Force me to sell

[DougM]

 In the past history of our country one of the most basic things has been home owner ship
Now that has been changed by Judges
that have lost contact with the people
Most of us would say that if they come to my door and tell me to move I will fight them BUT
we all know that if You do so YOUR in a world of hurt..

REPUBLICANS.........DEMOCARTS............INDEPENDENTS

Land owners should ALL get mad as **** and say I am not going to take it any more

THIS IS WRONG

Doug M /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[r0GuE]

Who owns your house? You?... Try not paying your property tax. First you'll get letters. Then they'll come for you. If you stay inside and lock the door, they'll break it down. If you try to defend yourself, they'll kill you.

Therefore: The Govt owns your house,… and if you miss your "rent-tax" they will evict or kill you.

If they decide to raise the rent, now they can evict you. It has happened in Pittsburgh a dozen times in as many years. The Govt decides that the reason the city is stagnate is NOT that taxes are too high, but that they don't have a Lazarus store. They evict businesses that SOMEHOW have survived the horrible taxes and stayed profitable for decades. They Bulldoze and then fund the construction of a fancy dept store. And two years later, the store closes because nobody wants to go downtown and pay $13 to park and shop at the fancy Govt funded dept store.

Common sense is dead boys, stop the CPR. I've faced the facts. The Govt has owned my house before I even bought it, they will own it while I "own" it. And they'll get it when I'm dead.

The czars in black robes have spoken, so it shall be.

 

[Gatorboy]

There is another thread on this topic: Forced sale of your real estate

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Doug, while I agree wholeheartedly with you, I think that much of this issue has been blown out of proportion.

The Supreme Court made a very narrow ruling that most people misunderstand. The Supreme Court said that it would not stop states from forcing you to sell. Basically the Supreme Court said that this is a "state's rights" issues not a "federal rights" issue. Further, the ruling was narrowed even more when they stated that IF a state had the ability to force you to sell, they could only do so IF the new owner paid higher property taxes.

The reason this is blown out of proportion is that MANY states already have laws on their books, or wording in their state constitution that forbids a state from forcing you to sell for the purpose of transferring the land to another private owner.

So while SOME states may not protect their citizens land, many already do. And legislators in some of the states that do not have protection laws have already come out to say they will introduce such laws to provide protection. I think land ownership is a basic right. It appears the laws will be changing to prevent siezure of land.

I think that this is well beyond politics, especially since those of us here on TBN have far more land than the average or typical US citizen, however, as I stated early in post, I think this ruling was misunderstood and is overblown.

 

[DougM]

Gatorboy
Yes there is another grouping of notes about this BUT does that mean ????/ I can not chat about it also ??????????????
If that is the case then most of the post should be closed

DougM

 

[8NTX]

The other thread got way too political, with someone insulting the President, etc. So it was closed. Maybe we can continue the discussion here without the nastiness. This IS an important issue that the typical tractor user / property owner here should be concerned about.

 

[DannyD]

My apologies to the board, members and management. I did not mean to get the thread closed, just to include all those responsible for this action. I have written my governor, senators, and congressmen about this asking that Indiana adopt legislation to prevent this from happening.

 

[Junkman]

If the city government as in this last case has a better use for the land than you are presently using the land for, and that better use will provide more tax dollars, then they can seize it and sell it to the person/corporation that they feel will put the land to better use. That is what this ruling means. I can't wait till the "better use" is a few years old and another developer comes along with the same idea and gets the city to take the land a second time. That is when this decisions ultimate problems will come home to roost. As far as I am concerned, it is stealing made legal.
I would have rather have seen a law that says land can be taxed at its fair use value than this ruling, but that wasn't the question. If land is taxed at its fair use value, the person with a 1 acre lot would pay the same taxes as the people with million dollar houses on a 1 acre lot would be paying. You would be taxed on the land use value, not the improvement on the land. That would be the fair way, since it is the people that put the land to the best use that cause the increase of value of the surrounding land. This would keep land that is presently vacant for speculation value paying taxes as if it were being used. Land speculators wouldn't like this, but it would benefit the entire community and resolve the unfair taxation problem. Just because I can afford a bigger house, doesn't mean that I should be subsidizing the tax system to a larger degree.
Final thought.......... this isn't a political discussion, this is a economics discussion....

 

[Spiffy]

I agree this is definitely a valid topic, and hope this thread continuous in a civilized mannor. BTW, Bird [and the rest of the moderators too] I think you did an excellant job closing the other thread when you did, but allowing the discussion until it got out of hand.

Anyway, Bob I definitely agree on your interpretation of the justices majority opinion, but as it leaves so many oportunities for abuse and [despite the opinion really being a states rights issue] does set somewhat of a precident, so I only find limited solace in the intended interpretation.

I really think (ohh boy, I really hope I'm not pouring rain on the slippery slope), that what really scares everyone here is how this further reflects our Federal officials in general [every branch and not even party related]:

increasingly more willing to trample indiviual rights, or specific to TBN, trample a few country boys for the "good of the city." (just why is it that all these city folk then try to escape the city every weekend: camping, hunting or whatever?!) /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Ozarker]

There is nothing "narrow" about this decision. Most states had/have laws governing the seizure of land based on the well established Constitutional rule that land can only be taken for public use. This decision tells them that they are now free to take land for whatever reason they can dream up.

Stand by for changes to state laws.