Supreme Court Ruling = New Amerika

[SLCPUNK]

Amazing. The individual rights are being taken away nice and slow in this country. While everybody is wondering if MJ touched that boy, or where the missing girl is in Aruba, the real stories slipping right by us.

Today the Supreme court ruled that a private property can be "taken away" (given fair market value) if the local government finds that the space can be used for 'public good'. To break it down in simple terms: Your family has owned a home for 45 yrs, now a developer wants to put in a highrise condo (the local government gets more tax revenue for this) or shopping center, they can rule that you have to give it up. Yea, you'll get paid for it, but you have no choice in the matter. You'll be offered fair market value for your home and asked to start packing.

This is amazing to me that this can happen in this country. It comes down to dollars and cents. If the city feels they can receive more tax money from a shopping center or gym, then you lose your home and get to move. What in the fuck is this?!?!?

Where are our leaders when this is happening? I can't believe this is happening in America! 


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people?s homes and businesses ? even against their will ? for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

The 5-4 ruling ? assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O?Connor as handing ?disproportionate influence and power? to the well-heeled ? represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.

Those residents argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to ?just compensation? for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

?It?s a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,? said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. ?I won?t be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word

[Izzy]

Amazing. The individual rights are being taken away nice and slow in this country. While everybody is wondering if MJ touched that boy, or where the missing girl is in Aruba, the real stories slipping right by us.

Today the Supreme court ruled that a private property can be "taken away" (given fair market value) if the local government finds that the space can be used for 'public good'. To break it down in simple terms: Your family has owned a home for 45 yrs, now a developer wants to put in a highrise condo (the local government gets more tax revenue for this) or shopping center, they can rule that you have to give it up. Yea, you'll get paid for it, but you have no choice in the matter. You'll be offered fair market value for your home and asked to start packing.

This is amazing to me that this can happen in this country. It comes down to dollars and cents. If the city feels they can receive more tax money from a shopping center or gym, then you lose your home and get to move. What in the fuck is this?!?!?

The government over here has been able to issue forced requisition orders for well - decades i imagine

I wouldn't worry too much about it, all governments have the power to do what they will - if they want to do it, then they can twist some existing rule or another to get there

They won't bulldoze housing because thats just bad PR....

[Kujo]

As if that isn't bad enough, there's this story as well:

European Union Decision on Official Language


The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the"k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen ve vil tak over ze vorld!

[GnRNightrain]

The Supreme Court has been doing this for decades: writing in those rights that they think society should have, and taking away those that they dont think are necessary.  Most people like it until it hits home.  This case is a clear example of the flaws in the modern method of interpretation used by all of the liberal justices on the bench.  This is exactly why we need originalist judges.  This term has again showed the importance of the Supreme Court and the need to choose judges that will refrain from legislating from the bench.

[Izzy]

As if that isn't bad enough, there's this story as well:

European Union Decision on Official Language


The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the"k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen ve vil tak over ze vorld!

Lol - don't even post jokes like that - the EU makes my blood boil, hideously corrupt at all levels and seemingly working for its agenda alone - the laws it brings in are just....well, baflfing

Its delightful to see it all falling to bits though - by pushing for Britain to drop its veto we will have to be forced out, horrah! Then we can have idiots in London ruin our lives instead of idiots in Brussels

[Axls Locomotive]

Then we can have idiots in London ruin our lives instead of idiots in Brussels

oh what joy

isnt it funny how Belgium is famous for nothing except chocolate...

[SLCPUNK]

The Supreme Court has been doing this for decades: writing in those rights that they think society should have, and taking away those that they dont think are necessary.? Most people like it until it hits home.? This case is a clear example of the flaws in the modern method of interpretation used by all of the liberal justices on the bench.? This is exactly why we need originalist judges.? This term has again showed the importance of the Supreme Court and the need to choose judges that will refrain from legislating from the bench.

Haha........

"Liberal" = "Not as conservative".

Ginsberg and Bryer are the only Democrats on the SC.

