your home is not your castle

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

---

story

I don't like it but sometimes I agree that compulsory purchase is needed for government projects, but I cannot agree with people having to lose their property to a private business against their will.

If a private company wishes to build on private land they should have to make an offer to the landowners. If the landowners ask too much then tough, don't buy the land.

If I wasn't compensated nicely then I would be breakin' out my arsenal to fight an unjust government.

:ph34r:

is this not against human rights and stuff?

Sure, fine, - since your the boss, just take my land which my ancestors built and not managed to screw up - yeah why not - hey if its a highway even better
ever heard of douglas adams?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

If I wasn't compensated nicely then I would be breakin' out my arsenal to fight an unjust government.

:ph34r:

---

I'm not familiar with the law in the US, could someone point me or explain to me what sort of a pecuniary compensation are the people whose land is seized entitled to? :unsure:


edit: forgot one part of the sentence: it should be "could someone point me to a site" :frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99%

Sure, fine, - since your the boss, just take my land which my ancestors built and not managed to screw up - yeah why not - hey if its a highway even better
ever heard of douglas adams?

---

Highways would be Eminent Domain since it's for public use.

What vid pointed out is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guillaume

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

If I wasn't compensated nicely then I would be breakin' out my arsenal to fight an unjust government.

:ph34r:

---

I'm not familiar with the law in the US, could someone point me or explain to me what sort of a pecuniary compensation are the people whose land is seized entitled to? :unsure:


edit: forgot one part of the sentence: it should be "could someone point me to a site" :frusty:

---

Can't say for sure the exact amount, but a friend of mine was bought out for the construction of a huge mall complex. His family was quite happy to leave, as were the residents of the entire three blocks, so apparently the offers are generous.

In a second situation, for another 500 million dollars project, a cluster of houses were bought out, with the exception of a little old lady who refused to leave. All the houses were destroyed and even the excavation had begun. Three years later, her house was still there, isolated. The project lost funding and a large hole remained at the excavation site which covered many city blocks. It was dubbed the Clayton pond and it sat there for ten years.

Each case is really a special situation. The real issue is just how much abuse is made. The decision should be based on need, not political arm twisting behind the scenes.

.



and also this




.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

If I wasn't compensated nicely then I would be breakin' out my arsenal to fight an unjust government.

:ph34r:

---

Maybe play out Stephen Kings Roadwork?


*If that ever happens, let me know... I wanna watch :ph34r:

TD

I may be wrong, as the USA law is different to the UK's (and it was only mentioned briefly in my training all those years ago), however I believe in the USA compensation for Compulsary Purchase is an appraisal of the open market value of the residential property.

If it was a private company, then it wouldnt have been compulsary purchase, and they would offer more than the market value to get the land.

In the UK you'd get the Market Value; plus compensation based upon the time the property has been in your, or your families possession for the Compulsary Purchase, and the same thing would happen as in the USA for private companies.

Not knowing all the facts, i couldnt second guess the Judges.. but on the face of it, this is just a private company getting the land cheap by making a loophole in the legislation.

Someone is probably either on the take or has an interest in the development at the Local Government level for them to get involved in something like this... :ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

I may be wrong, as the USA law is different to the UK's (and it was only mentioned briefly in my training all those years ago), however I believe in the USA compensation for Compulsary Purchase is an appraisal of the open market value of the residential property.

If it was a private company, then it wouldnt have been compulsary purchase, and they would offer more than the market value to get the land.

In the UK you'd get the Market Value; plus compensation based upon the time the property has been in your, or your families possession for the Compulsary Purchase, and the same thing would happen as in the USA for private companies.

Not knowing all the facts, i couldnt second guess the Judges.. but on the face of it, this is just a private company getting the land cheap by making a loophole in the legislation.

Someone is probably either on the take or has an interest in the development at the Local Government level for them to get involved in something like this... :ph34r:

---

.....which is why I would call every news agency and shoot anyone who comes to take my property.

This lady in Las Vegas (or was it Atlantic City?) got fucked over big time.

Trump offered her a ton of money for her house 'cause he wanted to build a casino on her land. She refused. He then got his political cronies involved and made her move while compensating her much less.

Trump, Da bITCH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Not knowing all the facts, i couldnt second guess the Judges.. but on the face of it, this is just a private company getting the land cheap by making a loophole in the legislation.

Someone is probably either on the take or has an interest in the development at the Local Government level for them to get involved in something like this... :ph34r:

---

It does "appear" that way.

the judgement was supposedly made if the new development would create jobs and tax revenue, however it will only ever happen in poor neighbourhoods. And it doesn't mean that the created jobs would go to the people of those poor neighbourhoods.
I am totally against it because it does favour private industry over "the little guy". Private industry is out for one reason..profit.. so if they wish to purchase private land then the owners should name the price and not government. Ask too much and the purchaser has the right to go elsewhere.

It is also IMO too open to abuse. A private developer can buy land in poor neighbourhoods by this scheme cheaper than vacant land in more affluent parts of town.

It raises some interesting points.

What for example would happen if a deal were half way thro' but the person died.

