• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Topic: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    expect to hear stories like this soon:

    Santa Monica Ca. 1-20-2007
    Police are being criticized for apparent use of excessive force in the city’s 4th case of “eminent domain” eviction.
    Police sent in swat teams to remove an elderly couple from a home they have owned for 40 years. Police justified the use of force after the couple made threats publicly.

    The women killed, 80 year old Jane smith was shot multiple times after police say she raised an unknown object during the raid. Joe smith is being held with out bond for making terrorist threats.

    The drama started when Wal-Mart convinced city officials that the city would benefit from the development of a new super mall near the depressed downtown. After just two public hearings the city agreed and notified all of the property owners they would have to move. The smiths refused and began a public crusade to gather support.
    Tonight, police chief Joe Sarg refused to comment and has considered the matter closed.

  2. #2
    Moderator/Developer Brian2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Out of my Mind
    Posts
    1,858

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    WoW! This is bad! And accused of terroism as well...

    Goodbye USA...

    ...2112
    "So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
    Hint:1.6180339887498948482 Φ

  3. #3

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    Ern,
    Under this ruling..if the city of Santa Monica decides to give some local developer the go..for an anex of your property...you are toast. And "they" decide what "market value" is. Not you. As long as they pay you for the property (whatever they think is fair), they can throw you out. The city of Santa Monica controls the land protections you mentioned. They can "unprotect" that anytime they wish. Without a vote. And at their own discrestion as to the "greater good" it serves_which as noted, can even be a private developer.

    Nor do they have to pay your relocation expenses. Or..find you another house. You get to go shopping in todays market with whatever they assess your property at.

  4. #4

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    The one good thing is that Santa Monica (where I grew up) tends to be quite progressive. At one point its rent control laws were so draconian that landlords were letting their apartments sit idle, in fact - it got the nickname "The People's Republic of Santa Monica." There are a lot of tenants, and they get to vote, so that's what happened.

    The pendulum has shifted back a little now, but Santa Monica still has strong historical preservation rules. My parents' house was declared a historical landmark, for example, and it can't be torn down - not that it would, but you get the point.

    Anyway, I don't understand the "get the government off my back" mentality - especially not from the same people who are in favor of the "Patriot Act" (which is like calling a toilet a water fountain with floating sculptures).

  5. #5

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    If I hadn't already lost all my faith in mankind, this might surprise me.

  6. #6

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
    Anyway, I don't understand the "get the government off my back" mentality - especially not from the same people who are in favor of the "Patriot Act" (which is like calling a toilet a water fountain with floating sculptures).
    Nick, Anyone that says "get the government off my back" (me, for example) but is also in favor of the Patriot Act, is a hypocrite.
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  7. #7

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    Quote Originally Posted by neoTypic
    Yes, but the vast majority of people are stupid.
    No arguments there.
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  8. #8

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    Quote Originally Posted by mike harper
    expect to hear stories like this soon:
    Or this:
    The US government, invoking eminent domain, has announced today that Rhoad Island was sold to Saudi Arabian multinational construction conglomerate XYZ Ladin, in a move that will allow the government to lower the taxes of all Americans. A spokesman for Haliberton, who brokered the deal says, "while this will be an inconvienence for Rhoad Islanders, this will benefit the majority of Americans because the profit and annualized taxes paid by XYZ Ladin will enable the national debt to be paired down, thus enabling all Americans to see a huge tax break." XYZ Ladin says it has plans to bulldoze the entire coast in order to build highly taxed luxury Hotels and oil refineries, while displacing several million residents. XYZ Ladin will add several million rooms for maid quarters in order to offer housing and much needed jobs for the displaced residents. Vice President Dick Cheney stated that this is a win-win situation because the state of Rhoad Island has the most blighted neighborhoods and lowest per capita tax base in all of America, but will now offer a robust source of income for the rest of the country and jobs for the displaced residents. Eminent Domain, which allows the government to seize private property for public use if it serves the overall public good was recently rewritten to include sales to foreign multinational companies.
    Rumors of Hawaii being sold to Chinese multinational Mao Sing Dung have not been confirmed.

  9. #9

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    No arguments there.
    Typical liberal elitist.

    (Mao Sing Dung - LOL)

  10. #10

    Re: $upreme court part 2 future news broadcast

    Here are a few other such headlines, except they’ve already happened:

    Homeowner is ordered to dismantle his home as it happens to have been built on a “jurisdictional wetland” in the Adirondacks. [1]

    A California farmer is jailed on charges of killing a field mouse on his property. [2]

    North Carolina farmer Richard Mann thought he was shooting a large dog that was threatening his cattle. But when he came back the next day to bury the animal, he was confronted by federal wildlife officials who charged him with killing a red wolf – a federally protected species. Mann was fined $2,000 and required to perform community service by building “wolf houses” and feeding the wolves. The red wolf, which is not even native to the state, was introduced into the area by wildlife officials themselves. [2]

    In Southern California an endangered fly in Riverside County held up the building of a hospital . . . It’s a flower-loving desert sand fly, a bit larger than a common housefly, but it was an endangered fly, and they found eight of them. The cost to set aside this habitat for the fly: about $400,000 per fly. [2]

    The USFWS ‘threatened to fine a Utah man $15,000 for farming his land and allegedly posing a risk to the prairie dog, a protected species. . . The USFWS told the man that he should hire an outside expert to determine if there are prairie dogs on this land. The expert prepared a report, which indicated that there were no prairie dogs. The farmer proceeded to work his land. However, the USFWS had told him that they will fine him anyway. [2]

    The city of Cypress, Calif condemned 18 acres belonging to Cottonwood Christian Center last week, in order to convey the land to Costco. [3]

    [1] http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman...icle_130.shtml
    [2] http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/...fman092704.htm
    [3] http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/694846/posts

    And this is just a small sampling of such cases that have occurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
    Anyway, I don't understand the "get the government off my back" mentality…
    What’s not to understand? You say you don’t like corporations making decisions that you contend affect your life, but you don’t see that the government makes many more such decisions? Just look at the above for a small sampling.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •