No more home for you!
- Thread starter AirIntake
- Start date
Of course I do! I am a smoker and too stubborn to quit.Virginia means a fine tobacco leaf to me.Seriously,I am saddened that both of our countries make so little of the products sold in our stores.Levis going overseas was the last straw!
China is trying to buy Maytag too . :x If they get their hands on it they will kill that brand too. 
EMINENT DOMAIN
or
EMINENT LATITUDE ?
washingtonpost.com
Eminent Latitude
Post
Friday, June 24, 2005; A30
IT'S HARD TO TAKE satisfaction in the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the case of Kelo v. City of New London -- the result of which is quite unjust. Yet the court's decision was correct.
New London, Conn., has been attempting to take the property of residents of Fort Trumbull, an economically struggling area, for a redevelopment project that would replace their waterfront neighborhood homes with a hotel, offices and other new features. A few residents refused to sell, so the city -- or rather, a private, nonprofit corporation acting on its behalf -- asserted the power of eminent domain to force them to sell. The Supreme Court ruled that the city has the right to do so, which means that people who have lived for long periods in Fort Trumbull will be forced from their homes based on a vague and uncertain redevelopment scheme. It isn't a pretty picture.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires government to pay "just compensation" whenever it takes private property, and the Fort Trumbull residents will be compensated. But it further requires that "takings" be for "public use," and it was this requirement that residents cited in their lawsuit. They contended that the city was taking their land not for any legitimate public use but for the benefit of businesses -- essentially that the government was exchanging one set of private owners for another that would pay more taxes and bring jobs to the city.
The trouble is that there is no good way to distinguish New London's use of eminent domain from assertions of the power that local governments depend on all the time for worthy projects. Railroads, stadiums, inner-city redevelopment plans and land reform efforts all have involved taking land from one owner for the apparently private use of another. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted for a five-justice majority of the court, the justices' response has long been to avoid "rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny" of legislative determinations "in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."
This is not to say that a "public use" is anything government says it is. If the supposed public use were plainly a pretext for a simple private-sector land transfer, the court would presumably step in. But that is not the case here. New London's plan, whatever its flaws, is intended to help develop a city that has been in economic decline for many years. City authorities may be wrong in their judgment that their plans are a good way to revitalize the town. But the Fifth Amendment's takings clause was never meant to ensure good judgment or wise policy. Indeed, it was intended less as a restraint on the substance of what government does than as a guarantee that it will pay reasonably. However unfortunate New London's plans may prove, stopping the city based on a standardless judicial inquiry into how "public" its purpose really is would be far worse.
or
EMINENT LATITUDE ?
washingtonpost.com
Eminent Latitude
Post
Friday, June 24, 2005; A30
IT'S HARD TO TAKE satisfaction in the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the case of Kelo v. City of New London -- the result of which is quite unjust. Yet the court's decision was correct.
New London, Conn., has been attempting to take the property of residents of Fort Trumbull, an economically struggling area, for a redevelopment project that would replace their waterfront neighborhood homes with a hotel, offices and other new features. A few residents refused to sell, so the city -- or rather, a private, nonprofit corporation acting on its behalf -- asserted the power of eminent domain to force them to sell. The Supreme Court ruled that the city has the right to do so, which means that people who have lived for long periods in Fort Trumbull will be forced from their homes based on a vague and uncertain redevelopment scheme. It isn't a pretty picture.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires government to pay "just compensation" whenever it takes private property, and the Fort Trumbull residents will be compensated. But it further requires that "takings" be for "public use," and it was this requirement that residents cited in their lawsuit. They contended that the city was taking their land not for any legitimate public use but for the benefit of businesses -- essentially that the government was exchanging one set of private owners for another that would pay more taxes and bring jobs to the city.
The trouble is that there is no good way to distinguish New London's use of eminent domain from assertions of the power that local governments depend on all the time for worthy projects. Railroads, stadiums, inner-city redevelopment plans and land reform efforts all have involved taking land from one owner for the apparently private use of another. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted for a five-justice majority of the court, the justices' response has long been to avoid "rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny" of legislative determinations "in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."
