Inflation

[tsptalk]

imported post

puertorico wrote:

let's see what my dreams tonight tell me for tomorrow :^

This time post it before the deadline

 

[puertorico]

imported post

zas ! yes I know that's ano count ,when the call
is later but I was sorprised when I saw the market
going down and in that moment my dreams cames
to my mind . I was no able to said before becouse
in the morning I forget about the dream I had ,
the wake up call came when the market was in red
and in that moment came to my mind ,hey "that was my dream"
... I dont gonna get credit ,but I feel the urgent to said anyway .
but ,if Iwere able to said early, right now Iwere a genious ...
or a Guru's forrum ..is funny . I had the call in my hands and
I let it go . Is nice to be a heroe for 1 day but it will be another
day ....I blew it:? ... stay tunne

 

[Mike]

imported post

We have no more property rights.

RIP, USA.

1776-2005

 

[Guest]

imported post

I agree with ya Mike.

They can take your home away for a Starbucks. Hope you do not live on a corner lot.

Will push people to buy in floods zones.

 

[Guest]

imported post

grandma wrote:

DMA wrote:

I have read a lot of stories in the Northeast about property being seized for economic development. Can not give specifics thou. Saw something on FOX News about three weeks ago along these lines also.:?
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide when governments may seize people's homes and businesses for economic development projects.
At issue is the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is given "just compensation" and the land is for "public use."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2113868 (another story)

"DMA: had you perused this post I madeback in March when you were researching my postings Monday 6/13?? Worldnetdaily & Biznet have since had more articles -

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/forum38/1282.html

Grandama - thank you!

I have to admit I was in denial and hoping it would of gotten shoot down.

Property rights are very important to me. Home is your palace.

Economic development is a very broad umbrella.

Really no home owner is safe now. No matter how much we believe we are.

 

[Guest]

imported post

tsptalk wrote:

puertorico wrote:

let's see what my dreams tonight tell me for tomorrow :^

This time post it before the deadline

Maybe in his dream he posted before the deadline.

Thanks for your thoughts PR - you were spot on as all ways.

Your insights are magic.

 

[Mike]

imported post

Though upon closer examination:

The Supreme Court ruled on the part of CT law which contained a "public good" clause in addition to "public use"... and used that to justify granting local government officials the power to decide what "public good" meant. What this means is that if your state's eminant domain law only has the "public use" clause, this ruling should not apply (and if someone tries to use it in such fashion, I'd say it could bechallenged on that basis).

So, check your state laws, folks. If the wording is similar to CT's, you areat the whim of local government officials.

Perhaps this will result in stronger civic involvement across the country.City council meetingscould be much more important to people now...

I'd say the solution is for the states to narrow their definitions of what is suitable for eminant domain to put the clamps on potential abuse. If any state laws read likeConnecticut's, I'd say we're in deep deep trouble with lots of potential conflict / litigation / corruption on the horizon. Remember, when cities acquire property, they pay the assessed value, NOT themarket value. This could be financially lethal to people on mortgages - and it'd be a boon to any developer / business / wealthy individual trying to acquire some land for an artificially deflated price from the city. :shock:

 

[Guest]

imported post

Mike, check out the wording on the article I posted above:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

That means if they screw up and take your home it does not work out they gave it the old college try. :shock::shock::shock:

No liability at all - no liability at all - just seize, seize seize.

We will be a country of shopping malls and parking lots and high rises for the people to live. IMHO.


BTW: I believe the ruling was for ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. Not just CT.

I hope you do not live on a corner lot. :shock:

 

[Guest]

imported post

AP story - It reads to me like it is nationwide.

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property;_ylt=ArdCEpNCw.sbn.KhG3fq6nCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

(snip)

"The U.S. Supreme Court destroyed everybody's lives today, everybody who owns a home," said Richard Beyer, owner of two rental properties in the once-vibrant immigrant neighborhood.

------------------

I could be wrong but that is how it reads to me.

 

[Mike]

imported post

The ruling doesn't impact everyone according to this article.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002346643_scotus24.html

One paragraph in the article states this:

"The ruling is expected to have no effect in Washington, which forbids the use of eminent domain for private development. At least seven other states forbid using eminent domain unless it is to eliminate blight."

So there are at least eight states that the ruling does not apply to... I don't happen to know which ones constitute the other seven (or more), however. As I said previously - any homeowners on here would be wise to look up their respective state law concerning eminant domain. I'm going to check Minnesota's tonight or tomorrow when I have time (won't impact me though as I'm a renter next to a school - not much point in developing this area any further).

 

[Guest]

imported post

I am researching it now. The headlines are fuzzy and deceiving. Other states:

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

I guess if this works out in other states you may be some laws being changed?

Revenue is the life blood of a state. Sup Court all ready has their back.

Will not be fun to watch this play out.

IMHO.

 

[Mike]

imported post

I think you may see a strong demand for a change in the law...

I've discussed this with quite a few people who are normally on the opposite side of political issues - and we all agree this is a horrible decision. :shock:

 

[grandma]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Though upon closer examination:
....What this means is that if your state's eminant domain law only has the "public use" clause, this ruling should not apply (and if someone tries to use it in such fashion, I'd say it could bechallenged on that basis).

So, check your state laws, folks.

"http://www.local10.com/news/4645612/detail.html (Florida

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=65141 (Georgia

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/11968599.htm (California

Houston Texas - required to sign up first -

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/

..these are from Worldnetdaily.com, a news digest. There are undoubtedly many more instances across the nation. My reading perceivesthat should the government entity decide it wants something, any protectingstate law will have to so specific that it will probably be struck down as unconsitutional. :X

What we really need :iis for the Senate to present ALL court nominees for up or down down vote (constitution DOES say that is their job & thelaw) and get some judges in who rule by the Constitution instead of any social/cultural changes they & the media would like to claim responsiblity for!!!

I don't shop or deal w/any business that have irritated my property, such as destroying the woods that protected me from the highway traffic - hums so loud even in middle of night I can hear it w/my windows closed!!

 

[Guest]

imported post

Funny I am reading the other boards and they really do not care.

We have been trained just to go about our lives. Sort of like an earthworm.

IMHO.

 

[Mike]

imported post

... or like the Matrix. :shock:

 

[Guest]

imported post

[align=center]

[/align]

 

[Guest]

imported post

CNN is calling it a Christmas Present to retailers :shock::shock::shock::

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm?cnn=yes

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.

I guess that 70% of the economy is based on shopping has spilled over to our living rooms.

The living CONstitution.

 

[Mike]

imported post

So much for our "ownership society". :shock:

 

[Guest]

imported post

Guess you need "incorporated" behind your name now?

Mike, Incorporated.

Hmm. Wonder if you set up corporate account like they hock in NV if they can seize your property?

I am going to research that. Not to spam the board - but I am really going to research that.

Must a corporate name have a suffix?

Yes. The corporate name you choose must include a suffix, either spelled out or abbreviated, examples are Incorporated (INC), Corporation (CORP), Professional Association (PA)(P.C. in some states), or Limited Liability Company (LLC). When completing the incorporation request, please indicate your choice.


Advantages

Personal assets are protected from business debt, liability and seizure.

 

[grandma]

imported post

DMA wrote:

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

Can this work in reverse? There is a casino in ARacross the river fromMemphis that has apparently (according to the Lawmen & Social Workers in that area) ...has apparently caused a blight in the surrounding areas.

so ......for the public good , health factors, and savings of local government sudden highly escalated costs in law enforcement, etc, etc. - the concerned citizens could reclaim this land for themselves???

:h...dream on ....!!!