Force me to sell

[bczoom]

Here is an article on another case where this is happening in St. Loius.

 

[MossRoad]

You're preaching to the choir. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I live near the airport in our home town. They are taking 400 houses to expand the runway. Only problem is, they only need about 20 to expand the runway. The rest of the land will be sold to private companies that the airport authority claims are beating down the door to get land with access to the airport for air freight purposes. They are doing it because they say the companies will provide jobs and pay taxes, etc... I.E. It is for the betterment of society that we kick out 400 families so 2000 people can have jobs in businessses that do not yet exist. Sort of a build it and they will come attitude.

Anywho, back on subject... HEY! That kangaroo is hopping around on land that was taken with emminent domain back in the 70s to provide an industrial park with the same intentions. The lots are still vacant!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Junkman]

My best guess is that this persons home will be leveled for parking and not much more. If that is the case, then I can't see how 20 or so parking spaces will pay more taxes than a home would. Hopefully someone with a vested interest to see the last Supreme Court decision be reversed will come forward and help this family to fight this taking. Besides, what difference would it make if there is a home on the street side of the parking lot in an area that most people wouldn't want to park anyway since it is the furthest from the stores that they are going to. George Orwell was correct, but only wrong on the year 1984.... It should have been 2004 when the court first heard this case. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[bczoom]

I thought I posted/saw this earlier but can't find it.

It looks like someone is trying to get some real attention.
They want SC Justice Souter's house /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Click here. or here

 

[Alan L.]

The taking of private property for private development should never be allowed. If I was smart enough to purchase a property located in such a way the at some point in the future some developer just couldn't do without it, I should be able to hold out until they offer me multiples of its value, and cut me in on the deal. This ruling effectively robs me of that right.

 

[em14]

Perhaps only Property Owners should vote on Property Matters!
Leo

 

[milkman]

Not a reply, just had to get in here with some important stuff I saw on TV this morning, we got Hollywood types testifyifg to get something done about a nail infection she got at a nail parlor, now there's something we can scream about. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif <imc src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> /forums/iiages/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[Cityboyfarmer]

Just saw it on Fox News! The city is taking the developers request to take Souter's home seriously! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[DannyD]

And I got a reply from my state senator, she thinks this stinks to high supreme also.

 

[HomeBrew2]

Dang! ... maybe that bunker I built wasn't such a bad idea afterall ... whoda thunkit /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif