Global Warming News

[FallbrookFarmer]

The Kelo decision could be, and was, well argued either way. I will grant you that is a good indication of government heavy-handedness. It was not decided as I would have liked, but I can see the arguments have some validity. The public vs private requirement is not so important to me as the rights of the property owner; she was not creating any harm or hazard in her current use.

If a large commercial area develops through growth and it becomes necessary for the 'good of the public' to expand or redesign the streets and highways to accomodate the resulting traffic, we don't think it is so odd to 'take' property needed to accomplish that. So, the 'taking' was really to accomodate a private interest - to make it more convenient to work or do business in that developed area. The general public benefits, but only as a secondary result. The real causation and beneficiaries are the commercial enterprises. That isn't so very different conceptually from the situation in Kelo. Of course in Kelo, nothing existed and still doesn't Public and private is a murky line.

I cannot agree that we should allow the market to determine the 'best and highest' use of property. I think it is admirable you renovate distressed properties and you rightly should be be compensated. That isn't changing the 'use' of the property however. So, that doesn't support your argument.

If you tear the house down and put in an off track betting parlor and few slots, you would make money too, probably more. That would be an example of a 'higher' use that does change it from current use (residential housing). I don't think that would belong in the original neighborhood, and zoning is what keeps it from happening.
Dave.

I'm curious as to your statement that it isn't important to you that the "taking" of the property from a private citizen
can be for a public or private use.
So if a private citizen has a house, but a finding by a local government, shows that they can maximize their tax base by bringing in one of those evil corporations that will produce more revenue, thats okay?
Because that is basically what happened in Kelo, the village of New London Conn, decided that by designating the area in question "blighted" then let a major corporation have the property, by using its eminent domain powers( The real argument, was not that the Village had eminent domain powers to take a piece of property for a PUBLIC use, but that they could take it and use it for a PRIVATE use.
Again, are you okay with that?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer,
I only came up with the McCain connection when I googled the Obama connection. The two articles I referenced stated some funding and association with Soro and they were just 2 of the 412,000 hits. There are 561,000 hits for Obama and Soro - of course he is the President.
A note of interest on corporations - just heard today that the embargo banning certain trading with Iran by US businesses or corporations is being circumvented. Foreign subsidiaries of many US corporations are allowed to trade with Iran and are doing it. So are the US Corporations helping or hurting US policy. And in case you haven't noticed we deal in all sorts of ways-business, corporations, agricultural products, sell national debt,etc,- with China - the largest communist country in the world.
As I stated earlier it looks like Soro was playing both sides of the fence just as many big corporations do. I'm sure much of what goes on in this type of support is hidden. As you attack progressives remember that progressives earned women the right to vote, freed the slaves and desegregated the nation.



Loren

PS:a little info on Soro (who I had not heard of until reading the post today)
George Soros | Open Society Institute

In 1993, Soros created the Open Society Institute, which supports the Soros foundations working to develop democratic institutions throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. His network of philanthropic organizations dedicated to building open societies has expanded to include more than 60 countries in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Despite the breadth of his endeavors, Soros is personally involved in planning and implementing many of the foundation network痴 projects. His visionary efforts have produced a remarkable record of successful philanthropy, including efforts to free developmentally challenged people from life-long confinement in state institutions, to provide palliative care to the dying, to win release for prisoners held without legal grounds in penitentiaries in Nigeria, to halt the spread of tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, to create debate societies, to promote freedom of the press, and to help resource-rich countries establish mechanisms to manage their revenues in a way that will promote economic growth and good governance rather than poverty and instability.

Objective look at the man's work:
Soros Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gee Loren,
I wonder why you didn't cite the wikipedia reference to Soros directly, instead you choose to cite "Soros Foundation"
Could it be that if you look at his personal bio, you find that he and his father were **** collaborators, or that he has been convicted of insider trading.
You know, lets be fair and balanced

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
This is what it said about WW II:
Soros was thirteen years old in March 1944 when **** Germany took military control over Hungary.[15] Soros worked for the Jewish Council,[8] which had been established during the **** occupation of Hungary to forcibly carry out **** and Hungarian government anti-Jewish measures. Soros later described this time to writer Michael Lewis:
The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the deportation notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there I was given these small slips of paper...It said report to the rabbi seminary at 9 a.m....And I was given this list of names. I took this piece of paper to my father. He instantly recognized it. This was a list of Hungarian Jewish lawyers. He said, "You deliver the slips of paper and tell the people that if they report they will be deported.[16]
To avoid his son's being apprehended by the Nazis, Soros's father paid a Ministry of Agriculture employee to have Soros spend the summer of 1944 living with him and posing as the godson. Young Soros had to hide his Jewishness even as the official was overseeing the confiscation of Jewish property.[17]
Not sure that 13 year old Soros, who is Jewish, was as you said'
I was interested in what he is working toward - I did not doubt that some things are questionable about his background - remember that I didn't bring up his name or start the issue of his connection with politicians. I just showed that its not as one sided as some may like to think. (note that he was born in 1930, so he was 9 years old when WW II began) (In a true free market with no government interference it would seem that insider trading would be encouraged-why not?)
By the way, I was being a bit sarcastic with the "Fair and Balanced" statement as I believe that anyone or broadcaster who has to tell me that is suspect. (not meant towards you as I used it first)
The challenge is to get the right amount of government oversight. No government power would not be a good situation and complete government control may be worse. (Compare a country with local war lords to China)

Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer,
George Soros - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not much emphasis on the **** issue in this biography - looks like he was in a tough spot if you read what it says. I was interested in what he is working toward - I did not doubt that some things are questionable about his background - remember that I didn't bring up his name or start the issue of his connection with politicians. I just showed that its not as one sided as some may like to think. (note that he was born in 1930, so he was 9 years old when WW II began) (In a true free market with no government interference it would seem that insider trading would be encouraged-why not?)
By the way, I was being a bit sarcastic with the "Fair and Balanced" statement as I believe that anyone or broadcaster who has to tell me that is suspect. (not meant towards you as I used it first)
The challenge is to get the right amount of government oversight. No government power would not be a good situation and complete government control may be worse. (Compare a country with local war lords to China)

Loren

Sarcasm! Loren, you clever whippersnapper.
I guess when PBS used to have a tag line on their commercials "The news is complex, we interpret it for you"
they meant that all their listeners were too dumb to figure it out. Probably true
No in a TRUE free market economy, insider trading is NOT legal or encouraged. As a matter of fact, IMHO if one were to look at "progressive" economies, one finds a lot more corruption.
Good News!!!
The challenge to find the perfect amount of government has been found!!!!!












It's called the US Constitution.

 

[dave1949]

I'm curious as to your statement that it isn't important to you that the "taking" of the property from a private citizen
can be for a public or private use.
So if a private citizen has a house, but a finding by a local government, shows that they can maximize their tax base by bringing in one of those evil corporations that will produce more revenue, thats okay?
Because that is basically what happened in Kelo, the village of New London Conn, decided that by designating the area in question "blighted" then let a major corporation have the property, by using its eminent domain powers( The real argument, was not that the Village had eminent domain powers to take a piece of property for a PUBLIC use, but that they could take it and use it for a PRIVATE use.
Again, are you okay with that?

The public vs private requirement is not so important to me as the rights of the property owner;

I am saying this in the sense that it can be a red herring. Since the two benefit receivers (public, private) can be so intertwined, to me that is not the heart of the issue. Some of the dissenting opinions mentioned this distinction as a primary reason to dissent. So, no I am not okay with what happened and I also think part of the dissenting opinions may have missed the point.

What has to be kept in mind is that Kelo and neighbors were living on some harborside property that the Village wanted to convert to a 'higher use'. I don't know if their motivation was more tax revenue, a desire to revitalize the Village or attempting to sway a large corporate entity (Pfizer) to stay in the Village. It easily could have been a mixture of all the above.

Whatever they wanted to accomplish, it was a total failure for all involved, Kelo included. Pfizer moved across the river, nothing has ever been built on the contested property.

There is no easy answer to such an example. If the Village council truly is acting in the best interest of all residents, then they will not allow the tax base to erode away. This will raise everyone's taxes ultimately. Where do the rights of Kelo end, and the best interests of the other Village residents begin?

Isn't there a house surrounded on three sides by tall buildings in NYC?
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

The public vs private requirement is not so important to me as the rights of the property owner;

I am saying this in the sense that it can be a red herring. Since the two benefit receivers (public, private) can be so intertwined, to me that is not the heart of the issue. Some of the dissenting opinions mentioned this distinction as a primary reason to dissent. So, no I am not okay with what happened and I also think part of the dissenting opinions may have missed the point.

What has to be kept in mind is that Kelo and neighbors were living on some harborside property that the Village wanted to convert to a 'higher use'. I don't know if their motivation was more tax revenue, a desire to revitalize the Village or attempting to sway a large corporate entity (Pfizer) to stay in the Village. It easily could have been a mixture of all the above.

Whatever they wanted to accomplish, it was a total failure for all involved, Kelo included. Pfizer moved across the river, nothing has ever been built on the contested property.

There is no easy answer to such an example. If the Village council truly is acting in the best interest of all residents, then they will not allow the tax base to erode away. This will raise everyone's taxes ultimately. Where do the rights of Kelo end, and the best interests of the other Village residents begin?

Isn't there a house surrounded on three sides by tall buildings in NYC?
Dave.