I swear.....you're the archetype for liberalphobia
*************



Watch the American dream slip away...to make room for another walmart!!!

[N.I.B]

how the fuck can America get away with this? This is ridiculus, politics is so fucked up now.

[GnRNightrain]

The Supreme Court has been doing this for decades: writing in those rights that they think society should have, and taking away those that they dont think are necessary.? Most people like it until it hits home.? This case is a clear example of the flaws in the modern method of interpretation used by all of the liberal justices on the bench.? This is exactly why we need originalist judges.? This term has again showed the importance of the Supreme Court and the need to choose judges that will refrain from legislating from the bench.

Haha........

"Liberal" = "Not as conservative".

Ginsberg and Bryer are the only Democrats on the SC.

I swear.....you're the archetype for liberalphobia
*************



Watch the American dream slip away...to make room for another walmart!!!

I sure you dont follow the Supreme Court too much SLC.  However, if you did you would notice that the opinion was written by Stevens (liberal) and joined by Breyer (liberal), Ginsburg (liberal), Souther (liberal), and Kennedy (moderate at best.  Author of Lawrence v. Texas, and the recent Roper, the recent death penalty case).

This opinion was purely done by the liberals on the court.  I dont care who they were appointed by, it doesnt mean they are non-democrats.  Futhermore, those that were appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans were appointed at a time when the Senate did not do the same questioning that is present today.  It doesnt matter who appointed the people, but simply how they decide their cases and what philosphies they use.

[2NaFish]

can't let piffling things like houses get in the way of progress.

PROGRESS RULES ALL.

[SLCPUNK]

Why do you lie so?

Like I said "Liberalphobia".........

I said your definition of liberal = not as conservative.

You need to have your head checked.

The same liberal supreme court that threw the election to Bush?

The same one that gave the nod for the Paula Jones investigation?

That liberal SC?

Kennedy is a republican who was appointed by Reagan

Stevens is a Republican

Souter is Republican who was appointed by Bush

Just for starters............

**********

Bottom line is that this country is headed in the wrong direction when this kind of shit happens. I only see two Dems on that Supreme court. If you want to lie, or redefine what a liberal is to suit your argument, do it with somebody else. I won't accept that nutty argument.

This is coming from the same guy who said the left wing media was protecting Clinton by focusing on the BJ......?

Must have been that damn liberal republican media machine going after Clinton huh?

*********

When the government, with a conservative white house and supreme court, decides that corporations are more important than people, we are headed down the tubes. No suprise, since we are killing our kids overseas for corporate interests, lets bulldoze them down for the same reason: MONEY.

Glad I didn't buy any bugalows near downtown!!!

[pilferk]

I have a unique perspective on this case because I happen to LIVE in the state in which it's taking place.? I've had the opportunity to follow it from the very begining and it's been very interesting to watch the courts dance around this issue.

Here's the problem:? The 5th ammendment of our constitution allows for eminent domain....and it does so without giving specific definition of what "public use" is.? Up until this decision, most people have taken public use to mean some sort of project that would contribute to the public good and use (schools, roads, even prisons or the elimination of urban blight).? All the lower courts, without specific direction, were pretty unwilling to actually make a definitive ruling one way or the other.? Even the ones that did acknowledged that, given the lack of specific definition of "public use", their decisions were tentative at best.? This case seemed destined for the Supremes since it's inception.? So, it was left up to the Supremes to define, as has been the case so many time, a term in our constitution that was broadly used but never defined.? And they chose to side with "big government/business", right along party lines.

Giving governement the ability to annex personal property simply because the resultant structure might provide a better/larger source of tax revenue is absurd.? Yet, that's exactly the reasoning behind the majority decision...that the citys and towns have the best idea of how to plan the development of their particular town or city.? The fact that it profits an independant developer actually did little to influence or factor into the majorities decision (it seemed to be largely ignored by them, and taken up by those supporting the dissenting opinion).? That, in and of itself, is quite telling.

