A Sad Day for the Poor

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by TheMidnight12AM, Jun 24, 2005.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    This isn't a power that governments haven't had before. They can't just take land and hand it over to developers. But you can't develop any land for any purpose without development corporations. This law is intended to provide land as a part of a comprehensive development scheme.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TheMidnight12AM The Midnight Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    Unfortunately this is not a law, it's a court ruling. As such, it has far broader implications than a well-crafted law would, and cities can give private property to developers, be it private or public use.

    Fortunately, the city I am living in now is considering an ordinance banning the use of that power for private developers.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Golgo 13 The Professional Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    Yeah, but all this is being used for is to build more sprawling nonsense that only works in the context of cheap oil and the easy motoring public and not actually freeing up some open space, making walkable communities, access to agriculture land, or anything like that which we'll be needing.

    They'll bulldoze the area, you'll get to see what the dirt looks like beneath it for a whole minute, then they'll pave the thing right back over and build more of that lovely sprawl we've become so fond of.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    And if they wanted to do something besides sprawl, they would need this emminent domain power as well. Soon, sprawl will no longer be economical.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    To make walkable communities, not just exclusive communities, cities need more higher density housing that incorporates shopping and industry.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Would y'all feel the same about this new ruling if the city took the land and erected low-income housing for the city's poor? ...or for some other use to assist the poor and the underprivileged?

    Baron Max
     
  10. baumgarten fuck the man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,611
    As long as the land goes to a private company, it's the same deal as now. On the other hand, if the state is turning it into a public land and merely hiring a contractor to build on it, that's normal eminent domain.

    I was never happy with the concept of eminent domain to begin with, but I'm an anarchist. *shrug*
     
  11. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Dwayne, what the hell are you talking about? Could you please explain your post a bit more indepth for me? I don't think, as it is, that it makes much sense.

    Baron Max
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    hell yeah, dawg
     
  14. TheMidnight12AM The Midnight Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    Low income housing would be a public service sponsored by the city and covered under the old eminent domain rules. I'm referring to taking the land of the poor (or middle class) and turning it into something for upscale elites, like an office complex or shopping mall. Worse yet, big box retailers can move in practically anywhere they desire and clog up traffic in once-safe residential neighborhoods.
     
  15. Naomi [oxiglycodextrosium] Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    186
    I can just smell Walmart, McDonalds', Target, Circuit City, Blockbusters, Best Buy, Lowe's, Costco and all those other entities dripping saliva out there.

    Boy will they be going to town on those small businesses and homes.

    GOING TO TOWN. Get it? Ahahahahahhhhhaa.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    But, the people in control of development plans can be voted out quite easily if the people don't like what they are doing. They need to be able to justify their use of the land.
     
  17. TheMidnight12AM The Midnight Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    It's too late to get your land back if you have to wait until after they kick you off to vote them out of office.
     
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Maybe that's why it is good to be involved in local politics.
     
  19. TheMidnight12AM The Midnight Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    Never said it wasn't, but being involved in local politics (unless you're actually a politician) won't stop a city council from razing your home for the next Best Buy if they think it will give them more money.
     
  20. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    The city of Arlington, Texas is planning to exercise eminent domain against some homeowners this very night ....so they can build a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys football team. As I understand it, the stadium will be owned by BOTH the Dallas Cowboys and the city of Arlington.

    The homeowners don't want to leave, but ...well, tough shit, huh?

    Baron Max
     
  21. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  22. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    I had a nice six or eight month period where I was able to think of Bush as a simple variable instead of as a human being. I felt less threatened.
    This ruling is the first thing that made me feel unable to rely on this simple strategy, it is shit.
    And it has everything to do with the political climate in the country, and the "mandate" we have for business interests to take precedence over human interests - don't say Bush isn't a huge proponent of this mindset or you are retarded.

    Anyone who is forced to leave their home for anything other than justifiable security interests should be paid double the value, for incidental damages to the person's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
    If the developer can't pay, and take the hit out of their profits, no deal.
    Plase, Spidergoat, you know that this power won't be used for the public welfare. Maybe once in a while, but not enough to justify this.
     
  23. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    This is utterly corrupt. Now you can see that the Supreme Court is corrupt, too. If you think it's not, you have too god-damned much money or are too god-damned greedy. This puts the interests of big business, corporate America and the extremely wealthy ahead of the individual human rights of Americans, just like every god-damned thing this President and Congress have passed since Bush's second term started. This includes tort "reform" (your ability to sue if you are abused), bankruptcy "reform," death tax "repeal" and others I can't even remember off the top of my head. I promised my mom this kind of shit would happen if this moron Bush got re-elected. Republicans Rock!!! (Fuck the Poor and Disenfranchised!!!!!!!!)
     

Share This Page