CNN is doing a poll about the supremes decision

[shraby]

Local governments should be able to seize homes and businesses
For public use 33%/11256 votes
For private economic development 1%/486 votes
Never 65%/22143 votes

<http://www.cnn.com>

[acmavm]

1. There may be some backlash on this one. I sincerely hope so.

12:12 p.m. CST:

Created: Thursday, June 23, 2005, at 11:48:12 EDT
Local governments should be able to seize homes and businesses:

For public use 33% 11256 votes

For private economic development 1% 486 votes

Never 65% 22143 votes
Total: 33885 votes

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. I assume the people who voted "never"

have never driven down an interstate highway.
Our ignorance is killing us I tell you.

[helderheid]

14. Well seizing versus buying

Hey, if the government wants to build a highway and my house is in its way, buy my home.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. they do buy it

It's a sale and you are compensated- you just can't say no.
You seem ignorant on how the process works.

[helderheid]

17. yes I am

I admit it.

[nicknameless]

21. Eminent domain "compensation"

is commonly only a fraction of what the property is worth.

[shoelace414]

3. I'm all for public use..

kinda.. I would have allowed it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. I am sorta there.. but it depends so much on the individual situation

[RebelOne]

7. You would allow your land to be seized for public use?

[shoelace414]

13. "allow"? I wouldn't be happy, but

if one person can prevent an airport expansion..

[Igel]

16. As long as you're comfortable with

"public use" being condominiums, an office park and--not in New London, but elsewhere--Walmarts, fine.

Interstate ... public use. Albeit not all the public has cars.

Even easements for electrical line and aqueducts. OK.

Stadiums ... I get queasy. Maybe as long as it's a public venue in city/county hands.

"Urban blight." I hated removal of urban blight as public use as an uninformed teenager, I dislike it now.

"Increase tax base." No.

[jojo54]

4. Voted

Still the same numbers. Irregardless of the poll, this should never be allowed. As I posted in another thread, it's a bully tactic by Bushco and his corporate elite.

This is a big issue here in Jersey. There was a big write-up about this same thing happening in a near-by town. They were waterfront properties that some corporation wanted to seize so they could build some money making/tax write-off business.

Another Bushitler-ism: rob from the poor & give to the rich....

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. The problem with eminent domain is not that is should never

be done... there are some conditions where it is needed... will give yuo two examples, one of them extreme.

War time, not this joke a real one... you may need to go for imminent domain to get the bases you need to train the troops and the housing you need for the families of some of those troops... I live down an example of that... in WW II a section of Fashion Valley in California was taken by Eminent Domain, that is the origin of Linda Vista, few people know it

Now here is another example of when it is okay to do it... the US Interstante System... many areas were bought under imminent domain to build these roads that have benefited all of us....

Now here an example, again local where it is wrong, just simply wrong. A local coffee shop and smoknig room, succesful by all acounts, was forced to close. Why? The property was condemened under eminnent domain so they can turn it over for ahem, redevelopment. The little guy lost on that one, as he is loosing his business and he fought them all the way to the top. He is no longer all twinkle over the American dream either.

This is waht is being done now, not the two above examples... but that is why a distinction most be made

[jojo54]

12. Oh, I absolutely agree

There are some instances where public domain is the only and last choice in a given situation. What is being done here is dispicable. Redevelopment is the same reason given in the town nearby, but those homeowners fought like a rattlesnake. They had won, up until this bill was signed.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RebelOne]

5. Who are the morons that voted for public use?

[Hamlette]

8. I'm one of those idiot who voted for public use

we've been doing it for years, its a necessary evil for things like roads.

[GiovanniC]

9. Do You Mean Private?

Public use includes roadways, etc.

Private use includes condos and strip malls.

[Rainbowreflect]

11. Me! Sometimes it is necessary for roads, schools or

environmental protections. But should never be done for business like say, maybe, a baseball stadium.

[salin]

18. wonder if folks realize it is also in bush's energy bill?

that land can be taken - for power companies for "energy transportation" (wires, pipes, etc.)

[salin]

19. and that this is how Bush made his millions

the texas ranges... several hunderd thou into several million? Puhleese... it was the development of the new stadium - with the use of eminent domain - that increased the value (at the tax payers expense and the former home owners' expense) that brough him all his dough.