The Next Supreme

[shostakovich]

Hoo Boy! All the big hitters on this board agreeing on something? Watch for a dimensional space-time rift to open somewhere over the US.

BigJon
-----------------------------------------------------

Hi BigJon et al. We're in agreement about the scummy supreme court decision because we are individual homeowners and can be screwed by it.

My only qualm in the discussion is the use of "liberal" as bad guy and "conservative" as hero. I'm not sure whether the decision is a liberal one (for change) or conservative (for status quo). It's probably liberal. If so, we are all conservative on this one, as we should be.

Let me know where you think President Bush is on the decision --- with us or with the developers.
Shos

[OperaTenor]

He's on record for being for the "have more's".

[Haggis@wk]

This morning on the way to work I heard a local politician talking about how easy it will be now in the city of Arlington, TX to get the required land for the new Dallas Cowboy's stadium, now being planned.

He sounded so cheerfully that I had a chill (and trust me, it takes a lot to chill me at 06:00!!)

And again, it's the less than affluent, those with little power who will be disproportionately affected. Hyannisport will never be a target.

Out of a sense of camaraderie I was going to throw the President’s ranch in Crawford as an example but just couldn't do it with a straight face. No one, except road runners and armadillos, could ever look upon anything in Crawford with desire!

<small>[ 06-24-2005, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Haggis@wk ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

Good question Shos, and one that the President will have to be very quick on. He has got to come out firmly on property rights.

I almost hate to paraphrase a line by Bill Clinton, but "Eminent Domain" should be legal and rare.

This ruling opens a potential flood gate of ED actions across the U.S. that will be so vast that a lot of little people are going to become homeless, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

I don’t listen to Sean Hannity much, he get on my nerves, but yesterday he got it in one when he said that with Kelo the Supreme court amended the 5th Amendment from

” nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. “

To

” nor shall private property be taken for public or private use, without just compensation. “


Piq,
” Oh come on. Try. Just try!
I bet you can do it! ”

I didn’t because you guys, along with your neighbors, have some beautiful property that is close to the water and a golf course. Can’t you just imagine a high rise hotel and convention center on that piece of property? I can and I suspect the taxes would be worth a hell of a lot more to the city of San Diego than a

“collection of post WWII dwellings, averaging 50-60 years in age, in varying states of disrepair that have clearly exceed their anticipated maximum lifetime and are now worth no more than 20% of the usable property they occupy. Said dwellings are not considered earthquake proof and represent a danger to the occupants and local community, etc etc”

See much factually wrong there? It took me 30 or so seconds to come up with that and I can guarantee the lawyers will come with much better ammo.

I don’t think it would happen because I suspect there are some high powered eclectic lawyers living around you that could put up a hell of a fight. But there are other neighborhoods in San Diego that might not be so defensible, you’ve seen them.

I’m trying not to overreact to this whole thing but it really bothers me as nothing else the Court has done recently to screw with the middle class of America and I suspect that protests asides, most of us all fall in the low – upper middle class and at least a few of us go beyond that.

I have to say one of the biggest shockers was to learn that Nicole Marie is a “slum Lord” (Lordess? Lady?)

”(of several properties - I own rentals too)”

To quote Captain Renault: ”I'm shocked, shocked”

just kidding Nicole

[OperaTenor]

Should we start a letter writing campaign to the Supreme Court?

:confused:

Where to send comments to the Supremes

<small>[ 06-24-2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[barfle]

I'm not just appalled, I'm frightened yet again by how rapidly I'm seeing our liberties not being just eroded, but usurped by those in power.

I read the excerpt of the majority opinion, and it was one of the biggest cop-outs I've ever seen, and from an organization that's supposed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, I now see valid reason to seek impeachment charges against five members. Eminent Domain was never intended as an economic tool, it was intended as a way to obtain property for the public use. Even at that, its use was restricted. A city couldn't just take a block of houses and build a park. They had to go through a lot of red tape (at least they did in the circumstances I remember).

Now, I live in a pretty nice house, in a pretty nice location. It cost me a pretty penny, too, but it serves all my needs and nearly all of my wants. But with this decision, Fairfax County, VA could decide to give me $100.000 for a place I paid four times that much for, so a $1,000,000 home (that would be taxed more heavily than my place is, and therefore would "benefit the public," according to the outrageously broad interpretation of "public use" by the Supreme Court) could be built.

This is outrageous. Neither side gives a flea fart in a hurricane about human rights or the Constitution. One side is willing to trade my liberty for their security, and the other side is willing to simply steal anything they see.