Would the person who received the house in a will be forced to go thro' with the compulsory purchase or could they back out.

Even better, what if the person died intestate and there was no obvious owner. These things can go on for years. Would the purchase go thro' or would they have to wait until there was an owner found / decided.

In England (not sure about Scotland, the Law is different)

a/ Compulsary is Compulsary.. they couldnt back out, the amount of compensation would be affected though.

b/ If they died intestate, the money would go to their Estate and the Compulsary Purchase would go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

b/ If they died intestate, the money would go to their Estate and the Compulsary Purchase would go ahead.

---

So the same would apply if they died testate.

So let me get this right.

If the owner died testate then the beneficiary would get the house, but they would be compelled to go thro' with the deal.

If the owner died intestate then the deal would go thro' and the eventual beneficiary would get the proceeds of the sale, rather than the house itself.

That sounds sensible.

The pecuniary gain would be unaffected, so no problem. Other than the fact that the beneficiary, for the intestate example would not have been able to fight the sale.

if the owner died intestate and there was no obvious beneficiary what happens?

if they died testate and the beficiary was out of the country or something, does anyone have a right to destroy the property if they can't be found?

Obviously it would be more complicated if the person died intestate and it was the connubial home. It would seem apparent, from the start that the surviving spouse was the beneficial owner and could contest any forced sale.

However they may not prove to be the ultimate owner of the property. So could they fight the order, on a reasonable assumption that it would eventually be theirs or would that be a matter for the trustees of the estate.

my dad left 4 years ago but my parents never got divorced. pretending we're in america: if my mum dies intestate and the house is still connubial, what happens to it as my dad may be untraceable

i wonder if there's ways round having your house destroyed like this. one time my brother had debt collectors after him so we made a contract where he sold all his valuable possessions to me for 50 pence. so that if a bailiff came to the door we could discombobulate them into not taking any of his stuff. maybe you could sell a house to someone who can't be contacted then "rent" it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i wonder if there's ways round having your house destroyed like this. one time my brother had debt collectors after him so we made a contract where he sold all his valuable possessions to me for 50 pence. so that if a bailiff came to the door we could discombobulate them into not taking any of his stuff. maybe you could sell a house to someone who can't be contacted then "rent" it

---

The actual "compulsory seizure" would be an official government action under this ruling, so it would be operated the same way as a road project. I would assume that government has procedures for "uncontactable" owners based on time-scales.
I doubt very much that any project would be held up by any of the scenarios posed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

my dad left 4 years ago but my parents never got divorced. pretending we're in america: if my mum dies intestate and the house is still connubial, what happens to it as my dad may be untraceable

---

I believe different rules apply to the lumpen there but over here, the house would go to the next of kin (your dad) but since he is untracable then it would be passed on to the you in trust.

sorry to go off-topic but frankly i find that quite offensive.

it's a rediculous stereotype to call single parent families lumpen. it may be ostensible as we're poor but we certainly aren't lumpen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

sorry to go off-topic but frankly i find that quite offensive.

it's a rediculous stereotype to call single parent families lumpen. it may be ostensible as we're poor but we certainly aren't lumpen.

---

I think manker was a tad orotund with his post but I'm sure he didn't mean offense.


On-topic: I'm with Busyman here, if anyone "bought" my property out then I'd be waiting for them Stephen King's Roadwork style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

sorry to go off-topic but frankly i find that quite offensive.

it's a rediculous stereotype to call single parent families lumpen. it may be ostensible as we're poor but we certainly aren't lumpen.

---

I think manker was a tad orotund with his post but I'm sure he didn't mean offense.

---

You are right, lumpen doesn't seem offensive in my Gumbo-esque dialect from the valleys. Humble apologies, Dave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

I think manker was a tad orotund with his post but I'm sure he didn't mean offense.

---

You are right, lumpen doesn't seem offensive in my Gumbo-esque dialect from the valleys. Humble apologies, Dave.

---

thanks for your spurious apology, i don't believe your "gumbo-esque" dialect is a good reason to call my family underclass though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

You are right, lumpen doesn't seem offensive in my Gumbo-esque dialect from the valleys. Humble apologies, Dave.

---

thanks for your spurious apology, i don't believe your "gumbo-esque" dialect is a good reason to call my family underclass though.

---

Hmm.

You seem tense, maybe a little jaded. I suggest some spiritual uplifting may be just the thing to lift you out of the slums, I mean slump.

Tai-Chi is said to do just this by increasing one's proprioception and kinesthesia. Perchance a local affiliation could assist you in attaining this worthwhile goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Tai-Chi is said to do just this by increasing one's proprioception and kinesthesia. Perchance a local affiliation could assist you in attaining this worthwhile goal.

---

Erm. You'll find that Qi-gong is better for redirecting the body's energies or chi, thus enabling our friend to calm his ardour.
But I suspect that, all taken with your smart-arsery machination you didn't use google to its full extent. :P

edit: sorry for turning this into a martial arts topic. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guillaume

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Tai-Chi is said to do just this by increasing one's proprioception and kinesthesia. Perchance a local affiliation could assist you in attaining this worthwhile goal.

---

Erm. You'll find that Qi-gong is better for redirecting the body's energies or chi, thus enabling our friend to calm his ardour.
But I suspect that, all taken with your smart-arsery machination you didn't use google to its full extent. :P

edit: sorry for turning this into a martial arts topic. :(

---

In my perquisite as forum grammaticaster, I completely blagged that post and as such am particularly happy that Tai-Chi was in some way relevent :happy:

manker

stop joking around. don't think this will neutralise the pathos of your machination

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

sorry to go off-topic but frankly i find that quite offensive.

it's a rediculous stereotype to call single parent families lumpen. it may be ostensible as we're poor but we certainly aren't lumpen.

---

I think manker was a tad orotund with his post but I'm sure he didn't mean offense.


On-topic: I'm with Busyman here, if anyone "bought" my property out then I'd be waiting for them Stephen King's Roadwork style.

---

That of course would be my last resort.

Maybe after I am martyred it would attract enough attention to the issue. :ph34r:

I would have to be paid dearly. My home is not just money. It has sentimental value and they'll have to overpay to uproot me.

Else they can go fuck themselves.

I can imagine some fuckhead in government salivating over the tax revenue of letting a builder throw up 24 houses on 8 acres of land and claiming Eminent Domain to do it.

I'll shoot the first motherfucker in a Caterpillar. :angry:

It's starting already

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guillaume

It's starting already

---

Obviously. That's why it went to the Supreme Court.

Here
and more here

I am not kidding either. If some knucklehead politician deems my land would be offer as part of development for million-dollar homes, someone is getting shot. I firmly believe this would be a case of "unjust government" removing me from my home against my will, whether I'm paid or not.

I happen to live next to woods (left side and back) and across the street is woods as well. I have one neighbor. My area is farms, farms, farms and already their is a hearing coming due to one of the strawberry farms selling to a home developer (more suburban sprawl).

All of this because someone has bigger pockets and influence than me.
All of this to make someone's pockets bigger at the cost of my liberties.

They best leave me the fuck alone before I develop a Napoleon complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I am not kidding either. If some knucklehead politician deems my land would be offer as part of development for million-dollar homes, someone is getting shot. I firmly believe this would be a case of "unjust government" removing me from my home against my will, whether I'm paid or not.

---

Vigilantism and guns, a kewl combination.

I see the pathos in your situation and have sympathy for you. However shooting people may not be the best solution.

People's lives > Ideal homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

They best leave me the fuck alone before I develop a Napoleon complex.

---

There was me thinking your hand was in there for another reason.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I am not kidding either. If some knucklehead politician deems my land would be offer as part of development for million-dollar homes, someone is getting shot. I firmly believe this would be a case of "unjust government" removing me from my home against my will, whether I'm paid or not.

---

Vigilantism and guns, a kewl combination.

I see the pathos in your situation and have sympathy for you. However shooting people may not be the ideal solution.

People's lives > Ideal homes.

---

Worst case scenario.

I amount what the government, excuse me, the corporation is doing to stealing my home.

I won't allow that without making a point.

Btw, it doesn't have to be guns. It could be a knife or baseball bat.

Either way, I view it as unjustgovernmentmenship.

I rather it not get to the point of them actually coming to remove me from my home or else there will definitely be trouble.

They should have to satisfy the homeowners with more than market value.

The windfall they expect with the sales shouldn't make it hard to put them out of their way. Don't get it wrong. If they came to me with a great offer, I'd jump on it. "Market value", however, is bullshit. There are homes that getting bidded on that go much higher than market value. I was lucky enough to overbid by only $1000. I previously was outbidded for a home by $30,000 and another by $56,000.

I see potential corruption as it would be easy to assault the poor and middle-class 'cause those homes and land would be cheaper.

Btw, if the people's lives were so important, why would they risk it on an act that is so unjust. They must put less value on life themselves.

I am not content in being walked all over and if a bullet brings attention to it, so be it but I'd rather do a petition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Vigilantism and guns, a kewl combination.

I see the pathos in your situation and have sympathy for you. However shooting people may not be the ideal solution.

People's lives > Ideal homes.

---

I won't allow that without making a point.

Btw, it doesn't have to be guns. It could be a knife or baseball bat.

Either way, I view it as unjustgovernmentmenship.

---

I fully accept that I am no expert, but can someone actually be shot using a knife or baseball bat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I won't allow that without making a point.

Btw, it doesn't have to be guns. It could be a knife or baseball bat.

Either way, I view it as unjustgovernmentmenship.

---

I fully accept that I am no expert, but can someone actually be shot using a knife or baseball bat.

---

Of course.

Come to my house in a threatening manner with either and you will be shot.

JPaulism back at you. :ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I fully accept that I am no expert, but can someone actually be shot using a knife or baseball bat.

---

Of course.

Come to my house in a threatening manner with either and you will be shot.

JPaulism back at you. :ph34r:

---

:lol: good lad.

I wonder if these constuctionist judges the conservatives are wanting would judge that Busy has a 2nd amendment case here?

Probably not