Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Wheeeeeew, is that rich! Stuck your finger in local politics lately? Think the surface of a urinal in a Basra motel. Now fill that urinal with rat feces. They'll cure cancer before local politics will ever approach anything remotely close to clean or even redeemable.

But what does that matter to the SCOTUS. They are men of academic concerns. Their policies need not acknowledge reality. Its like that line from "Back to School" where Rodney laughs at the teacher - "Where you gonna build that factory? Fantasyland?"

Wait, you don't trust the legislatures and/or local politicians, but you don't trust the Court either?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You know I love you like a brother, but that's an insane statement that renders the constitution nugatory in all respects.

I don't understand this obsession with the takings clause. As long as people get just compensation what is the big deal. If you don't think you are being paid enough for your property then I can see the complaint. But if the government seizes your land, take the money and buy some other land. It is when the government effects land and doesn't provide compensation then I have a problem. Like when the government declares your property a "Wet land" and won't let you build on it. You should be compensated for that because they have reduced the value of the land. The government can take my house anytime, as long as they pay the FMV. Just don't decide when a duck lands in a puddle on my property that I have to tear down my house.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Wait, you don't trust the legislatures and/or local politicians, but you don't trust the Court either?

I don't trust any of them. Yeh, I know... I gave up long ago. But you knew that... I consider them all useless profiteers, clueless bureaucrats, dim middle managers and self-interested degenerate whores. Politics and the Courts are a witches brew of the worst elements of our society. I expect nothing from them. When they do something worthwhile, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why supress the reports?

so the filthy useless blood sucking labor unions don't use it to frame the argument for sheeple with no understanding of elementary economics in terms of the easily digestible "der turk er jerbs!"?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Your talking about massive disruption of many peoples' lives when you condemn a neighborhood.

People in this country move all the time - it is no big deal.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter Also, FMV doesn't compensate for the emotional attachment people have for their homes,

Oh boo hoo. Give me a break. You are going to sacrifice the overall well being of an entire community because granny is attached to the farm.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter not to mention moving costs, etc.

Moving costs should be calcuated in. Maybe the rule should be 10% over FMV. The solution here is to increase compensation not to stop the takings.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter And I don't want the gov't taking my house to build the Monorail.

If it reduces my drive time by five minutes bull doze away.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand this obsession with the takings clause. As long as people get just compensation what is the big deal. If you don't think you are being paid enough for your property then I can see the complaint. But if the government seizes your land, take the money and buy some other land. It is when the government effects land and doesn't provide compensation then I have a problem. Like when the government declares your property a "Wet land" and won't let you build on it. You should be compensated for that because they have reduced the value of the land. The government can take my house anytime, as long as they pay the FMV. Just don't decide when a duck lands in a puddle on my property that I have to tear down my house.

What additional FMV to the fact that it's a family home? My guess is that your answer would be "zero." And that is part of the problem.


And what government action does not affect the value of land? I find the entire regulatory takings concept odious.



eta: I am not going to reply to any further comments on this, because I really want to see Slave and Spanky battle this one out.

Loser gets to fuck Paigow.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why supress the reports?

If they don't support CAFTA burn them. The administration is trying to pass CAFTA and they are the ones that initiated the research.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
If they don't support CAFTA burn them. The administration is trying to pass CAFTA and they are the ones that initiated the research.

That makes a lot more sense when I translate it into Russian.



Please note that I avoided the easy shot ("That was clearly the Admin's approach to reports about alleged WMD in Iraq.")

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What additional FMV to the fact that it's a family home? My guess is that your answer would be "zero." And that is part of the problem.


And what government action does not affect the value of land? I find the entire regulatory takings concept odious.



eta: I am not going to reply to any further comments on this, because I really want to see Slave and Spanky battle this one out.

Loser gets to fuck Paigow.

You may think it is Odious, but you benefit from it everyday. Without it we wouldn't have an interestate system. You wouldn't have electricty, gas, water, and there wouldn't be a single expressway or freeway in the San Francisco Bay Area (not to mention any public transportation). In addition there wouldn't be any shopping centers - especially in San Francisco.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You know I love you like a brother, but that's an insane statement that renders the constitution nugatory in all respects.

