Let’s just hope that Bush can outmaneuver the obstructionist dems and get a couple of pro-individual rights and responsibilities justices on the SC bench before his term is up.
I’ve never understood why they just didn’t rebuild on the site of the old Willys plant. If I’m not mistaken, part of it is still standing, too.
But isn’t that question at the root of many cases before the SCOTUS? [Capt Obvious] Our world is very different from that of the Framers and they didn’t exactly create a document that has every definition spelled out for all time. The Supremes often need to interpret the original intent in light of modern beliefs and mores. [/Capt Obvious]
Expenses involved in relocation are generally covered. I am not familiar with the details of a trailer park scenario, the city redevelopment people will be better able to explain things like that than I. I f you don’t like their answer, a real estate attorney will be better equipped to handle a fiscally messy situation like that. Exceptions for local ordinances might also be able to be made to make moving you more feasible. IIRC mobile homes are usually financial sinkholes. If you can get a decent buyout and use it to put a down payment on a real house you may want to seriously consider it.
I know that in cases my ex-gf worked on there is provisions to subsidize rent differentials for a period of time depending on the size of the differential.
So if you pay $400 a month in rent and the cheapest rent in the are is now $600 the city will be paying the difference for a year or so.
But we’re not talking about that school of constitutional interpretation. We’re talking about textualist (or "strict constructionists, if you want to use that term). We’re talking about how someome how adheres to that school of interpretation would characterize this ruling.
Unless, of course, those individual rights help homosexuals. In which case, no fucking way. 'Cause property rights are much more important than civil rights.
Gays HAVE civil rights.
But that is another thread.
Harborplace is a fine place to spend one’s weekend, but the jury is still out (PDF) on whether it was a good idea or a bad idea. The city demolished hundreds of homes, rent in the Inner Harbor skyrocketed. I-83 became a commuter route; more than 50% of people who work in the Inner Harbor drive there alone instead of walking or taking public transit. There’s very little “neighborhood” in the Inner Harbor. In fact, one of the chief criticisms of Harborplace is that it has created a “fantasy city” for tourists to see, where poor black people and heroin don’t exist. Police efforts become concentrated around the edges of this bubble, to protect the interests of businesses, rather than in the crime-heavy neighborhoods, to protect the interests of the people.
There are lots of good things: businesses and jobs are up. But the city has focused on this Disneyfied all-commercial “neighborhood” (because it brings in so much revenue) at the expense of the rest of the city.
This kind of large-scale radical commercial development is never purely beneficial. Even in Baltimore, where it looks like it may eventually help save the city, it’s still a very gray area in my mind. I can’t really see the city justifying tearing down several hundred (thousand?) homes to try something that might work.
Anyone who argues that the government will hold off until someone presents a plan that will work: what do you think the prospectus for Harborplace said? “This just might work”? “Probably a good idea”? No – it almost certainly said “This is a GREAT idea”.
I cannot effectively comment on the status of this system in the 50’s.
Today my questions would involve things like did grandpa otakuLoki have a business licence? Could he show any relevant legal intent to harvest the wood in question? Nowadays this process often takes YEARS, plenty of time to make arrangements for a harvest if the woods had any relevant commercial value. If he had, at least nowadays you would be eligible to compensation for loss of business just like any other business owner.
Because the plain language of the United States Constitution says “for public use”.
Next question?
Use: n. (ys)
The act of using; the application or employment of something for a purpose: with the use of a calculator; skilled in the use of the bow and arrow.
The condition or fact of being used: a chair in regular use.
The manner of using; usage: learned the proper use of power tools.
The permission, privilege, or benefit of using something: gave us the use of their summerhouse.
etc.
Seems that public “use” would also mean public “purpose”. Which is what the Supreme Court said 100 years ago too. So what’s the problem again?
I must’ve missed the post where that limit to the discussion was laid out. Not the first time. However, the Framers did leave “public use” undefined and unlimited.* True strict constructionism would not be able to get a foothold and interpretation would be required. I’m stuck with “Good process/Worrisome results.” I’m concerned about the potential for abuse but if we stopped everything that had potential for abuse not much would get done.
-
- Steve MB, IANAL but I come from a family full of 'em so NOTHING is as plain and obvious to me as it is to the Average Man on the Street. The meaning of “public use” may seem plain and obvious to you but it’s quite murky and open to interpretation to me.
