Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

40 States Re-Examining Eminent Domain

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:30 PM
Original message
40 States Re-Examining Eminent Domain
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

LONG BRANCH, N.J. -- The city wants Anna DeFaria's home, and if she doesn't sell willingly, officials are going to take it from the 80-year-old retired pre-school teacher.

In place of her "tiny slip of a bungalow" _ and two dozen other weathered, working-class beachfront homes _ city officials want private developers to build upscale townhouses.

..."We thought this was going to be our home forever," said DeFaria, sitting in a kitchen cozy with photos of children and grandchildren, quotes from the Bible and a game of Scrabble that she plays against herself. "Now they want to take it away. It's unfair, it's criminal, it's unconstitutional."

The Constitution says governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Governments have traditionally used eminent domain to build public projects such as roads, reservoirs and parks. But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight....


Is this what bush means by "ownership society"?
Democrats should jump on this issue. It's a hot topic and of serious concern to homeowners across the political spectrum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
laruemtt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. how evil can they get?
oh forget it - you don't need to answer that..............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is exactly what Bush means by "ownership society."
The Bush Crime Family and their cronies will own anything of value in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavery Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. you might want to examine the recent "kilo" decision
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laruemtt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. what's the "kilo" decision? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Familiar with it. The Supremes, even the so-called "liberals,"
are hardly on the side of the average citizen. The "conservatives" will take away his liberties (up to and including his life) and the "liberals" are more than willing to attack property rights. Heads you lose, tails you lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Welcome to DU tavery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Kelo v. New London
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
webtrainer Donating Member (265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. can't do that in Nicaragua . . .
which is where I expatriated to, post-* re-election. Kind of amusing when you think about how some investors are always worried about how the government here might take your property.

Here, there are no worries like that. In fact, even if you don't pay your property taxes they can't sell your property. When you sell you just figure out how much you owe (no penalties or interest) and deduct it from the sales price. I'm here because I can actually own something worth owning free and clear.

Doors of hope fly open when doors of promise shut. -Thomas D'Arcy McGee

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. And they just want throw the residents away
Where do they live? Can they get one of those upscale bungalows? THAT would be "just compensation." And what about public access to the beach?

:mad:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. My Solution
If a developer and municipality wish to use Eminent Domain to kick someone out of their home in order to build other homes, the landowner shall be compensated with one of those homes, free of any homeowners' association fees and no restrictions that they aren't already living under. Also free of any income or gift taxes, and their tax rates shall remain comparable to what they were previously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Interesting idea,
but it still seems to represent a loss of real property.

One thing that has bothered me for some number of years are non-monetary "values" living in a particular place is associated with. One gets to know one's neighbors (or lack of neighbors), the particular "view" that one sees everyday has a certain level of learning associated with it, the sounds and smells that are normally in a particular area, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daphne08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #15
31. Exactly. Home is much, much more than just a house. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bucklebone Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
38. Or My Solution
If a homeowner or multiple homeowners are forced to sell there homes to private developers, then those displaced homeowners should get a portion of the tax dollars that are generated (i.e. the gift that keeps on giving). For example, give the homeowners 20% (arbitrary number) of the new tax generated by the development.

If an invigorated tax stream is good enough for the city government, it should be good enough for the homeowners who are displaced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
55. I like that idea... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. I hope this does not screw up rail-trail rights of way
States could get carried away with this issue and take away our power to establish trails on abandoned railroad right of ways. (rights of way?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Haven't heard of that happening yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jesterstear Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. Not a conservative vs. liberal issue
Something to remember here... when the SCOTUS decided their eminent domain case in June of last year, the so-called "liberal wing" all voted in favor of seizing property. Most of the conservatives voted against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Welcome, but I think you're wrong about the sides...
...I recall O'Connor writing a scathing dissent, but I thought it was fairly mixed...the Gang of 3 voting with the majority along with Kennedy and Souter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jesterstear Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. O'Connor wrote a dissent, but...
Scalia and Rhenquist both voted in favor of the people wanting to keep their property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Hadn't realized it was the"liberal wing".
Welcome to DU, jestertear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InsultComicDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Unfortunately it was
I hate being on the side with the wingnuts but it happens on a rare occasion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
45. Remember... there is 2 liberals 7 republicans seating at SC!
It just happen, 3 republicans judges were moderate that, they can go either way! Anythings that comes down from SC is always republicans! You can NOT blame liberal!!! Blame your own party!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joefree1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
16. Castle Coalition
Here's some folks fighting this.
http://www.castlecoalition.org /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. "Success Stories" are well worth reading here.
Edited on Sun Feb-05-06 10:59 PM by mia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
18. They've done this to African-Americans for decades
Edited on Sun Feb-05-06 04:00 PM by LiberalEsto
or longer.