So, the question is, given this decision, what's to stop the government from bulldozing that section of tract housing (ie: affordable housing) to make way for a group of luxury condos?? Or to allow a large retailer or factory to take over the tract.? The answer is, now, nothing.? And that's scary.? ?Because those that will get taken advantage of will be those that can least afford to defend themselves, legally.? The SC has struck an unbelievable blow to personal rights, freedom, and the ability to own property.? They've also now given the local governments a VERY direct way to control and increase their tax revenue, with no real checks and balances attached to it.? Essentially, they've given them free reign to do as they please when it comes to lining their own pockets.? And that, too, is very scary.

[SLCPUNK]

So, the question is, given this decision, what's to stop the government from bulldozing that section of tract housing (ie: affordable housing) to make way for a group of luxury condos?  Or to allow a large retailer or factory to take over the tract.  The answer is, now, nothing.  And that's scary.   Because those that will get taken advantage of will be those that can least afford to defend themselves, legally.  The SC has struck an unbelievable blow to personal rights, freedom, and the ability to own property.  They've also now given the local governments a VERY direct way to control and increase their tax revenue, with no real checks and balances attached to it.  Essentially, they've given them free reign to do as they please when it comes to lining their own pockets.  And that, too, is very scary.

I saw an article about this a while back. They were older homes (nice bungalow styles, well kept) that the city (North Carolina I think) wanted to tear down to build high end condos. The people beat the city back then, but now, they are out in the wind.

In Tampa there is a huge amount of luxury townhomes going up. They are going up everywhere around the trendy area, mostly filled with older homes. I like the new townhomes with the tile roofs among the older homes. It looks great. You often will see big signs sitting in front of homes the are going to demo for these new Townhomes to go up "Future site of X Luxury THs". This is different because the owner has been offered a price and the owner has accepted. Probably making a decent chunk of change.

Now, these corporate builders can come in and just claim the land. Tax cap on property is something around 2% a year. So the property may be worth 350k, owner paying on 120k since they have been there so long. Now the new luxury TH goes in and they have four units each worth 350k each. New tax asessed at 7-9k per unit (just for example). Hmmmm....who is the city going to side with?

It is a damn shame for America. You can try to blame liberals, conservatives, whatever, but the bottom line is BOTH PARTIES are whores of the big corporations.

It's all about money.

[GnRNightrain]

I dont know why Im responding to this, you obviously have ZERO knowledge on the Supreme Court.  There are very few things I know a lot about, but this is one of them.

Why do you lie so?

I notice how you never directly respond to quotes that I make.  It sure makes much harder to address your "lie" accusations directly.  I have noticed for sometime that this is one of your tactics.

Like I said "Liberalphobia".........

Call it what you want, I refer to them as liberals because that is basically how people understand things: liberal vs. conservative.  If you would like I could call them "living constitutionalists."  If you ask anyone they would call them liberals.

I said your definition of liberal = not as conservative.

No, it means those that interpret the Constitution by liberal jurisprudence philosophy.

You need to have your head checked.

OK   I think it is easier to refer to things on the political spectrum from liberal to conservative.  What exactly is a Democrat and what exactly is a Republican?  I think referring to them on the political scale is much more accurate.

The same liberal supreme court that threw the election to Bush?

I dont think they threw it to him.  Besides that is misleading.  I doubt you have actually ever read Bush v. Gore, so starting in on a conversation on it is a waste of time.

The same one that gave the nod for the Paula Jones investigation?

You think President's should be absolutely immune from suit for acts they did before their presidency?  Besides, a unanimous court, consisting of half of Nixon appointees, blocked his attempt to prevent handing over the WH tapes.  You examples prove my point that you have no knowledge in this area.

That liberal SC?

Well, I dont know if I would say it is liberal.  I would say it is split: 3 conservatives, 4 liberals, and 2 moderates.  Whatever side the moderates choose decides the case.  Both moderates interpret the Constitution all over the board, and in some of the big decisions have taken the liberal stance of re-writing the Constitution.

Kennedy is a republican who was appointed by Reagan

Of course you didnt address my point about how judicial confirmations have changed.  Of course, you never address my points.  He was the third pick by Reagan against a Senate that rejected one nominee, and destroyed another.  The liberal senate would not let anyone even remotely conservative in.