This is not to say that a "public use" is anything government says it is. If the supposed public use were plainly a pretext for a simple private-sector land transfer, the court would presumably step in. But that is not the case here. New London's plan, whatever its flaws, is intended to help develop a city that has been in economic decline for many years. City authorities may be wrong in their judgment that their plans are a good way to revitalize the town. But the Fifth Amendment's takings clause was never meant to ensure good judgment or wise policy. Indeed, it was intended less as a restraint on the substance of what government does than as a guarantee that it will pay reasonably. However unfortunate New London's plans may prove, stopping the city based on a standardless judicial inquiry into how "public" its purpose really is would be far worse.
Friends of mine had their home "expropriated"...to make room for a public park.
However,they were paid far above market value at the time,they were asked to "contribute" $100.00/year to cover their taxes(which had been nearly $3000.00/year)...sort of a rental fee.
They lived on in their home for 3 years and were given 8 months notice.
They were happy enough.
However,they were paid far above market value at the time,they were asked to "contribute" $100.00/year to cover their taxes(which had been nearly $3000.00/year)...sort of a rental fee.
They lived on in their home for 3 years and were given 8 months notice.
They were happy enough.
When an urban area is failing, full of blight, crime, or deficits, or loss of tax revenue from loss of jobs, it looks around for a way....
and inevitably it poses the GREATER PUBLIC GOOD versus the INDIVIDUAL property rights.
We complain of blight, the failure of the cities.
We keep that complaint in a separate compartment.
We complain of the loss of individual rights to private property. We keep that complaint in a separate compartment.
Two complaints living in separate universes?
Perhaps the complainers are schizophrenic in their outlook.
Perhaps both ideas are very related, and most voters do not see it.
and inevitably it poses the GREATER PUBLIC GOOD versus the INDIVIDUAL property rights.
We complain of blight, the failure of the cities.
We keep that complaint in a separate compartment.
We complain of the loss of individual rights to private property. We keep that complaint in a separate compartment.
Two complaints living in separate universes?
Perhaps the complainers are schizophrenic in their outlook.
Perhaps both ideas are very related, and most voters do not see it.
I am reprinting mrmom2"s link in her post, for those who don't bother clicking on the links.
Good article.
The Supreme Court has just decided to stay out of circumscribing the rules of Eminent Domain, and it is leaving up to the legislature, as in your local city council instead of the court to determine if Eminent Domain should be used.
Good article mentioned by Mrmom2 tells that the BIG BOX STORES like Walmart will love this ruling.
By the way, a lot of localities are demanding a BIG BOX fee to put in escrow that in the event, likely in 10 to 15 years that they vacate the store, the original store owner must tear down the box or get another tenant who must then agree to do the same 10 years later if they move out.
A lot of localities should know they can extort whatever they want from these retailers in return for whatever help the city council provides the retailer.
Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?
Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond
June 23, 2005: 4:59 PM EDT
By Parija Bhatnagar, CNN/Money staff writer
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain
/index.htm?cnn=yes
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.
Retailers such as Target, Home Depot, and Bed, Bath & Beyond have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.
Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.
Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.
The ruling would seem to offer new opportunities to retailers. However, some industry watchers caution that with Thursday's decision thrusting the eminent domain issue into the national spotlight, companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.
Craig Johnson, president of retail consulting group Customer Growth Partners, said that retailers shouldn't interpret the high court's decision to be a green light to aggressively expand even into those neighborhoods where a big-box presence is unwelcome.
"Even with the Supreme Court's decision potentially in their favor, smart retailers would rather go into communities wearing a white hat rather than a black one," said Johnson.
The appropriate move for companies would be to selectively use eminent domain as a last resort, he said, not as a first course of action. "I think companies have learned a few lessons from Wal-Mart's public relations struggles," he said.
Where's the space crunch?
According to industry watchers, retailers face a different type of expansion problem on the East Coast versus the West Coast.
"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.
Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.
Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.
"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group. "Target has used eminent domain in some cases because it made the stupid mistake of not relocating its bankrupt box locations in the late 1990s. As a result, it has fallen behind some of its key competitors in terms of growth."
Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."
"It's crazy to think about replacing existing successful small businesses with other businesses," said Adrian Moore, vice president of Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization opposed to eminent domain.
"There are many, many instances where we've found that the cities that agreed to eminent domain use not only destroyed local businesses but the tax revenue that the local government had hoped to generate did not come to pass," Moore said.
Good article.
The Supreme Court has just decided to stay out of circumscribing the rules of Eminent Domain, and it is leaving up to the legislature, as in your local city council instead of the court to determine if Eminent Domain should be used.
Good article mentioned by Mrmom2 tells that the BIG BOX STORES like Walmart will love this ruling.
By the way, a lot of localities are demanding a BIG BOX fee to put in escrow that in the event, likely in 10 to 15 years that they vacate the store, the original store owner must tear down the box or get another tenant who must then agree to do the same 10 years later if they move out.
A lot of localities should know they can extort whatever they want from these retailers in return for whatever help the city council provides the retailer.
Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?
Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond
June 23, 2005: 4:59 PM EDT
By Parija Bhatnagar, CNN/Money staff writer
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain
/index.htm?cnn=yes
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.
Retailers such as Target, Home Depot, and Bed, Bath & Beyond have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.
Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.
Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.
The ruling would seem to offer new opportunities to retailers. However, some industry watchers caution that with Thursday's decision thrusting the eminent domain issue into the national spotlight, companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.
Craig Johnson, president of retail consulting group Customer Growth Partners, said that retailers shouldn't interpret the high court's decision to be a green light to aggressively expand even into those neighborhoods where a big-box presence is unwelcome.
"Even with the Supreme Court's decision potentially in their favor, smart retailers would rather go into communities wearing a white hat rather than a black one," said Johnson.
The appropriate move for companies would be to selectively use eminent domain as a last resort, he said, not as a first course of action. "I think companies have learned a few lessons from Wal-Mart's public relations struggles," he said.
Where's the space crunch?
According to industry watchers, retailers face a different type of expansion problem on the East Coast versus the West Coast.
"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.
Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.
Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.
"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group. "Target has used eminent domain in some cases because it made the stupid mistake of not relocating its bankrupt box locations in the late 1990s. As a result, it has fallen behind some of its key competitors in terms of growth."
Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."
"It's crazy to think about replacing existing successful small businesses with other businesses," said Adrian Moore, vice president of Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization opposed to eminent domain.
"There are many, many instances where we've found that the cities that agreed to eminent domain use not only destroyed local businesses but the tax revenue that the local government had hoped to generate did not come to pass," Moore said.
In every contradiction lies the truth----- a riddle for those who need things spelled out, a riddle for those who paint with a broad smeary brush, a riddle for those who carry a blunt bam bam bat.
LOL, Vanni !!!
LOL, Vanni !!!
The first link expired.
The second link about New York acquiring New Jersey through eminent domain is quite wrong. New York already owns New Jersey.
The second link about New York acquiring New Jersey through eminent domain is quite wrong. New York already owns New Jersey.
Ok...it doesn't seem to want to work with the tags...but if you copy and paste it into your browser, it will...
The story has less to do with Eminent Domain as it has to do with a community's town council attempting to stifle dissent on the impending arrival of the "big box" stores...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA Speak No Wal Mart
...sorry Tenpacks...
The story has less to do with Eminent Domain as it has to do with a community's town council attempting to stifle dissent on the impending arrival of the "big box" stores...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA Speak No Wal Mart
...sorry Tenpacks...
How many waterfronts in America have you seen that doesn't look like a hell hole ???
Most city waterfronts got developed in the rustbelt of America with now dead industry and sits like a corpse still defecating its putrefaction over the environment. And the city can't do a damn thing.
Most city waterfronts got developed in the rustbelt of America with now dead industry and sits like a corpse still defecating its putrefaction over the environment. And the city can't do a damn thing.
Many Jim and most of them are owned by the very wealthy :wink: I guess soon all the waterfront will be owned by the elite only