In the 1960s-70s it was called "urban renewal".

Elected officials declared an area with a large African-American population "blighted," forced people out of their homes, tore everything down, and put up something else. Whole communties were wiped out by "urban renewal."

Sometimes they would put up huge apartment complexes. People who used to be homeowners became renters.

About 10 years ago I lived in a house outside Gaithersburg, MD and somehow learned that the entire development had been built on property that was formerly small homes owned by African Americans. These people lost their homes, their tax deductions, and their entire community. It really upset me. I also became aware of other places where "urban renewal" had destroyed formerly thriving communities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. It happened in the Miami "Overtown" area too.
http://www.floridacdc.org/members/overtown/expressway2....

...In 1950, Overtown had a thriving central commercial area and 45 percent of the African American population in Miami-Dade County. In 1960, Overtown reached its peak in population (close to 33,000) and had a diverse mix of 318 businesses. After around 1970 and the projects the study focuses on, Overtown bottomed out to a level from which it has never recovered. The expressway and urban renewal projects displaced close to 12,000 people and another 4,830 moved out for other reasons during the 1960s. From 1960 to 1970, the community lost 51.2 percent of its population and 33 percent of its businesses; in 1970, 15,935 (8.4 percent) of the county's African American population lived in Overtown, and the areas significance and commercial importance had seriously declined.

In addition to the severe loss of residents and businesses, the community's internal circulation system was left in shambles, the vacant space under the elevated expressways became a wasteland and haven for undesirables, and home ownership dropped from 12 percent to 5 percent from 1950 to 1970. Today, Overtown has one of the highest poverty rates and worst (and cheapest) housing in Miami-Dade County. The population is now just under 8,000 and there are only 41 businesses left -- compared to 389 in 1950. Only 2 percent of the county's African American population lives there and 32 percent of the population lives in either public housing or government subsidized housing....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. Yes. Urban renewal happened all over the US
Of course the European settlers also "urban renewed" the native people off their lands.

Forcing those less powerful off their lands and out of their homes unfortunately seems to have been an American tradition for centuries.

People aren't forced off their land just for housing projects. People in the Appalachian Mountains were forced out of their homes by the US Park Service to create national parkland. People get relocated to make way for highways, hotels, resorts, airports - you name it.

That doesn't make it right. The less powerful need some kind of protections under the law to ensure that they have redress and can get fair compensation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
54anickel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. Sounds a bit like Mugabe's "Operation Murambatsvina" which
roughly translates to "Operation Drive Out Trash", but the UN prefers to call it "Operation Restore Order". It will be difficult for this mal-administration to differentiate this practice from what Mugabe has done if they use eminent domain in NO in the way we suspect they will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/article/0,2763,15347...

snip>

Mr Mugabe launched Operation Murambatsvina - usually translated as Operation Drive Out Trash but referred to by the UN as Operation Restore Order - on May 19. He claimed it was to prevent Harare and other urban areas turning into slums, an operation comparable to many others conducted round Africa. The Movement for Democratic Change, the opposition party, countered that it was partly politically motivated, aimed at the areas that had supported the MDC.

Trudy Stevenson, an MDC representative in the Zimbabwe parliament, welcomed the report's findings. "That is wonderful - music in my ears," she said.

The UN report said the operation was popularly referred to locally as Operation Tsunami because of its speed and ferocity. While Mr Mugabe has promised to rehouse the former slum dwellers, the UN expressed scepticism given that the Zimbabwe economy was crippled.

The report said: "Even if motivated by a desire to ensure a semblance of order in the chaotic manifestations of rapid urbanisation and rising poverty characteristic of African cities, nonetheless Operation Restore Order turned out to be a disastrous venture based on a set of colonial-era laws and policies that were used as a tool of segregation and social exclusion. There is an urgent need to suspend these outdated laws."