[piqaboo]

Oh yeah,
We are all at risk of a "taking".
This was a majorly bad decision.

OT was commenting that it could burst the housing "bubble' (it aint a bubble if it dont burst), which would put a lot of folks upsidedown on their mortgages.Thats bad for an economy!... Makes me want to be a renter, almost.

Got any places empty, SL-Nicole?

[Nicole Marie]

Originally posted by Haggis@wk:


I have to say one of the biggest shockers was to learn that Nicole Marie is a “slum Lord” (Lordess? Lady?)

”(of several properties - I own rentals too)”

just kidding Nicole

Haggis,

Funny but not really. The property I own is in the neighborhood I live in. I REALLY HATE slumlords; they give all of us bad names. Since I live in the area that I own, I check and maintain the property every day, garden, mow the lawns etc. It's only in MY best interest. I can charge more in rent, and my property value is higher because my rentals are in excellent condition.

I also don't want fines from my town. My town will fine you if the land is not in "orderly condition". I can get fined for a ratty lawn, junk in the yard, etc. Some say my town is out of control with fines on property owners but I welcome it... it forces people to keep up their property. You won't see a house with paint peeling, garbage, sagging porches etc. It's why I live there and why I own rentals.

Now if the government will just keep its eye out of my neighborhood

[Shapley]

Nicole,

RE:Now if the government will just keep its eye out of my neighborhood

Then who would you have to levy the fines for "disorderly condition" of the properties?

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Piq-

I agree with you on the "a lot of folks upside-down on their mortgages. Thats bad for an economy!... "

Too many people who should never have been able to be a homeowner became one in the recent housing market. Loans were given to anyone and people who should have never been able to afford $300,000 or above (in my town at least) did.

Now we are seeing, in my area, people selling fast. They have not been able to maintain properties because all their money was going to the mortgage. They were not able to put 20% down (industry recommendation to put you in a better mortgage bracket) and were put into a mortgage brackets that have rolling interest rates. Now the rates are rising and they are defaulting on loans.

Also some never accounted for property taxes. As I said earlier in my town, assessment on a home with a town assessment (not real estate) of $160,000 or less will owe $5000 in property taxes. (The town assessment on a home of $160,000 or less is the real estate equivalent of $350,000 to $400,000 - there are no homes that sell for less then $300,000 in my town - some new home owners never did their homework before they bought.) A few places in my area went on the market real quick when the tax bills were sent out. It's sad. Some folks just should not buy and this market makes people think everyone can own when it's not true.

Now people are defaulting and as Piq said, it makes for a bad economy.

[Haggis@wk]

So now, the government has no business in your bedroom (unless you're growing marijuana), but they can drive a bulldozer right through it?

[Haggis@wk]

A friend emailed me.


”You realize that churches are private property don’t you?

This has got to be a godsend for towns and cities that have been stymied for years in their attempts to shut-down any businesses, corporations, or private groups of which they disapprove. Dirty book stores, private gun ranges, strip clubs, airfields, RV tracts, hunting preserves, fishing resources, newspapers, and that weird little minority religious congregation that no one in town likes or understands -- all are now fair targets for seizure and closure "for the economic benefit of the people."

It’s only going to get worse.

The FBI is investigating some local politicians in Dallas for being in the pockets of developers, somehow I think it’s about to get worse.

If developers now trump private property rights what trumps developers???

Authorities are on the lookout for pistil-packing activists who apparently planted endangered wildflowers in order to block a housing development.


Hmmm, there WERE some new plants in Piq’s and OT’s backyard that they seemed very anxious to succeed

[OperaTenor]

Rats! Busted.

[piqaboo]

"State officials launched a criminal investigation last week to determine who planted the wildflower, listed by the state and federal governments as endangered, which can present major obstacles to development."

Now, when did it become illegal to transplant wildflowers? :confused:

[Shapley]

Piq,

It would have been illegal to dig up the endangered wildflowers wherever they originally were growing.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

I don't get to say this often:

Shap's right.

[piqaboo]

good point.
What if that endangered plant is propagating in my backyard, with my encouragement? Am I allowed to plant those seeds elsewhere?

[Shapley]

OT,

I'm printing that out to frame it!

Piq,

I'm not sure what the endangered species acts says about seeds. Plus you have state laws dealing with endangered species as well.

I've been using the endangered plant excuse to get out of mowing the lawn, but the wife's not buying it.

V/R
Shapley

[piqaboo]

Shap, we got state laws dealing with toenail clippings.

[OperaTenor]

Hey Shap,

Don't let it get to your head.

:p

PS. Just think, someday you may feel inclined to say I'm right about something!