Jump to content
retrofade

Texans having land condemned for the Great Wall of Trump

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, roswellcoug said:

If we had a northern wall, the undocumented couldn't get to Canada as easily!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-mexico-canada-idUSKBN16N1W0

With two walls, that is fine.  We aren't making a tunnel here, we are creating our safe space. We need to ensure the bad hombr-eh's stay out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Unfortunately, an EIS won't happen (as is evidenced by the fact they're already acquiring land). They're relying on the Dubyah border fence authorization, which exempted the project from NEPA review. It has resulted in some drainage nightmares along the SD/TJ fence. 

If NEPA was applied, the Socioeconomic impacts of the wall would need examination. This would include analyzing the effects of private property acquisition and residential relocation. But that kind of big government analysis apparently doesn't jive with making 'Murica great again.

Oh, and EPA has to sign off on Final EISs. Doesn't look like there will be anyone there to do it anyway. 

Then I think some interested parties need to sue on behalf of some interested peoples, plants, and wildlife... and force NEPA review. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

Then I think some interested parties need to sue on behalf of some interested peoples, plants, and wildlife... and force NEPA review. 

Reminded me of this.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2075761/trumps-wall-threatens-111-endangered-species

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

This is a level of retardedness from the wall idea I hadn't thought about it.

  • Like 1

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

This is a level of retardedness from the wall idea I hadn't thought about it.

I especially enjoyed the concern about saving El Jefe, the last jaguar in the US. I suggest we wait on the wall until he dies, because he still has a small chance to mate! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2017 at 2:34 PM, retrofade said:


https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-border-wall-mexico-condemnation-letter/

Where are all of you right-wing anti-eminent domain crusaders now? $2,900 for 1.2 acres of property? The government is stealing from these people --- hey, we'll give you this pittance or we're just going to take the land anyway. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN BY STEALING FROM CITIZENS! WHOOOOOO! MURICA!!!!!!!!!

Isn't that about what it's worth?

I'm not defending this, I hate when the government pulls this crap.  It's not a fight the average citizen wins.  They're doing this to expand a freeway near my home, and several people have lost their homes.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roswellcoug said:

 

I especially enjoyed the concern about saving El Jefe, the last jaguar in the US. I suggest we wait on the wall until he dies, because he still has a small chance to mate! 

He's not the last. In the last couple years a second and third jaguar have been photographed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/12/08/jaguar-spotting-a-new-wild-cat-may-be-roaming-the-united-states/?utm_term=.f63cf897cbb8

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-central-southern-az/third-jaguar-spotted-in-southern-arizona

 

  • Like 1

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, roswellcoug said:

 

The land is 16 acres, and the government is asking to buy 1.2 acres of it. Nobody is moving, so stop the histrionics. 

Of course, I wouldn't want a wall on my property, either. NIMBY! 

The gubment is not 'asking' to buy. It's emenint domain brother. They are taking what they want. 

It is what it is and I still think the landowner should get paid more for his piece of the 'wall that ensures Americas freedom'. Everyone should be ponying up to make this guy a hero. Sacrificing HIS land for American freedom. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pokebball said:

What's your argument for fair price?

I know this question wasn't directed at me, so forgive me with my take.

Fair price in theses instances isn't something you or I could actually put a number on...,

But giving / forcing someone to  take high market value, isn't right.

If we ( as a country) need that small section of land for 'security ' we either ask for that land to be donated to the cause, if landowner doesn't believe in 'our cause' we pay twice market value. In this case $5,800. Pissy dribble in the bucket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DestinFlPackfan said:

I know this question wasn't directed at me, so forgive me with my take.

Fair price in theses instances isn't something you or I could actually put a number on...,

But giving / forcing someone to  take high market value, isn't right.

If we ( as a country) need that small section of land for 'security ' we either ask for that land to be donated to the cause, if landowner doesn't believe in 'our cause' we pay twice market value. In this case $5,800. Pissy dribble in the bucket. 

Why not 10 times the market value?

This has been going on for 200 years and is an example of a reasonable public use.

 

If there was some multiplication factor politicians and greedy people everywhere would be buying these properties and running the price up through the roof.  That useless piece of scrub would become a 100K property which you would have the government pay 200K for.

Real estate investors know about this stuff in advance.  It takes years to do an eminent domain action.   Just the mear act of starting one would cause values to go crazy if there was a multiplication factor.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Why not 10 times the market value?

This has been going on for 200 years and is an example of a reasonable public use.

 

If there was some multiplication factor politicians and greedy people everywhere would be buying these properties and running the price up through the roof.  That useless piece of scrub would become a 100K property which you would have the government pay 200K for.

Real estate investors know about this stuff in advance.  It takes years to do an eminent domain action.   Just the mear act of starting one would cause values to go crazy if there was a multiplication factor.

Could you imagine 1st landowner getting x amount for his property- then going to a landowner a few miles down and buying that persons property for two times face value- then selling it to the government for ten times. Damn I wish I had some property on the border right now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/rural-land#!/region/South_Texas

According to this the median price per acre in South Texas is $1,362. $2,900 for 1.2 acres doesn't seem egregious.

Do you seriously not get my point? I find that very hard to believe. How about someone shows up and says, "I'm gonna take your dog. It's not a very good dog, but I give you 500 bucks for it." Will you say, "Oh wow, I feel fairly compensated because everything can be reduced to its monetary value," or will you say, "Take your phuckin fingers off my phukin dog, it's not for sale!"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Ram said:

Do you seriously not get my point? I find that very hard to believe. How about someone shows up and says, "I'm gonna take your dog. It's not a very good dog, but I give you 500 bucks for it." Will you say, "Oh wow, I feel fairly compensated because everything can be reduced to its monetary value," or will you say, "Take your phuckin fingers off my phukin dog, it's not for sale!"?

Eminent domain at any level of government has always been like that. They're going to take your dog and overpay for it somewhat. 

  • Like 2

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I am Ram said:

Do you seriously not get my point? I find that very hard to believe. How about someone shows up and says, "I'm gonna take your dog. It's not a very good dog, but I give you 500 bucks for it." Will you say, "Oh wow, I feel fairly compensated because everything can be reduced to its monetary value," or will you say, "Take your phuckin fingers off my phukin dog, it's not for sale!"?

I get it. Eminent domain sucks. But this particular case isn't even close to the worst you'll hear.

  • Like 2

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an eminent domain case that sucked.  One of the worst violations in history.   This is something to complain about, the situation of the wall is totally different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

elo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]

 

 

Dissenting opinions[edit]

The principal dissent was issued on 25 June 2005 by Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas. The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception:

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

O'Connor argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." 125 S.Ct. 2655, 2671.

Thomas also issued a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed. He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test:

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'

Thomas additionally observed:

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

545 U.S. 469, 518 (2005)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

This is an eminent domain case that sucked.  One of the worst violations in history.   This is something to complain about, the situation of the wall is totally different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

elo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]

 

 

Dissenting opinions[edit]

The principal dissent was issued on 25 June 2005 by Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas. The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception:

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

O'Connor argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." 125 S.Ct. 2655, 2671.

Thomas also issued a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed. He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test:

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'

Thomas additionally observed:

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

545 U.S. 469, 518 (2005)

This was an aggregious case. As a result of the Kelo case most states greatly modified the criteria for defining "blighted" property. It was instrumental in California going even further and eliminating Redevelopment Agencies entirely, as they had typically been the agents of scenarios where eminent domain was used to transfer land to a private party for a supposedly "public" purpose. 

  • Like 3

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

This was an aggregious case. As a result of the Kelo case most states greatly modified the criteria for defining "blighted" property. It was instrumental in California going even further and eliminating Redevelopment Agencies entirely, as they had typically been the agents of scenarios where eminent domain was used to transfer land to a private party for a supposedly "public" purpose. 

Petco Park, if I am not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Petco Park, if I am not mistaken.

Yeap. The Centre City Redevelopment Corporation was abolished. It would be much harder to assemble those parcels today. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...