Read out of context, sure. But the proposition is that local governments are captive to certain special interests, and are making bad policy as a result. If you were to say that local governments do a bad job of policing, the remedy is to hire better policemen, not to get rid of criminals' rights.

I'm still waiting for a conservative to defend the idea that a local government should be able to take land to run its own shopping mall and parking lot, but shouldn't be able to take the land and privatize the operation.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You may think it is Odious, but you benefit from it everyday. Without it we wouldn't have an interestate system. You wouldn't have electricty, gas, water, and there wouldn't be a single expressway or freeway in the San Francisco Bay Area (not to mention any public transportation). In addition there wouldn't be any shopping centers - especially in San Francisco.

Perhaps I misused the term, but when I said "the regulatory takings concept," I was referring to the concept you advanced -- i.e., that you should be compensated for the loss of value to your land if you can't build a factory or toxic waste dump there. I'm not suggesting that gov't can't regulate land use (as if I need to point that out to anyone); I disagree with your notion that you should be paid for it.


Regulatory taking, as I (mis?)understand the term, has nothing to do with building the interstate system. Again, maybe I am misusing my terms but that sort of eminent domain taking, which I believe is clearly allowed by the Constitution but requires compensation, is different.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
You may think it is Odious, but you benefit from it everyday. Without it we wouldn't have an interestate system. You wouldn't have electricty, gas, water, and there wouldn't be a single expressway or freeway in the San Francisco Bay Area (not to mention any public transportation). In addition there wouldn't be any shopping centers - especially in San Francisco.

But it seems like we have been able to build plenty of hotels and office complexes without takings.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ever repped a developer? Lower life forms are hard to find.

Every scumbag developer from here to Alaska will now donate pissloads of cash to the local degenerates on the planning board to get the local govt to force a taking on some folks who don't want to sell a prime piece of land. The SCOTUS standard that the taking must be for local community betterment is easily met. Any scumbag planning board can decide a development is in the "community interest."

Excellent decision. Put the stupidest and most corrupt people on the planet in charge of deciding when private property may be taken.

This is what happens when idiots who've spent their lives in law books and never worked in reality get to decide such issues.

I am looking to get into development and in fact just identified a home run project (projected 500K profit; in and out in 18 months and I only need a couple hundred k to finance the jump off).

Is a developer a lower form of life than a young right wing chickenhawk republican? If not, does my opportunity for the sex go up? Do developers drive Porsches?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand this obsession with the takings clause. As long as people get just compensation what is the big deal. If you don't think you are being paid enough for your property then I can see the complaint. But if the government seizes your land, take the money and buy some other land. It is when the government effects land and doesn't provide compensation then I have a problem. Like when the government declares your property a "Wet land" and won't let you build on it. You should be compensated for that because they have reduced the value of the land. The government can take my house anytime, as long as they pay the FMV. Just don't decide when a duck lands in a puddle on my property that I have to tear down my house.

1) There's always a disagreement about what is just. There wouldn't be a lawsuit otherwise. The problem is that personal valuations of any asset tend to exceed market valuations. Sometimes it's a result of the endowment effect (as Ty for a link). Sometimes it's because of unique attributes of the property. One of the plaintiffs in Kelo was a woman who had lived in her house 87 years, or something. I highly doubt that much of the emotiional value lost from its destruction will be compensated.

2) Entirely separate question of what is a taking in the first place. There's a difference between physical takings and regulatory takings, the latter of which are harder to discern. BTW, I'd like you to point me to the case where a duck requires you to tear down your house. most of those cases limit farmers from using their land in full. So, they plant around the water hole. Not saying they shouldn't be compensated, but there's a more challeging question when uses are limited, rather than actual property taken and title transferred to another.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Wait, you don't trust the legislatures and/or local politicians, but you don't trust the Court either?

I don't trust any of them. I trust my framed copy of the Second Amendment and my assault rifle.