Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Los Angeles to seize some 30 small businesses in Hollywood through eminent

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
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:55 PM
Original message
Los Angeles to seize some 30 small businesses in Hollywood through eminent
Saturday, March 4, 2006

Los Angeles to seize some 30 small businesses in Hollywood through eminent domain

By: North County Times wire services

HOLLYWOOD -- Los Angeles officials plan to seize some 30 small businesses in Hollywood through eminent domain to make way for a $400 million residential-commercial project anchored by a hotel, it was reported Friday.

The condemnation proceedings, authorized by the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, set the stage for one of the most ambitious revitalization efforts in Hollywood, the Los Angeles Times reported.

But the action is being decried as heavy-handed and unfriendly by homeowners and merchants who said it was wrong to use public money and power to benefit a private developer, according to the newspaper.

(snip)

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/03/04/news/state/1...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. I can't wait until people
decide to defend their property. Should be real fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Los Angeles to seize businesses or to seize land owned by businesses?
Is Los Angeles going to seize all assets of the businesses including equipment, inventory, trademarks, information about customers, etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It seized the buildings. Not the contents, as owners
who want to keep their businesses will relocate to other areas - with their supplies and inventories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Just the land. You get to leave with whatever you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. this is questionable- the Hollywood and Vine area?
The Brown Derby?
The FROLIC Room?
The Greyhound Bus station?
The Subway terminal?
The several large Parking Lots?-I know they are small businesses.
The Hollywood/Vine Building? (20 someodd stories-huge Bldg)
The historic older 10 story buidings next to the Subway station??

This article doesn't say who is affected?
They should wait and get their facts before they print stuff like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Here is the link from LAT
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hollywood3_mar0...

Luggage store owner Robert Blue said his historic, 78-year-old building was designed by an architect who helped set the tone of Hollywood in its golden age and who went on to win an Academy Award for his art design work on the classic Errol Flynn-Olivia de Havilland film "The Adventures of Robin Hood." Architect Carl Jules Weyl won the 1938 Oscar for best art direction.

Other businesses that will be displaced include a nail-and-hair salon, a cocktail lounge, insurance office and a state Department of Motor Vehicles facility, along with Angelyne's business office.

The landmark Taft Building on the northwest edge of the site will remain.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I know the building on the NE corner-my friend had a recording studiothere
They have to leave it alone along with the one across the street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. Isn't the Stella Adler Theatre (hugely historic building) in that area?
If so, could be a fight there.

'Course there wasn't a "fight" when Turner/Kerkorian bought MGM, gutted/"remodeled" its historic Thalberg building with modern cubicles...and threw into huge dumpsters endless invaluable keepsakes from 30-60's films kept in various soundstages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. Business counts far more than individual liberties.
So sayith these assholes running the country at the moment. Fuck them all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. the SC ruling has really really really been shity for people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. My comm. property was taken this way. I never truly recovered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. What a scam the dancing supremes have allowed.
Great, I wonder when the pretext of commercial improvement will be used to take dissident's homes and businesses? We certainly have a fine mess in this country where even your property is no longer your property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
13. Why can't the free market settle this problem?
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 11:14 AM by 1932
If the land is so valuable for the new project, why can't the private corps who will benefit pay the current owners what their land is worth?

I understand that there would be problems with irrational holdouts, but there must be some FREE MARKET mechanism by which a developer can negotiate with a group of individual owners so that everyone pays and receives a fair price for their property.

Right?

Can't we get the nation's best MBA students and professors to work out a free market mechanism?

Or maybe the government does have a role to play -- but do we trust our government to get the best price for the people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
14. what's being ignored is the Constitution's 5th Amendm. clause that
states: 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' There is nothing in the Constitution that allows private property to be taken for private use. The SC-Kelo ruling has put the whole nation on the slippery slope of taking private property for private use and the powers-that-be can decide whose property can be transferred for their preferred use. This is scary shit.


NATIONAL EMINENT DOMAIN POWER

Overview

''The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.'' 160 Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.'' 161 In the early years of the nation the federal power of eminent domain lay dormant, 162 and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States 163 any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any State. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power, 164 but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wide- ranging that vast numbers of objects may be effected. 165 This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. 166 Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State. 167


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme...

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 Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 05:07 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