Force me to sell

[Cityboyfarmer]

True, taking of private property is not new, however I cannot recall it ever happening on this scale. Wal-Mart has approached local governments on many occaisions to get them to take the land of an owner who refused to sell and many of these local government officials are only too happy to help.

(Please do not turn this into a Wal-Mart bashing thread. This is only for example.)

What disturbs me most is developers approaching local governments in order to have them condemn private property for another private use. The developer will profit. The local government officials will profit. The person getting his or her land taken away winds up the big loser in most situations.

A related issue is property taxes, which for all intents and purposes is rent paid to the government to prevent them from taking your property. Really, this is the root of the problem. If local governments were forced by its citizens to acquire its tax revenue from some other source than property owners, this would go a long way toward ending unconstitutional confiscation of private property.

We have a state legislator in Georgia who has proposed eliminating property taxes and replacing it with a sales tax. I like this idea because it forces everyone to pay, not just those who have busted their butts their entire lives working to acquire private ownership of property.

 

[kensfarm]

One story I read.. the man said he sold sandwiches for 21 years to pay for his business & home.

Looks like we need to re-construct the Statue of Liberty from standing.. to.. reflect how we currently feel!

 

[getut]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue">Only ONE voter pays the bills on a given piece of property, he should be the only one to decide how it is used. </font>
In order to implement this idea, the fifth amendment to the federal constitution would have to be rewritten. )</font>

Ok Mike... hehehe.. maybe I'm slow, but I'm not even sure whether that response is agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?

I realize that I was talking very generically, in that people can be co-owners of property, but I think people understood the gist of what I was saying.... but I'm really confused now about what you typed. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue">...but I'm really confused now about what you typed. </font>
Me too. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

My point was that The Fifth Ammendment allows for the 'taking' of private property for public use, but not "without due process" and not "without just compensation". So, in some situations, the property owner is not the only one who decides how their property is used.

Here's the last section of the Fifth Ammendment....

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

[riptides]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." )</font>

Yep. My whole problem with this has been noted earlier and often by myself and others.

"just compensation" is a one-time deal. It *almost* amounts to a take-it-or-leave-it proposition with eminent domain. The public, in this case "developers" will get more substantial monetary rewards over the years.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Moon]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( It *almost* amounts to a take-it-or-leave-it proposition with eminent domain. The public, in this case "developers" will get more substantial monetary rewards over the years.
)</font>

Yep, and the city / gov entity will benefit from increase taxes since the property is producing revenue. The big loser is the original property owner.
...not that it would ever happen but if the original owner could receive a percentage of the profits / revenue as someone else suggested ...now that sounds more equitable.

 

[Junkman]

I just had a recollection of an event that happed many years ago in Atlantic City NJ. I remember someone telling me about a home that a casino developer wanted to purchase, however the homeowner refused to sell at any price. They started to built the casino around the home on 3 sides as a result. This is a very long and convoluted story, so it might be better to read it for yourself at this web page.

 

[slowrev]

theft of private property just gets more blatant and accepted as time goes by......not a good sign of where we are heading as a country.

 

[Cactus]

I remember seeing that on the news a few years back.

 

[MossRoad]

You may have a new hero to look up to... someone wants to take Justice David H. Souter's house and put up a hotel.

Read about it here!