The victims were among the poorest and it would take years before the people and society as a whole could recover. "The vast majority of those directly and indirectly affected are the poor and disadvantaged segments of the population. They are today deeper in poverty, deprivation and destitution, and have been rendered more vulnerable."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. ...operation was popularly referred to locally as Operation Tsunami
Reminded me of the devastation in New Orleans by Katrina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. I'm not sure what "just compensation" is
for the sentimental value, etc.

I'm inclined to accept this if the person is given a multiple of the market value (like 3x). There should be a balance between land rights and the right of communities to reform blighted property, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Agree. House and condo prices in Miami
cost twice the market value as it is. A person forced to leave should be given that and then some more for the intangible values that you mention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Curious terms being bandied about....
"sentimental value" and/or "intangible value" are framed terms (that I've read before) that rationalize and marginalize the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. I see what you mean,
as if compensating people for these values will make it OK to take away their property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Yes. I was thinking that "invaluable" might be a more accurate
descriptive word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rich Hunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #37
47. uh-huh

What about historical value, long-term interests (as opposed to speculative development which
is all about 'cashing in' and not about how something will look decades from now), maintaining
stability of communities, etc.?

The 'sentimental' argument has been used in the service of tearing down LANDMARKS
and other historically valuable buildings and communities, remember that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. It seems to me that "stability of communities"
is a tangible, at least to that community's members. I'm also quite certain that placing a "value" on community is an exceedingly complex problem, perhaps financially irreconcilable, that is capitalistically simplified by framing as sentimental.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
22. How can they fight this after the Supreme Court decision this past year?
Or, maybe that's the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. "Here's some folks fighting this."
post #16 Castle Coalition

http://www.castlecoalition.org /

This website gave me some hope.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
51. Hmmm...Maybe it's time to change banks.
BB&T looks pretty appealing to me right now.

I've banked with Chevy Chase for years. I'm going send them a letter asking whether they too will refuse to fund eminent domain abuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
36. States can pass legislation outlawing the practice.
that's the solution.

BUT-
politics is about money and power, not people...so don't look for it to happen too often too soon...(the legislation thing, that is)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
52. because all the Supreme court said
was that the particular law in Connecticut was constitutional (which I believe it is) Connecticut defines common good as including higher tax revenues. If your state passes a law allowing ED to be used only for government construction projects, for instance, or parks, then that is the law in your state. The Court didn't say you had to do this, only that you could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
23. IMO, gov should NOT take private property for private development
but only for the public good, i.e. watershed protection
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Couldn't agree more. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
27. In a small town in Oregon, a very wealthy landowner erected a sign
on his property, which he wants to develop, and which the town does not because it is considered sacred land. The sign reads: Private property is the foundation for freedom.

I snorted when I saw it because, number 1, it sounds just like a Rove talking point; and, number 2, hasn't the doofus ever heard of eminent domain?

When the government wants what you got, they'll tell you to take your so-called freedom and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. Locke's human rights: "life, liberty and property" was changed to
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by American founding fathers deliberately. Maybe they foresaw that private property should not necessarily be considered a "natural right" to be protected under the Constitution under any and all circumstances. I think there are some reasons for a gov. to use eminent domain---I earlier gave the example of watershed protection.

Native American society did not have the idea of private property at all---everything was communal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. I did not know that. Thank you.
I continually astound myself with my abysmal ignorance of the history of this nation and its Constitution and other documents of import.

That sign on what was formerly Native American land made me really stop and think, what was it about the sign that aggravated me so fiercely. I came to the conclusion that private property as the foundation for freedom is a poor foundation, as so many Americans do not own property (land) and it seems a haughty attitude on the part of the one who erected the sign on land which rightfully belonged to a Native American tribe. It's ironic, actually.

Moreso than that, however, I believe that justice is the foundation for freedom.

And, thus, if the government takes your land for a higher purpose (or not-so-higher purpose), then at least if you are justly compensated, it helps to take away the sting. What good is property if there is no justice? It's not very much good at all.

Thanks for your response. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
33. I wonder if "eminent domain" law could be stopped by "incorporating" and
making the house (personal) corporate property?

Also, do the states where "homesteading" laws apply, protect people in those states from such possible one-day buy-out/eviction by gov't. "developments"?

Clearly the elderly and poor are the ones most often targeted (since legally they cannot afford to "fight" to keep their house)...and also because they generally have less legal "clout."