I wouldn’t say that the discussion was **limitted **to that, but it was implicit in the way **Gaudere **asked how **Bricker **would characterize it. There has been an ongoing discussion in several threads about this exact topic.
What the hell are you talking about? By “classical”, do you mean from the Lyndon Johnson era? Because Thoreau and other classical liberals — including those who are around today — certainly have never supported authoritarian government actions, such as seizing land for some ill-conceived “common good”. Cliffy didn’t describe classical liberalism. He described modern Hillary “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good” Clinton liberalism. Damn. Leave it to you to come in and attempt to drive a wedge just as people like Guin, TYM, and I were agreeing on issues. You may now issue your witty retort and gloat, Mussolini style, in the ensuing adulation.
That would be just fine with me. As things stand, I think we are getting more than enough doneto us.
“Implicit?” Oh, so you want me to INTERPRET, eh? :dubious: And how masochistic is a game of What Would Bricker Do? :eek:
Then you are not following my argument all the way down the slippery slope, where “anything” means “ANYTHING” and nothing would be legal for fear of abuse.
agreed, the SC made the WRONG decision. and since our family farm is located on prime real estate in southern Maine, we’d be primed for a “for the public good” takeover thingy, friggin land developers have been salivating over our land for a long time, but we keep telling them to fuck off and leave us alone, lets hope they don’t try this shit in Maine, or i will have to start defending the land against developers
fuckin’ leeches, leave us alone…
Nope. I’d say it was the original intent of the question. 
Since I’m not a Strict Constructionist I’m not limited by your literal interpretation of the original question. 
Middle of the Road business owner here…and I think this ruling is like a hammer; it can be a good tool in the hands of wise and sensible officials (to remove obsolete, dangerous or unoccupied buildings), or it can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of desperate and greedy officials (displacing people who have kept their property in good condition)…in these days of budget shortfalls, I fear that the latter is more likely to happen at the detriment to the citizens it will displace.
The kicker is the current revenue (property tax on a house) vs. potential revenue (property tax, sales tax, license fees, other city fees, etc.) a certain property can generate and how badly the city/county needs that revenue to operate. If there is a huge gap between current and potential revenue, a desperate city council may target the property, regardless of the property’s current condition.
Let’s say someone who has had a house (3 bdrm., 2 bath0 for 30 years on an acre bought the property for $50,000 back in 1975, just off of the main street. If the property tax basis goes up 2% per year max and the tax revenue is 1% of the property tax basis to get the equation (similar to what we have in California):
(initial property value)(1.02)[sup]x/sup = property tax amount for year 1975+x.
The amounts would then be:
for year 0 (1975): $500.00
for year 1 (1976): $510.00
for year 2 (1977): $520.20
.
.
.
for year 30 (2005): $905.68 = (50,000)(1.8114)(.01),
even though the house might actually be worth in excess of $200,000. If a developer was there, the new appraised value of the new building(s) replacing the house would be easily over $500k (which in year 0, would generate at least $5000 in property tax revenue) PLUS the return from the state of sales taxes generated, city license fees and other fees generated from doing business in the city.
A one acre property that generates less than $1000 per year in the middle of a now designated commercial/industrial zone of a city that has expanded over the last thirty years, and the potential through development of a business that can MINIMALLY increase the revenue by FIVE TIMES (although 10x is more likely). Hmmmmm…what do you think these officials will do?
Well, sensible officials would leave the property owner alone and let the developer offer the owner an amount that would entice them to sell. If the owner refuses, then tough shit for the developer…move on and improvise, or look to buy and build somewhere else.
But, I fear that it’s more likely that the desperate/greedy officials would let the developer first make the offer for the owner’s property with a thinly veiled threat that if they don’t accept the “appraised value” plus “nominal enticement amount” of the property, then the officials would just go ahead and condemn the property and just pay the “appraised value” without any other enticements.
I would hate to be forcibly removed from my property and have to look elsewhere to find something similar that will suit me and my suit my wallet. It would be a better type of compensation if the property taxes generated by the new owner/developer would be sent to the previous owner on an annual basis for at least the number of years that matches the previous owners length of ownership. I’m not sure…15-30% of the new property tax be sent as a residual and the old owner is able to transfer his old tax basis over to his new property if it’s close to the sell price, or pro-rated if it’s over the sales price…for the inconveinence.
I certainly need to upgrade my single-pump pellet gun.