US is stealing land! - GoFuckYourself.com

freeadultcontent · 09-25-2004, 06:41 PM

Sorry had to after seeing the Israel thread.

Yet they actually do, and way to often. Supreme court should be hearing a case shortly to see if it is constitutional.
States have had the right for public use. Which has been streched to hell now. Public use once was freeways, national parks, etc. Then in the 60's it was used for urban slums "operation move the minorities". Then years latter counties and states started claiming "blight" was public use, and now recently trying to take property where the property tax is super low do to home ownership Vs. what "could be there" if it was redeveloped in property taxes.

Yup we still in America, we still have our rights.

DWB · 09-25-2004, 07:12 PM

The white man has been stealing land since he first started exploring the world.

CheneyRumsfeld · 09-25-2004, 07:13 PM

thats great!
you can never have too much land!
grab it while you can!

korzon · 09-25-2004, 07:14 PM

freeadultcontent · 09-25-2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
The white man has been stealing land since he first started exploring the world.

Shh I am Native American.
Problem is city councils and such are not always "white men".

arg · 09-25-2004, 07:31 PM

I think the seizure of land for uses society deems appropriate is reasonable, providing reasonable compensation is made. It's unfortunate when a highway goes through an area of homes, but what can you do? Same with blight, Detroit has more abandoned homes than inhabited in a lot of neighborhoods.

The recent trend in seizing property for commercial rezoning, however, seems to be excessive; the primary seems to be governmental greed. I think the government should take measures to ensure that the original property owner was the primary beneficiary of the newly created property and tax-based wealth, but as it is, they might seize a home, pay the owner $100,000 because it's run down, rezone the property as commercial, sell it to Starbucks for $500,000, collect $25,000 in property taxes and another $10,000 in other business taxes. If instead they gave the home owner the rezoned property value (e.g., paid them $500,000) and maybe ten years worth of the added tax revenue, that would take away any greed motive from the government, so they'd have to evaluate the seizure based only on the societal benefit of the rezoning. The home owner, while they might still not want to do the deal, at least would be generously compensated. Of course if they were that generously compensated, they'd probably voluntarily sell the home anyway, so seizure wouldn't be necessary.

freeadultcontent · 09-25-2004, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arg

The recent trend in seizing property for commercial rezoning, however, seems to be excessive; the primary seems to be governmental greed. I think the government should take measures to ensure that the original property owner was the primary beneficiary of the newly created property and tax-based wealth, but as it is, they might seize a home, pay the owner $100,000 because it's run down, rezone the property as commercial, sell it to Starbucks for $500,000, collect $25,000 in property taxes and another $10,000 in other business taxes. If instead they gave the home owner the rezoned property value (e.g., paid them $500,000) and maybe ten years worth of the added tax revenue, that would take away any greed motive from the government, so they'd have to evaluate the seizure based only on the societal benefit of the rezoning. The home owner, while they might still not want to do the deal, at least would be generously compensated. Of course if they were that generously compensated, they'd probably voluntarily sell the home anyway, so seizure wouldn't be necessary.

Still think above is total bullshit.

Screaming · 09-25-2004, 07:53 PM

well in a way they kinda have to in some cases and in others they are just dicks

scoobydookc · 09-25-2004, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
The white man has been stealing land since he first started exploring the world.

Natural selection is a bitch, isn't it?

Satan · 09-25-2004, 08:05 PM

As a wise man once said, if you want to own some land or a country, all you need is a flag...

that's how most countries got taken over, countries who had their flags sorted out, simply stuck it in the ground.. the indians didn't have a flag, so they were owned.

Goatse · 09-25-2004, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
The white man has been stealing land since he first started exploring the world.

The Mexicans are doing a damn good job stealing it back.

Paul Markham · 09-25-2004, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
The white man has been stealing land since he first started exploring the world.

And the black man never ever took lands.

Not our fault the white man was better at it. But no worries, we gave it all back to you so you could continue killing each other.

Don't even start to think about replying until you list all the countries in Africa who are killing each other because the guy on the other side of the river is a different tribe or religion.

Stelaing land is a human thing not a colour thing. Stop being racist.

09-25-2004, 06:41 PM	#1
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	US is stealing land! Sorry had to after seeing the Israel thread. Yet they actually do, and way to often. Supreme court should be hearing a case shortly to see if it is constitutional. States have had the right for public use. Which has been streched to hell now. Public use once was freeways, national parks, etc. Then in the 60's it was used for urban slums "operation move the minorities". Then years latter counties and states started claiming "blight" was public use, and now recently trying to take property where the property tax is super low do to home ownership Vs. what "could be there" if it was redeveloped in property taxes. Yup we still in America, we still have our rights. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

09-25-2004, 07:14 PM	#4
korzon Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,524	__________________

09-25-2004, 07:53 PM	#8
Screaming I can change this!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 18,972	well in a way they kinda have to in some cases and in others they are just dicks __________________

09-25-2004, 08:05 PM	#10
Satan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hell Posts: 1,626	As a wise man once said, if you want to own some land or a country, all you need is a flag... that's how most countries got taken over, countries who had their flags sorted out, simply stuck it in the ground.. the indians didn't have a flag, so they were owned. __________________ WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?

09-25-2004, 07:12 PM	#2
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	The white man has been stealing land since he first started exploring the world.

09-25-2004, 07:13 PM	#3
CheneyRumsfeld Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,341	thats great! you can never have too much land! grab it while you can!

09-25-2004, 07:31 PM	#6
arg Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,164	I think the seizure of land for uses society deems appropriate is reasonable, providing reasonable compensation is made. It's unfortunate when a highway goes through an area of homes, but what can you do? Same with blight, Detroit has more abandoned homes than inhabited in a lot of neighborhoods. The recent trend in seizing property for commercial rezoning, however, seems to be excessive; the primary seems to be governmental greed. I think the government should take measures to ensure that the original property owner was the primary beneficiary of the newly created property and tax-based wealth, but as it is, they might seize a home, pay the owner $100,000 because it's run down, rezone the property as commercial, sell it to Starbucks for $500,000, collect $25,000 in property taxes and another $10,000 in other business taxes. If instead they gave the home owner the rezoned property value (e.g., paid them $500,000) and maybe ten years worth of the added tax revenue, that would take away any greed motive from the government, so they'd have to evaluate the seizure based only on the societal benefit of the rezoning. The home owner, while they might still not want to do the deal, at least would be generously compensated. Of course if they were that generously compensated, they'd probably voluntarily sell the home anyway, so seizure wouldn't be necessary.