Stevens is a Republican

This is the most ridiculous of them all.  Just because someone was appointed by a Republican does not make them one.  He is not, nor ever was a Republican.  In fact, he is probably the most liberal member of the Court.  Do your homework.

Souter is Republican who was appointed by Bush

Again, appointed by a Republican, but clearly not a Repubublican.  His judicial philosophy is also way out to the left.  He was an uknown when appointed, and Bush has considered him his biggest mistake in office.  If you knew anything about the confirmation process you would know that most of these appointments are of people where little is known about them.  Therefore, they are big question marks.  Otherwise they get ridiculed in the senate.

Bottom line is that this country is headed in the wrong direction when this kind of shit happens. I only see two Dems on that Supreme court. If you want to lie, or redefine what a liberal is to suit your argument, do it with somebody else. I won't accept that nutty argument.

You are correct in that there are two members of the Supreme Court appointed by Dems, but that means nothing.  They are all seen as liberals, and even you could figure this out if you did a quick google search.

This is coming from the same guy who said the left wing media was protecting Clinton by focusing on the BJ......?

?Not sure where this comes from?

When the government, with a conservative white house and supreme court, decides that corporations are more important than people, we are headed down the tubes. No suprise, since we are killing our kids overseas for corporate interests, lets bulldoze them down for the same reason: MONEY.

Glad I didn't buy any bugalows near downtown!!!

I suggest you read the opinion.  You will see that the big Conservatives all opposed this.  The big liberals were the ones that voted for it.

[SLCPUNK]

No, it means those that interpret the Constitution by liberal jurisprudence philosophy.

Right, so you can spin anything the way you see fit. You don't like something then you label it "liberal", even if the person making the choice is Republican and appointed by Reagan or Bush.

Well, I dont know if I would say it is liberal.  I would say it is split: 3 conservatives, 4 liberals, and 2 moderates.  Whatever side the moderates choose decides the case.  Both moderates interpret the Constitution all over the board, and in some of the big decisions have taken the liberal stance of re-writing the Constitution.

2 Dems..........

The remainder of your post is just a spoke on the wheel of your bullshit and will be disregarded.

Do you ever get tired of being so full of shit?

Facts are facts area facts. You can take somebody who is a Conservative and then twist it around "Well what is a conservative anyway...lets look at that." It's all hogwash...and so is most of the crap you say.

You have to look no further than Iraq to see that.

Good luck in life, you are going to need it.

[GnRNightrain]

You continue to respond to nothing directly.  Is it that hard for you to figure out that just because one is appointed by a Republican doesnt mean that they are conservative?  You cant understand the most basic things.  Would you call William Brennan a Conservative?  You sit and criticize the opinion, yet you have no understanding of the judicial reasoning that is used to get to those decisions.  Like most of America, you are ignorant about the Supreme Court.  You look at the result instead of the reasoning they use to get to their opinions.  Its kind of hard to bitch then when they give you decisions that you dont like.

The remainder of your post is just a spoke on the wheel of your bullshit and will be disregarded.

CODE FOR: I have no knowledge in this area, and I am out of my safety zone.  Thus, I wont try to respond to anything directly.

Do you ever get tired of being so full of shit?

Pot . . . meet black

Facts are facts area facts. You can take somebody who is a Conservative and then twist it around "Well what is a conservative anyway...lets look at that." It's all hogwash...and so is most of the crap you say.

for someone that is against labels, you would think that you would rather someone be labeled in a narrower way (liberal, conservative) versus a broader way (republican, conservative).

You have to look no further than Iraq to see that.

For someone that constantly bitches against people talk shit about those that against the war, you sure arent too tolerant of different view points.

Good luck in life, you are going to need it.

Thanks, Im doing fine.  If Im like you are at your age, then Ill need some help.  I have a girlfriend I love, a job I love, a dog I love, and I live in what I think is the nicest part of the United States.  If that is luck that got me here, then give me more of it.

[SLCPUNK]

This case is a clear example of the flaws in the modern method of interpretation used by all of the liberal justices on the bench.?

What exactly is a Democrat and what exactly is a Republican? I think referring to them on the political scale is much more accurate.

Here is where your argument is flawed and why I am tired of talking to you.

In the first post you claim it's the liberal judges fault.

Then in the next post (after pointing out that there are only two Democrats on the Supreme court), you start blurring the lines where one become the other, in order to back up your point.

Now if you claim that it's a liberal judge that did this on one hand, you are a hypocrite to turn around and claim that we must now define them on a "political scale" (rather then what they are registered) when it's time to get down to facts.

Sounds like big pile of poo if you ask me. The ones appointed by Republicans are registered Republicans. So you can try to muddy the argument and speak down to me, but it does take away from the fact that you are full of shit. Period.

********

The rest of your last post was not suprise and the usual of how you operate. When somebody gets tired of listening to your immature and ludicrious posts, you try to draw them back in by childish attacks. Try it with somebody else.

Give me somebody who is honest (with themselves more than anything) and I'll talk shop all day long. If you really look at Supreme court with only two Dems and claim it's the liberals who passed this bill, you are not a rational person.

As far as your attacking my knowledge, you know zero about me. Nada, zip, zilch. I notice that is the theme of your posts, they are usually full of insults and low blows. If you must know I have a brother who is a judge, another who is a lawyer and family that has worked in foreign embassys around the world. I grew up with a strong understanding of military, law, and politics, and continue to learn more everyday.

You think because you are in (are you?) in Law school, you can talk to me in such a way to try and degrade me? This is a sign of a boy who wears his insecurities on his sleave and knows of no other way to attack his opponent. I have friends in all walks of life: I know carpenters, doctors, real estate investors, lawyers, teachers, judges...a bit of everybody really. And none of them would talk to anybody in such a way that they disagreed with. They understand that it would only make them look like an ass to speak down to another person like that. My friend who is a lawyer hates shit like that. She is down to earth, no ego, and works hard. She worked hard to get where she is, and doesn't think she can talk to anybody like that.

So while you sit in school (still not a lawyer or anything other than a student) you should remember that you only show like a snot-nosed kid to speak down to others in such a way. Cocky, stubborn, and no class is what comes off.

Anyway, go study, and don't think you have any reason to speak to me, or anybody else in such a rude manner.

[GnRNightrain]

Here is where your argument is flawed and why I am tired of talking to you.

In the first post you claim it's the liberal judges fault.

Then in the next post (after pointing out that there are only two Democrats on the Supreme court), you start blurring the lines where one become the other, in order to back up your point.

Now if you claim that it's a liberal judge that did this on one hand, you are a hypocrite to turn around and claim that we must now define them on a "political scale" (rather then what they are registered) when it's time to get down to facts.

Im sorry SLC, but if you take a look at how the process works it is evident that who someone was appointed by isnt the clearest indication of where they stand on the political scale.? Besids, judicial philosophy and political philosophy arent always the same thing.? Im not blurring lines at all, Im simply trying the explain how it works.? If it is unclear, then Im sorry.? But not everything is dem vs. rep.

Sounds like big pile of poo if you ask me. The ones appointed by Republicans are registered Republicans. So you can try to muddy the argument and speak down to me, but it does take away from the fact that you are full of shit. Period.

Talk about personal attacks.? This is about the 5th post in a row where you have said this.

The rest of your last post was not suprise and the usual of how you operate. When somebody gets tired of listening to your immature and ludicrious posts, you try to draw them back in by childish attacks. Try it with somebody else.

I only attack in tesponse to the attacks by others.? In this case, you have been attacking me for quite sometime.? "You are full of shit," "good luck in life you are going to need it."

Give me somebody who is honest (with themselves more than anything) and I'll talk shop all day long. If you really look at Supreme court with only two Dems and claim it's the liberals who passed this bill, you are not a rational person.