This is particularly cruel to the elderly, who just want to live out their few remaining years in a house they've had for decades, and rightfully SHOULD remain as-is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. it still would be private property
whether or not it is owned by a corporation.

anyway, after the Kilo decision, it is easier for cities to abuse eminent domain to take private property from one holder and give it to another.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVK Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Not to mention the rights of their heirs.
What if they want to will the house to their children/grandchildren?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #41
46. IF the corporate property is SPECIFICALLY willed to continue corp.
...or to a public charity (who agrees IN WRITING beforehand to keep the property where it is, as-is, as "historic landmark"), somehow I doubt that's a "check-mate."

Only like usual, we're being "hypnotied" into believing Powers-That-Be have rights they don't.

Also, don't certain states have "homesteading" laws...which would over-rule the taking of one's private land UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVK Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. Homestead exemption protects home seizure by creditors.
The homestead exemption was enacted by many states to protect the family home against being sold by creditors. State laws differ, but all essentially set a monetary amount that a family will retain after the home is sold to repay debt. Naturally if the debt is less than the homestead exemption the creditor probably can't force the sale of the home. Most states limit this action to unsecured creditors; secured creditors, like mortgage holders, still have rights to the property as provided for by law. In some states the homestead must be filed with the county. Elsewhere it is an automatic exemption. Every few years most legislatures raise the homestead exemption amount to reflect current economic conditions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
triguy46 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
35. Oklahoma State University is prepping use of eminent domain
to condemn 160 acres north of campus, with 400 homes, mostly owned by elderly or rented by students to build an "athletic village" for its intercollegiate athletics programs. Boone Pickens gave them over $150 million for the buyout. The university it using high pressure and scare tactics to speed the process before new tax assessments can take place later this year. There are few alternatives for the elderly who live there, many over 50 years, in homes valued at $50 - $70K. Just not any place for them to go with that little money to have their own place. Its the brainstorm of boone, the president and the athletic director, with NO support of faculty, staff or students. Of course alums from Tulsa and OKC love it as does the Chamber of commerce. It is an embarrassment and a sin to throw the elderly, disabled and lower income families on the street so OSu can have an indoor practice facility. Hell, they're a crappy team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
39. This is right up the road from Mom's weekend place
even Repuke Stepdad agrees this is a lousy, rotten idea.

You oughta see the gawdawful ticky-tacky development that's been going up all along the Long Branch shoreline. The three of us call it "Lego", as in, "They want to tear down Mrs. DeFaria's house so they can put up some more Lego." :puke: Looks to me like they're using eminent domain to create blight!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
48. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
54. i wonder what is happening with Justice souter's property?
remember there was developer that was trying to take his house to build a hotel--the lost liberty hotel with a just deserts cafe? and a museum?

never mind. i just googled. and david souter gets to keep HIS house:


Angry Activists Lose Fight to Evict Justice Souter
FOX News - Feb 6, 2006
WEARE, NH Residents on Saturday overturned a proposal to evict US Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse and build an inn, instead ...

Justice prevails in eviction bid
Chicago Tribune, United States - Feb 5, 2006
WEARE, NEW HAMPSHIRE -- Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict US Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost ...

Voters Decline to Take Justice Souter's House
Los Angeles Times, CA - Feb 5, 2006
Voters in Weare rejected a proposal to evict US Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter from his farmhouse to make way for a "Lost Liberty Hotel.". ...

NATION IN BRIEF
Washington Post, United States - Feb 4, 2006
WEARE, NH -- Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel ...

Town rejects proposal to evict Justice Souter
Houston Chronicle, United States - Feb 4, 2006
By KATHY MCCORMACK. WEARE, NH - Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict US Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his ...

Souter's neighbors take back their town
Concord Monitor, NH - 13 hours ago
ongratulations to the residents of Weare, who stepped back from the brink of absurdity. US Supreme Court Justice David Souter no ...

Voters Block Proposal To Seize Justice Souter's Property
North Country Gazette, NY - Feb 5, 2006
WEARE, NH---Voters in the New Hampshire town of Weare blocked a proposal by eminent domain activists to seize the home of US Supreme Court Justice David Souter ...

Town votes to protect Souter's house
United Press International - Feb 5, 2006
CONCORD, NH, Feb. 5 (UPI) -- Voters in a New Hampshire town have stopped plans to seize the home of US Supreme Court Justice David Souter. ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 18th 2014, 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC