definitely not useless. The federal government takes a lot of land from people for a variety of uses.

do you understand what we are talking about? i guess not.


YES the government can take property. they have often. BUT they take it for parks, roads MISSLE silos etc. .


the order is USELESS. the Feds have not been takeing property to give to PRIVATE business's.

Way to backtrack. :roll: That's not what you said. You said the federal government doesn't take land, which is a lie. Also, I doubt you can say with certainty that the feds have never taken land and given it to a private business -- if you're going to be revisionist and make stuff up I really don't see how anyone can expect to have a rational discussion with you.

have the feds done it? not sure. but i do know in the last 20 years they have nto has as many (in the news anyway) as local governments have.

in fact i don't think i have heard of any story's where the FEDERAL government have taken private land and GIVE it to a PRIVATE business.

Where i have read of at least a 100 and know of 3 personally where the local government have either flat out taken or "condemned" property and given it to PRIVATE business.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: waggy
IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

Tell that to my grandfather. The federal government took 30 sections (sections, not acres) of land from him in the 50s to use for the White Sands Missile Range. He received no compensation whatsoever. So the executive order (it's not a law) is definitely not useless. The federal government takes a lot of land from people for a variety of uses.

And if your grandfather says the government took his land without compensation, then I don't think he's telling you the whole story.

It wasn't just him -- there were about 20 ranchers the government abused in the same way when they created the WSMR. None of them received compensation.

30 sections is a heck of a lot of land. My guess is that it wasn't his land to begin with. He probably had a grazing lease that the feds cancelled. Ranchers like to pretend that grazing leases give them rights to the land which is just BS.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

That reminds me of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons where Bugs takes on the construction company.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: waggy
IF kerry or anyone else did it i would still bitch about it. because the law is USELESS. its not the federal goverment takeing property. its local goverments that do it.

Tell that to my grandfather. The federal government took 30 sections (sections, not acres) of land from him in the 50s to use for the White Sands Missile Range. He received no compensation whatsoever. So the executive order (it's not a law) is definitely not useless. The federal government takes a lot of land from people for a variety of uses.

And if your grandfather says the government took his land without compensation, then I don't think he's telling you the whole story.

It wasn't just him -- there were about 20 ranchers the government abused in the same way when they created the WSMR. None of them received compensation.

30 sections is a heck of a lot of land. My guess is that it wasn't his land to begin with. He probably had a grazing lease that the feds cancelled. Ranchers like to pretend that grazing leases give them rights to the land which is just BS.

not sure on that. depends on where. i know a few people in Montana& the dokata's that have that much land (friends of my father). we;; mpt 30 tracks but close to it