Im sorry SLC, but if you look at the supreme court and dont call souter, beyer, ginsberg, and stevens liberals then you have no clue what you are talking about.? Google it, its that easy.? Ask your lawyer friends.

As far as your attacking my knowledge, you know zero about me. Nada, zip, zilch. I notice that is the theme of your posts, they are usually full of insults and low blows. If you must know I have a brother who is a judge, another who is a lawyer and family that has worked in foreign embassys around the world. I grew up with a strong understanding of military, law, and politics, and continue to learn more everyday.

Playing the victim after you attack me first.? Funny.

You think because you are in (are you?) in Law school, you can talk to me in such a way to try and degrade me?

Not trying to degrade you, just saying that this is one area where it is clear that you know nothing about based on your posts.? I can say that objectively.? I dont know what you achieved in your life, nor how happy you are.? But I was referring to the fact that you seem bitter.? I sure hope Im not as bitter at your age.

This is a sign of a boy who wears his insecurities on his sleave and knows of no other way to attack his opponent. I have friends in all walks of life: I know carpenters, doctors, real estate investors, lawyers, teachers, judges...a bit of everybody really. And none of them would talk to anybody in such a way that they disagreed with. They understand that it would only make them look like an ass to speak down to another person like that. My friend who is a lawyer hates shit like that. She is down to earth, no ego, and works hard. She worked hard to get where she is, and doesn't think she can talk to anybody like that.

Thats great.? SLC you do exactly what you complain of me doing.? Before you sit and complain about somemone being condescending, talking to people that disagree with them, ego, etc, I suggest you look in the mirror.? Every attack I ever use at you is in response to something you say.? THis thread is no different.? You at least used to respond to quotes directly.? Now you have resorted to little paragraphs where you say that Im full of shit, and I dont know what Im talking about.? Then you throw in a few other attacks.? Im not sure how else to respond to that.? When you quit posting about substance, it results in this crap.? Your right though, I shouldnt have lowered myself.

So while you sit in school (still not a lawyer or anything other than a student) you should remember that you only show like a snot-nosed kid to speak down to others in such a way. Cocky, stubborn, and no class is what comes off.

Again, you know nothing about me.? So I suggest you read your whole leture about not presuming you know about the other person.? It is clear from this post that you know nothing about me.? Anyway, I would call you just as stubborn and cocky.

Anyway, go study, and don't think you have any reason to speak to me, or anybody else in such a rude manner.

Haha.? I suggest walk the walk.? Dont sit here and lecture me about things that you do yourself.? You are extremely rude on this board to anyone that disagrees with you.? Im sorry, but you are no victim.

[BigCombo]

Back to the original topic...Does anyone actually agree with this decision.  The only winners here are the city who gets more property tax revenue and the builders of the office building.  It's not like tearing down these homes is greater good for the population.  If they planned to put in some kind of mass transporation system I could see tearing down private property, but this is ridiculous and is against every America supposely stands for.

[SLCPUNK]

Back to the original topic...Does anyone actually agree with this decision.? The only winners here are the city who gets more property tax revenue and the builders of the office building.? It's not like tearing down these homes is greater good for the population.? If they planned to put in some kind of mass transporation system I could see tearing down private property, but this is ridiculous and is against every America supposely stands for.

No, the decision is a fatal blow to America IMHO.

Nothing gets solved if the argument is taken down to the level of finger pointing. That is what government prefers us to do anyway. I believe both sides are whores for? big coporations anyway. (Some posters want to stir the pot and sidetrack the discussion too).


It really is scary, because owning a home, means something totally different now. You could really get left holding the bag. Who defines "fair market"?

If I buy land as an investment to sell 10 yrs down the road, and a developer sees that he wants it, I would get what I paid for it at that time. Not the appraised value through appreciation. Same with a home. If my home balloons up to have 150k equity and a builder wants the land, guess who just lost 150k ?

A shame for the USA is damn right.

People are too busy watching MJ, and sports to really understand the impact of all this.

Tearing down these homes is for the greater good of the local governments and big busineses. That is it. The people get brushed aside with this.

Very very upsetting.