NationStates Jolt Archive

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051003-122623-2136r.htm

Florida city considers eminent domain

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 3, 2005

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.
He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."
Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base...


And I really love this bit" Mr. Frederiksen said people with yachts need a place to keep and service them. "

But 6,000 people don't need homes.


Thanks SCOTUS, thanks a bunch.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/td/2005/td050716.gif

Part of me wants to make this simpler and just go ahead and give up all my rights to big corporations now, rather than have them taken from me bit by bit by the Republicans, corporate lobbists and apparently our own Supreme Court.

In the event my town tries to seize my property I'll use my 2nd Amendment rights to defend my 5th Amendment rights which the Supreme Court has now raped.

In the event my town tries to seize my property I'll use my 2nd Amendment rights to defend my 5th Amendment rights which the Supreme Court has now raped.

"without just compensation."

They just had to be vague.

In the event my town tries to seize my property I'll use my 2nd Amendment rights to defend my 5th Amendment rights which the Supreme Court has now raped.

Would you, though?

I used to say I would never buy a house because I'm too lazy to keep up a property. Now I have a much better reason. Filthy elitist scum.

Lottery fantasy: Hostile buyouts of taken properties; restore them to residential/small business condition; sell/rent back to the people who used to live there; laugh at that stupid look of betrayal on those rich, botoxed faces.

I used to say I would never buy a house because I'm too lazy to keep up a property. Now I have a much better reason. Filthy elitist scum.

Lottery fantasy: Hostile buyouts of taken properties; restore them to residential/small business condition; sell/rent back to the people who used to live there; laugh at that stupid look of betrayal on those rich, botoxed faces.

That wouldn't be funny, now they've managed to sell all the properties they built at a profit for a good price and then they bought by some lunatic who rented them out again at a fair price to th original owners. Hey, they may as well go and find another poor district to buy up and sell to fatten their wallets.

The only people who would profit from that would be the contractors and land-owners. You on the other hand have just given up a substatial sum of money.

Part of me wants to make this simpler and just go ahead and give up all my rights to big corporations now, rather than have them taken from me bit by bit by the Republicans, corporate lobbists and apparently our own Supreme Court.
Except that you're not giving up your rights to "big corporations," you're losing them to GOVERNMENT regulations. The companies might end up building on the land, but they alone don't have the power to actually seize it from you, to my understanding.

And why was this law enacted, do you ask? For the public good. People wonder why I'm so hostile to the concept; this is it.

Except that you're not giving up your rights to "big corporations," you're losing them to GOVERNMENT regulations. The companies might end up building on the land, but they alone don't have the power to actually seize it from you, to my understanding.

And why was this law enacted, do you ask? For the public good. People wonder why I'm so hostile to the concept; this is it.

I believe that the Supreme Court noted that if people don't like this, the legislature has the power to change it - and stop it.

As it is, most politicians have no testicular fortitude, and can't pass gas even if they eat a gallon of baked beans. They always wait for the judiciary to rule on something, rather than pass anything with real substance.

It won't be long before slums are declared eyesores and razed to the ground all over the US.