I'll bet someone here a $50 donation to DU that one of the happy

[smartvoter]

little scams that comes from the SC decision today will be this:

An investor with local pols in his pockets decides he wants to invest in a suburb that has become "hot" and is seeing significant new growth around an older, established neighborhood.

The homeowners are forced out and paid fair market residential values for their homes and property.

The collective area, once rezoned commercial in a "hot" area, is immediately worth several times the investment put into it, BEFORE a single building or business or place of employment is erected.

The land will then be sold commercially to developer/businesses.

The justification for this arbitrage windfall is that as businesses are lured to the "ready made" track of land, the community benefits.

A $50 donation to DU says we see this flipping of properties by year's end.

Anyone want to bet on it? (I'm only good for one bet..)

[Mythsaje]

1. As much as I'd like to

there's no way in hell I'd take that bet.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. And that can be regulated at the state level

California has laws that offer greater protection to homeowners than Connecticut did. This court decision reaffirmed that right for California to legislate as such.

[smartvoter]

4. There are areas this won't happen. CA and FL have great

consumer protection, for example. But there are plenty of places where this will take place, and not just places full of "good ol' boys."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. This decision is not as broad as fear mongers are fearing

The court felt the city met the burden of proving the public interest...it's getting late so I am going to cut and paste a response from another thread.:


The choice was a just choice. To provide jobs for a community begging for them..probably hundreds if not thousands over the rights of 9 holdout families who are being COMPENSATED for that property.

So here's your choice. Hundreds if not thousands of jobs (some quite decent paying) versus (hmmm..let's say the average family is 5 people) the CONVENIENCE AND SENTIMENTALITY of about 54 people.

No one wants to see our homes seized unjustly. These people are being PAID for their homes. Some said they would not move at any price.

Now...the choice is 54 stubborn people or JOBS FOR YOUR ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED COMMUNITY where MANY will lose their homes if they don't find work.

CHOOSE.

<snip>


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus24jun24,0,4454555.story?coll=la-home-headlines
City councils, county boards and state agencies deserve "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," Stevens said. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined him in the majority.


Based on that reasoning, the justices upheld a plan by officials in "economically distressed" New London to revitalize its downtown with an office complex, restaurants, a hotel and a marina. The city's effort would complement plans by the drug company Pfizer Inc. for a $300 million research center nearby.

Thursday's ruling allows city officials to seize the homes of nine New London families that had refused to sell.

[smartvoter]

6. So, are you taking me up on the bet?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. No.

I don't bet with strangers on internet boards.

[smartvoter]

9. LOL. It's a donation to DU. But whatever floats your boat. nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. I saw that.

[smartvoter]

13. ??????????? The point of the whole thread. Bizarre. At any rate,

have a good evening.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. Naah the whole point of the thread was fearmongering over the

SC decision. Good night to you too :)

[smartvoter]

16. Ah, now you see, you had to go and make accusations rather

than address the scenario predicted to happen. I had a suspicion you'd take a shot after I signed off last night. (You have that "last word" thing going on and seemed to be dancing around dropping an insult – figured you’d step up and take a shot once I signed off.)

I could have pointed out you were not being willing to back up your opposition by meeting the challenge posted in the thread. Or that you avoided the main thrust of the thread itself which is a scenario I fully believe will happen. But I didn't (though I have now), opting instead to let whatever bug is in your ear to have its way.

I could engage and shoot back, but it would be a real challenge to defeat the intellectual prowess of someone who calls people with opposing viewpoints fear mongers. Frankly, I don't know if I'm up to the challenge. Let's see, what would be a good response to "fear monger?"

"I know you are but what am I?"

"Double-fear monger?"

No. Those are a hair shy of the bar you set. How about:

"Ten bucks says you're either a two-bit lawyer or sidewalk attorney wannabe incapable of seeing the forest for the trees."

No. A little too assumptive based on this single encounter. If I'm wrong, you win. Plus, I don't want to be insulting just because you were. Maybe this would be better:

"I'm sorry you don't see this issue my way, and that you think I am trying to exploit it in some way. My experience, having been exposed to investors and developers, leads me to believe that some will view today's ruling as a license to pursue quick-return opportunities in areas where they have influence. I could be wrong, but this is how I see it. I respect your opinion to the contrary, wish you would have taken me up on the friendly donation challenge, and hope it turns out better than I think it will."

Yeah. I'll stick with that. Seems a little more progressive.

[newswolf56]

3. I think you're absolutely right. And I think...

...what we're looking at in the court's decision is the beginning of a national nightmare of evictions and associated homelessness that will be without precedent in American history, simply because "fair market value" -- especially in an old and/or declining residential neighborhood -- is almost NEVER enough to by an equally good house elsewhere in the same region.

One more nail in the coffin of the American dream, one more capitalist fist in the face of American workers.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. American dream?

Remind me again what exactly that is?

[newswolf56]

12. Dream's been dead so long...

...I can't even remember what it looked like anymore. Reason they're still hammering nails into its coffin is nobody can afford the price of the burial plot.

[WillowTree]

10. "Hot" BLUE areas, of course.

Break up them liberal blue areas and build a nice red WalMart. Think of how the local tax base will grow and all those JOBS that'll be created!

[smartvoter]

14. Signing off. If someone wants to take me up on it, PM me. nt