Well, its just that the pesky US Constitution gets in the way again(Darn it, that thing is an such an anachronism, cant we just get rid of it!) "Nor shall private property be taken for "PUBLIC" use, without just compensation" .
Kelo changed that in a dramatic fashion, that a government entity can take private property and basically give it to someone else.
If you can read the Constitution and come away with that
logic, I have a new career for you in fiction writing!


NEWS FLASH: City of Industry Maine has decided that they want to build a car dealership on Dave 1949's farm.
It will be in the public interest, as the tax`revenues will be increased, and they won't have to listen to Dave drive his tractor around anymore, which was disturbing some of the neighbors.and by the way, now that we have designated Daves Farm as "blighted" he's not going to get anywhere near what he thinks is the market value.
So, "Lets spread the wealth around" after all Dave has got more money than he needs. Right?

 

[dave1949]

Well, its just that the pesky US Constitution gets in the way again(Darn it, that thing is an such an anachronism, cant we just get rid of it!) "Nor shall private property be taken for "PUBLIC" use, without just compensation" .
Kelo changed that in a dramatic fashion, that a government entity can take private property and basically give it to someone else.
If you can read the Constitution and come away with that
logic, I have a new career for you in fiction writing!


/QUOTE]

I will still argue that you cannot always draw a clear line between public and private use takings. A 5-4 decision by the Supremes supports that opinion. Towns and states take property away routinely to ultimately benefit private uses. Let's be realistic about what's really happening in many cases.

If Kelo's property had been taken over and held by the Village, and the Village built and operated a for-profit business on that property, you would also disagree heartily, not because the Village took the land, which it is allowed to do, but because the Village would be enjoying a taxpayer subsidized competitive advantage over private enterprise. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You did notice I said I don't agree with what happened. They could have built around the Kelo property, as would be their right.
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

My understanding of being progressive is in line with these definitions:

progressive - favoring or promoting progress; "progressive schools"
progressive - favoring or promoting reform (often by government action)
progressive - (of taxes) adjusted so that the rate increases as the amount of income increases
progressive - gradually advancing in extent
progressive - a tense of verbs used in describing action that is on-going
progressive - (of a card game or a dance) involving a series of sections for which the participants successively change place or relative position; "progressive euchre"; "progressive tournaments"
progressive - liberal: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
Date: circa 1612
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

I agree that it was not the "progressive party" that accomplished these things but I feel the people behind the movement were progressives just as people behind health care reform are progressives.

Loren

By this definition, I would have to say that our taxes are not progressive. As our taxes are a percentage of our income and they keep raising the percentage. Hense, taxes increase faster than income.


I can't believe how busy you guys have been today. It's going to take a little while to catch up. Farmer, I don';t envy you the time it must have taken to catch up once you got back. Hope you had a good time while you were gone!

 

[dave1949]

As Harry Reid recently said, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Progressives didn't do any of the things you mentioned.

Well, who did those things? It's sure easy to snip, pick and run. I have yet to hear any substantive explanations of your own.
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

Well, its just that the pesky US Constitution gets in the way again(Darn it, that thing is an such an anachronism, cant we just get rid of it!) "Nor shall private property be taken for "PUBLIC" use, without just compensation" .
Kelo changed that in a dramatic fashion, that a government entity can take private property and basically give it to someone else.
If you can read the Constitution and come away with that
logic, I have a new career for you in fiction writing!


/QUOTE]

I will still argue that you cannot always draw a clear line between public and private use takings. A 5-4 decision by the Supremes supports that opinion. Towns and states take property away routinely to ultimately benefit private uses. Let's be realistic about what's really happening in many cases.

If Kelo's property had been taken over and held by the Village, and the Village built and operated a for-profit business on that property, you would also disagree heartily, not because the Village took the land, which it is allowed to do, but because the Village would be enjoying a taxpayer subsidized competitive advantage over private enterprise. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You did notice I said I don't agree with what happened. They could have built around the Kelo property, as would be their right.
Dave.

Our issues here are simlar, but our government has found themselves an out to the just compensation part. The local push here is for preserved open space. So what our government is doing is anyone in a rural area is required to put land into Native Growth (size determined by planning and development) in order to receive a permit. To get out of having to pay for the land, they leave you ownership of the now unusable land and continue to tax it. As 90% of Western Washington will qualify as wetland under Washington's defination, they often will designate the property as wetland and then act as if they are doing you a favor in allowing you to do anything on the property. Since the government doesn't actually take ownership of the property and you willlingly chose to put the property into Native Growth, they don't have to compensate you for the loss of usage. However if you refuse, they will not issue the permit and may chose to persue legal action for illegal activity within a wetland which can of course be suspended if you place a portion of your land into Native Growth.